Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Scripture says overtly that the Son was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, and all things that were made, were made by the Son. You can either accept this, or make up your own theology. You say Scripture is full of errors, yet you have the hubris to suggest your theology is superior? Where did you get yours from? You made it up. Scripture was written by holy men, who were appointed by God for missions, including writing, why is your theology superior to theirs?
We Know that the Bible is The Truth Since the Church ratifies it as TRUE. In the Same Way, The Sacred Scripture is True since it endorses the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
No problem.Thank you for the very good defense of the Deity of Jesus Christ using Scriptures.
Wrong. No visible body of Christ is one true church Christ founded, as even from the beginning it had tares among its visible members. (Acts 8:20) The mystical body of Christ could contain even some who were not of the apostles company. (Lk. 9:49,50)Scripture says Jesus founded one church. The problem with your theory is that it would mean Jesus founded two churches, one visible and one invisible.
Then you hardly know any, or are lying.Also, every Protestant I know rejects the visible church in favor of an invisible only church.
It certainly is the mystical body of Christ contains members who are not in submission to the pope. As this is what you must claim then you are in a cult.The RCC teaches that Jesus only founded one church. The mystical body of Christ is not in opposition to the visible body of Christ.
Which is inconsistent in the light of what the link shows.I agree Protestant heresies are contrary to what scripture revealed to the church. That's why I don't follow them.
Utterly false again. Your turn:If you bible doesn't say anything about priests it's because Protestants removed it from their bibles along with the other scriptures that Protestants reject.
Wrong, as I described." I do know the catholic church teaches the gospel found in scripture..."
The RCC has no exclusive right to called ministers/elders. Now read James 5:13-20 to see how the early church promoted confession of sins to elders for forgiveness and healing. This is an authority all churches could use.So this would, of course, mean anyone called by the Holy spirit. That would include the minister of the church I attend, who was called to the ministry.
Or are you stating that only the RCC has people who are called to the ministry?
If you believe what Jesus taught us to pray, then you should realize that all Christians have the power to forgive sins. The problem is your understanding of forgiveness vs atonement. Only Jesus died once to atone for all the sins of all the saints. Forgiveness of sins is a much more earthly concept, but with heavenly ramifications.Even so, not one minister that has been ordained by any "body" or council, has the ability to forgive another humans sins... period.
All were members of the Catholic Church.
John 3:3-5
That's not even close to how tradition works.
He is thinking of Prima Scriptura, the correct way.Sorry, that is NOT the definition of SS that I know of. SS is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
That is the definition of SS. Yours does not match.
I think it is more likely Ezekiel is talking about baptism. Water could be purely figurative in both these verses, but since Christ was baptized and it was shown to be something spiritual, mystical and divine, and since he left an injunction to baptize, the simplest explanation is that these verses are talking about baptismal waters. Christ was not verbose, he didn't say things that were of minor importance, he only said things that were crucial.Perhaps. Was Jesus explaining Christian baptism to Nicodemus? Or explaining Ezekiel 36?
I do see clearly in Acts 2 and Acts 10 those who heard and believed were baptized. And we know from the words of Christ we are baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Actually the Rule of Faith which they vigorously defended with Holy Scriptures.Tradition.
“Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; [/QUOTE]
Since when is science the measure of faith? Science says dead bodies don't rise from the grave, either.
BTW, outside of Protestantism, every single Christian church has the dormition and translation of Mary to heaven as a pious opinion and a celebrated feast day. And there are even some Lutherans or Anglicans that would believe it as the same pious opinion.
What Cardinal Ratzinger says isn't so far fetched. There are plenty of Catholic theologians that would say you couldn't necessarily videotape the Resurrection or the Ascension (as Carl Sagan pointed out, if Jesus ascended upward into the sky travelling near the speed of light, he wouldn't even be outside our galaxy), so obviously the Ascension into heaven is a symbol of a hidden reality, the details of it are less important than the truth of it apprehended through faith, what it tells about God and the promises of faith.
Eh, these are pre-Nicene accounts: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htmThis how tradition can work:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
Therefore Rome can claim to "remember" a fable that only is evidenced as being a later development and make what at best warranted only speculation into a binding doctrine approx. 1800 years after the event allegedly occurred.
One of my concerns in the baptism debates is that one side or the other accuses the other of some extreme position.This is taken from : https://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation
It explains, quite easily, the fact that baptism is not necessary for salvation.
The reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is that we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8) and not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11). You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone. In the Bible circumcision was a ceremony where one person performed a religious rite on another person. Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person; but, we are saved by faith alone, and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help.
If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe and not when we get baptized, otherwise, we are not saved by faith. Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died. This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions--otherwise it isn't necessary.
You could be right. However what did Jesus say we live on? And where do we find that?It is. Scripture never directly says that Scripture is God's Word. In point of fact, the only Logos directly called the Logos is Christ, not the Bible.
I would use evidence instead of sufficiently probable.Why do we have to accept the idea that there is, anywhere, a source of incontrovertable truth?
Perhaps we could assert that we accept our ideas as, not necessarily incontrovertable, but sufficiently probable as to warrant our faith. Then we could further point out reasons for accepting ideas.
The RCC still doesn't commemorate the Dormition, just the Assumption. Although that might also be because the Dormition would conflict with their harmartology and their doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.That's a good point, a lot of the Mariology of the Roman Catholics actually came from the east, so it's probably true the Assumption/Dormition was unknown before the 5th century to what would later become the Roman Catholic Church. Latin Christianity tended to be a lot more minimalist at one time, probably due the fact the western world was fighting off barbarian hordes.
No. The reverse is true. I know some of the word of God exists in scripture because the tradition of the church says it does. If scripture wasn't part of the church's tradition, I would not accept it.
I do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine. That's what Protestants do.
Are you saying the Pope is divinely inspired?No. The reverse is true. I know some of the word of God exists in scripture because the tradition of the church says it does. If scripture wasn't part of the church's tradition, I would not accept it.
I do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine. That's what Protestants do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?