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.
I know you are trying to be cute, and feel you are making points with other non-Catholics, and getting under the skin of Catholics by refurring to The Holy Catholic Church as " the Roman denomination", but as far as Catholics go...We have a 2000 plus year history, and we've heard it all, so you are not saying anything we havent heard before.
As for the Deuterocanonical books, (what you call the Apocrypha) it's because they have always been part of the Bible. For example.... the Golden Rule which Jesus cites — "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — is almost a direct quote from Tobit 4:15. Wisdom 2:12-20 is a stunning and detailed prophecy of Jesus's death. Hebrews 11:35-38, part of a series extolling Old Testament saints, is only found in 2 Maccabees 6:18 — 7:42.
Did you also know that The Assyrian Church of the East, the Syrian Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic, the Eastern Orthodox, and even the Ethiopian Jews (except for Ecclesiasticus)
accept these books into their canon, so this is not a recent Catholic innovation.
Are you also aware that Martin Luther included them in his first German translation? Not only that.....history shows.these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out! Like I have proved to Maj1 over and over again tulipbee..... Early Christian history is not a friend of Protestantism as you now know. As Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
My apologies to the OP for straying off topic. If this poster (tulipbee) wishes to continue on this subject futher, I ask that said poster start a new thread and I will particpate.
problem with indulgences is that they negate the all-sufficiency of the cross. It was Jesus who took our punishment. He took our place so that we do not have to suffer any punishment for our sins so that we might be made right with God.Not looking to derail this thread on Sola Scriptura, though I am most curious on what you believe an indulgence is? By the looks of this statement, I'm thinking yours and that of the Catholic Church's might be different. Maybe you could start a new thread on it.
salvation by works is not true. It is a false teaching. Not only that, salvation by faith and works is also a false doctrine. The Bible teaches that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.But the question remains, where in scripture is the phrase "faith alone" or anything like it occurs in the bible?
Hey Maj1! good to hear from ya.....does this mean your not upset with me any longer? Now as for your post, you know darn good and well I am no longer an adherent to the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura. (the bible alone) I could turn it around and ask you where is the word "Trinity" is in the bible. We both know its not there but we believe it, right?
Maybe you could answer the question of where the phrase 'faith alone' or anything like it occurs in the bible?
And since we are back on talking terms, would you care to answer the question I've asked you many, many times and have yet got an answer from you?
If two non-Denominantionalist are in disagreement of the interpretation or understanding of a certain passage in Scripture, to whom or what authority would/could they turn, to decide who was in error, and who was not?
Again, good to hear from you!
Frankly I can't remember asking for it. Perhaps I did. Admittedly, I do think I remember saying at least three times in this thread that nobody seems to really agree on what sola scriptura is or, crucially, how to apply it.
And as it happens, I remain correct about that.
I've always found that fact rather curious. Even back in my pre-Catholic days it seemed astonishing that people can read the same text but extract vastly different ideas from it; St. John 3 is a good example of this.
The struggle I had back then was figuring out why seemingly intelligent (or at least rational) adults couldn't agree on more than two or three points of doctrine. If these "truths" are so obvious as to be self-evident based upon a cursory (or even extensive) reading of the scriptures, it was puzzling that there was so little consensus. Forget about unanimity (we're way past that now), even basic doctrines are seemingly up for grabs among the various Protestant ecclesial communities.
Or, indeed, the canon which comprises the Bible.
A claim which sacred scripture doesn't make about itself, interestingly enough.
Golly, I came in to this thread expecting discussion and instead got psychoanalysis. SCORE!
But seriously though you, unfortunately, are mistaken. I was raised and practiced my faith in childhood and into adulthood in Protestant ecclesial communities. But, as is frequently the case, life happened. Long story short, I found myself studying Catholic doctrine from Catholic sources. I found some of the Church's teachings easy to believe in while others were more challenging. But ultimately I found them all persuasive. So during the Easter Vigil 2015 I was welcomed into the Church.
Remarks such as this are (somewhat passive-aggressive) appeals to authority. "You can think what you like but I just go by the Bible." The inference the reader is to draw is that your position is correct by virtue of the fact that your position seemingly aligns with sacred scripture, e.g., an inspired source. Thus the other side's position is de-legitimized due to the fact that, presumably, they disagree with sacred scripture.
All this to say that I do not find this type of rebuttal to be persuasive. Or, really, productive.
My Church has never believed in sola scriptura. The notion of regarding the written word as a higher authority than the spoken word may have some cachet these days but in the ancient world it never would've happened. They trusted in-person speakers more than written letters because people can be (and were) questioned.Then do not respond to the things I post. It is just that simple my friend and I do realize that the truth can be rather convicting.
Again, Sola Scriptura can not be accepted by the RCC/You because you as a Catholic do not practice following the Bible commandments. I can post all og the practices that the RCC endorsees and commands you to follow which are NOT found in the Bible again for you if need be.
Again, we can bat this back and forth all you want, we can say this and that and you can believe whatever you choose and you can say whatever you want to about me.......but the bottom line is that the Catholic religion does not follow the Bible but is an institution unto itself.
Because of that YOU must reject the Bible directions and Sola Scriptura.
problem with indulgences is that they negate the all-sufficiency of the cross. It was Jesus who took our punishment. He took our place so that we do not have to suffer any punishment for our sins so that we might be made right with God.
Despite the biblical underpinnings of indulgences, some are sharply critical of them and insist the doctrine supplants the work of Christ and turns us into our own saviors. This objection results from confusion about the nature of indulgences and about how Christ’s work is applied to us.
Indulgences apply only to temporal penalties, not to eternal ones. The Bible indicates that these penalties may remain after a sin has been forgiven and that God lessens these penalties as rewards to those who have pleased him. Since the Bible indicates this, Christ’s work cannot be said to have been supplanted by indulgences.
The merits of Christ, since they are infinite, comprise most of those in the treasury of merits. By applying these to believers, the Church acts as Christ’s servant in the application of what he has done for us, and we know from Scripture that Christ’s work is applied to us over time and not in one big lump (Phil. 2:12, 1 Pet. 1:9).
salvation by works is not true. It is a false teaching.
Not only that, salvation by faith and works is also a false doctrine.
The Bible teaches that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.
where in scripture is the phrase "faith alone" or anything like it that occurs in the bible?
Type in..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TuyZej_SxQ, and click on "Are Indulgences Biblical" - YouTube. to see a 2 1/2 min. video for a Catholic responce.The indulgences' practice is not a biblical teaching.
I've wasted too much of my time from Roman catholic sourcesType in..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TuyZej_SxQ, and click on "Are Indulgences Biblical" - YouTube. to see a 2 1/2 min. video for a Catholic responce.
Then, please get back to me on what you think an indulgence is, and we'll compare it to what the Catholic Church teaches it to be, okay?
Thank you.
No need to be diappointed maj, for I'm not playing games, just refuting anti-Catholic myths and lies.I am however disappointed in you that as a man of obvious religious knowledge would feel the need to 'play games" with words and situations in order to promote your agenda.
Yeah..... me too.I am just too old to do that. I deal in a more straight forward way.
Along with the phrase.." we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior", the practice of voting for pastors, the Altar Call, and the 'Sinners Prayer' to name a few.Now to answer your question.. Yes you are correct. The word Trinity is NOT in the Scriptures. The word Rapture is not in the Scriptures.
But the doctrine of "Implied Truth" teaches us that even though a specific word is not used, when everything else is taught then that thing that is taught must then in fact be true.
Now then, your question HAS been answered. That is one of the reason I am disappointed in you. YOU have asked and it has been answered so what is the point in continueing to ask it.
The words "FATH ALONE" appears only if James 2:24. However when one reads and studies the WHOLE Bible anyone one can see and understand what God says in many Scriptures, IF ONE WANTS TO LEARN:
"[14] What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
[16] and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? [17] So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?"
Now then........since you are so focuses on Actual WORDS. will you please answer my question which has been asked more times than I can remember.......
Where in the Bible is the word ROASERY.
Where is the WORD, Pergatory in the Bible.
If two non-Denominantionalist are in disagreement of the interpretation or understanding of a certain passage in Scripture, to whom or what authority would/could they turn, to decide who was in error, and who was not?
Good to know maj1. I'll address this post later, for right now I'm off to watch my grandson's basketball game.
I like 100% true prophecy and a perfect 66 book bible.
that's allll folks!
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?