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.
It's not about what I can find. I discussed the Church's methods in a previous reply in this thread. You're welcome to search it out if you're interested.Doesn't Paul tell us to obey the law?
Doesn't that mean 'get the law involved'?
I can't find a scripture that says to cover it up and give them a fresh opportunity to offend, can you?
I'm not the one who introduced the subject of pedophiles or the proposition that there is a "biblical" way of dealing with them. When chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture was requested, the question was dodged, the subject was changed, the point was obfuscated and basically everything possible has been done to not provide chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture as to how one ought to deal with pedophiles.
Still waiting for that, actually.
Of course not. I think you missed the point that the particular comment you refer to was used in a joking manner. Anyway I've been gone a few days and couldn't be bothered reading several pages that have appeared in that time. So in accordance with my policy of not posting unless I read all the posts I will not post further.Is the meeting you attend so bad?
The trouble with claiming that the Holy Spirit adjudicates matters of doctrine that are disputed is that both sides will claim that the Spirit led them to their view and some sides will produce inspired extra-biblical books as proof of their view. In the case of "hell" (under dispute in another thread) some have Ellen White to guide them and feed the way they interpret passages.Surely we can agree that it was the "Holy Spirit" [doing the adjudication]
The trouble with claiming that the Holy Spirit adjudicates matters of doctrine that are disputed is that both sides will claim that the Spirit led them to their view
and some sides will produce inspired extra-biblical books as proof of their view.
6 of 12 and half dozen of the otherIt isn't interpretation that is at stake it is adjudication.
Even in the scriptures themselves speaks of the making known his words to you.
For example, if we are looking at scripture it says,
All scripture is profitable for reproof (2 Ti 3:16)
In Proverbs it speaks of turning at my reproof which is equated with his words
Prov 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: (( behold )) , I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you
Whereas the interpretation here (or that which can be made known) comes through him in the others response to his words (or his reproof)
The trouble with claiming that the Holy Spirit adjudicates matters of doctrine that are disputed is that both sides will claim that the Spirit led them to their view and some sides will produce inspired extra-biblical books as proof of their view.
I'm not the one who introduced the subject of pedophiles or the proposition that there is a "biblical" way of dealing with them. When chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture was requested, the question was dodged, the subject was changed, the point was obfuscated and basically everything possible has been done to not provide chapter and verse from Sacred Scripture as to how one ought to deal with pedophiles.
Still waiting for that, actually.
Good point in application. Paul provides nothing about tradition or magisterium's or ellen white's as profitable for doctrine.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Yes. I found it odd now when people blame the rain for the hardness of the earth.Thats basically what I mean by scripture alone because although you say, "scripture alone" his words arent really out there without the other (even as it testifies). So the words are not really alone but show in themselves that there is another that is able to make these words known to the one who turns at them. So even when I say scripture alone, the one who makes them known (and teach us) is higher then them as well as myself but still teaches (even us to rely upon him) even as the teachers in the NT taught to reply upon him as well.
Nice try. But, as I've said repeatedly, at the time those incidents occurred, the scientific understanding was that this doesn't really harm children to any measurable degree. Based on that, SOP for many institutions like government offices, schools and so forth was less strict. This was on the advice of psychologists and other experts. For an institution that's so often derided for being "anti-science", it looks like the only time the Church ever ticks anybody off is when it adheres to a scientific consensus.Not a problem.
1Co 5:12
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
By keeping them in your group, you've leavened yourselves. See 1 Cor 5, etc.
The Catholic Church has exactly one set of inspired books and they are the canonical books of holy scripture. The comment in your post reflects profound misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine.Bingo. You have begun to dismantle RC reliance on Tradition.
That is not what the text says nor is it what the text teaches. The Beroeans were Jews. Their action is commended in comparison with the reprehensible persecution of saint Paul by some of the Jews in Thessalonica. The Jewish Beroeans are not presented in the text of Acts chapter 17 as an example for Christians to follow.The adjudicator was the Holy Spirit.
That is not what the text says nor is it what the text teaches. The Beroeans were Jews. Their action is commended in comparison with the reprehensible persecution of saint Paul by some of the Jews in Thessalonica. The Jewish Beroeans are not presented in the text of Acts chapter 17 as an example for Christians to follow.
Since these "Jewish" Bereans "received the Word of God with great eagerness ["with all readiness of mind" KJV) it is evident that they were similar to the believing Jews in Acts 2:41 who "gladly received his [Peter's] word" [which was also the Word of God]. Therefore they were indeed saved Jews, or "Christians" if you will.The Jewish Beroeans are not presented in the text of Acts chapter 17 as an example for Christians to follow.
Except that they soon were visited by the Jews from Thessalonica and saint Paul was forced to flee Beroea. So maybe they were ready in mind to read the scriptures to see if what saint Paul said was so but they evidently didn't offer protection to him nor resist the persecuting Jewish representatives from Thessalonica. All things considered Beroea was less successful as a mission than Thessalonica - Thessalonica had a church but no mention of any church in Beroea is made in the Acts of the Apostles or elsewhere in the new testament.Since these "Jewish" Bereans "received the Word of God with great eagerness ["with all readiness of mind" KJV) it is evident that they were similar to the believing Jews in Acts 2:41 who "gladly received his [Peter's] word" [which was also the Word of God]. Therefore they were indeed saved Jews, or "Christians" if you will.
Until you read the text of Acts 17:11 and pause to accept the Bible fact that Luke is writing to Christians. Instead of condemning the Bereans or simply saying "pay no attention to these guys - they don't know what they are doing"
Acts 17:11
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
You're backpedaling.The Catholic Church has exactly one set of inspired books and they are the canonical books of holy scripture. The comment in your post reflects profound misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine.
No, the Catholic Church does not claim that holy Tradition is Inspired. Holy Tradition is revelation from God but not inspired scripture. I gave you the definitions used within the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in Catholic tradition. I specifically gave you the definition of "inspired" but evidently you have not remembered it. Nor remembered the difference between infallible and inspired nor the difference between holy scripture and holy Tradition. I posted a section from the CCC in this thread. Please consider what it says:RC also claims that books other than scripture are inspired, though it may call some of it "Tradition".
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?