• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured The Bible is not a Catechetical Book!

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by JesusLovesOurLady, Oct 2, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,351
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Again, your perceptions and comments are spot on!

    As I said already to our mutual Catholic friend, I hope she keeps on posting as the more she says the worse she makes the RCC look.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  2. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,351
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    And once again, you did not post that Scripture!!!!!

    It is your responsibility to tell us what Scripture you are referring to. I think everyone knows but it is still up to you to make sure so that there are no assumptions.

    You know what assumptions are right? Assumption is believing that the Rosary is in the Bible when actually it is not.

    Same with Purgatory.
    Same with the perpetual virginity of Mary.
    Same as the sinlessness of Mary and her assumption.
     
  3. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +5,623
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I'm rather happy that the scripture wasn't quoted. It's kind of annoying when someone posts a wall of text of scripture quotations, and even more so when they don't bother explaining what their point even is.
     
  4. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,984
    Anabaptist
    Well, building on bedrock, as Jesus Says,

    Trusting Bible Scripture and Posting Bible Scripture (instead of sinking sand)

    IS ENCOURAGING!!!! (i.e. it does make a difference or at least joy and hope !!)
     
  5. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,351
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    You are asking what are the biblical grounds for divorce?
    The answer is sexual immorality and abandonment.

    Are there additional grounds for divorce beyond these two? Possibly.

    Do you believe that a woman should stay married to a man who beats her all the time?

    what about addiction to pornography, drug / alcohol use, crime / imprisonment, and mismanagement of finances (such as through a gambling addiction). None of these can be claimed to be explicit biblical grounds for a divorce.

    That does not necessarily mean, though, that none of them are grounds for divorce which God would approve of.
     
  6. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,984
    Anabaptist
    Yes, other(s) have said that to me too -
    they
    were not sure before seeing online - they just thought it was okay -
    then
    when they saw all that was posted online, they went and researched it and
    found out it was wrong. The 'controversy' was all about nothing/ on sand.

    'Easy-peasy' ? (well, maybe not easy, but God worked out everything ... for their good, for everyone's good who loves Him and is called according to His Purpose in Jesus)
     
  7. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,351
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I totally understand why you would say that. If you do not accept the Bible and instead follow the dogmas of men, that is exactly what you would say.

    Allow me to help you out in this kind of situation.

    Scripture where Purgatory is found in the Bible..................."NONE".
    Scripture where the sinlessness of Mary is found................."NONE".
    Scripture where the assumption of Mary is found................."NONE".
    Scripture where you are allowed to bow down to her image..."NONE".
    Scripture where the perpetual virginity of Mary is found........"NONE".
    Scripture where Bishops can not marry..............................."NONE".

    Now, you should not be annoyed at all because NO Scripture was posted!!!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  8. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,351
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Remember, I do not know you or how you live. I do not know if you are able to teach others the Scriptures but I do know that with a computer YOU are reaching out to the world with the Bible truth of God's Word.

    I can see clearly that God has given you a gift and I encourage you to continue to get out the Word of God as you are doing now.

    May the lord bless you and keep you !!!! In Jesus name!
     
  9. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,984
    Anabaptist
    It is written the world loves its own . (like its own word, instead of Scripture?)

    Thus the world is annoyed with Scripture. Actually it is written the world hates God's Word.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  10. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,351
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I am very impressed by your knowledge and especially your patience in dealing with others.

    I encourage to keep up the wonderful work you are doing by getting out the Word of God as seen in His Bible. God has certainly given you a great gift and I pray that you will continue to use it to teach those who have rejected God's Word and instead accepted the words and dogmas of men.
     
  11. Phil 1:21

    Phil 1:21 Well-Known Member

    +4,329
    Christian
    Married
    Just to be clear, you post here defending the alleged infallibility and exclusivity of the RCC as the vehicle through whom God speaks, but then refer to their scripture as blasphemous? How does that work?

    I recall a few months ago you starting at least one long thread on the OBOB subforum about what you perceived as wrong teachings in your Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) class at your local Catholic church?

    My letter to my modernist RCIA class

    And then four months later you're still struggling to forgive them for whatever you think they've done?

    I need help forgiving my RCIA class

    I post this only for the purposes of introspection. It seems your issue isn't that there are Christians out there who do not follow the RCC's beliefs, but rather that everyone else, including the RCC, doesn't follow yours. At some point, my friend, you need to take stock of all the strife you have with fellow Chirstians and acknowledge the common denominator.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  12. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +5,623
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    My point is a lot like the train which left the station an hour ago.

    Because you missed them both.
     
  13. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    What? I just defined tradition in accordance with what Catholicism teaches, which is what was challenged. But which is not the same as apostolic preaching, for they could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation, neither of which Rome claims to do, while even then the veracity of their preaching was subject to testing by wholly inspired Scripture, showing its primacy, which is abundantly evidenced.

    As is that writing is God's means of long term authoritative preservation, as can be shown. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11;18:28; 28:23 etc.)
    You are moving the goal posts. Where did I deny Peter was being the street-level leader among brethren? The EOs also affirm that. But which simply does not mean that the NT church looked to him as the first of a line of infallible exalted popes reigning over all the churches from Rome.

    And note that Peter is not the one who provides the definitive, Scripturally substantiated conclusive judgment in Acts 15 as to this issue, but James does, while nowhere in any of the letters to the churches is submission to Peter even once enjoined, and in fact rather than ant form of reminder of Peter's unique preeminence and power, and the need to be conscious of it, outside of Peter's own letters, he is only mentioned in 2 of epistles, and is listed after James in Gal. 2 as one of those who seemed to be pillars.

    There is successor for any apostle after one was chosen by casting lots (not voting) to replace Judas, and therefore to maintaining the original number of apostles,. (cf. Rev. 21:14) even after the apostle James was martyred in Acts 12, and there is no inference of ensured infallibility for any magisterial office.

    Peter could speak as wholly inspired of God and thus speak infallibly, and also provide new public revelation, neither of which RC popes are claimed to do.

    Nor do mere words necessarily equate to what we believe and led others do so, but actions reveal what we believe, at least at the present time. And thereby the overall holy shepherd Peter could lead souls astray by his actions and need to be publicly reproved.
    Another false charge, which now seems to be what you must rely on. Where did I say the m powers ascribed to Mary were self-possessed? Instead I specified such things as that the Mary of Catholicism is said to be omnipotent by grace, by an omnipotent Son.

    But which does not change the charge of blasphemy in making Mary out to be an omnipotent demigoddesss, thinking of her far "above that which is written." (1Co. 4:6)
    And where did I invoke Psalm 138:2as saying "His written word alone?" But if you actually do search the whole Bible even you might see that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken,with writing being God's chosen means of authoritative preservation, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    And which provides for the discernment of what is God, and the establishment of a body of inspired writings as authoritative, without an infallible magisterium, and for oral preaching of the Word, and for more of the word of God to be added to that body, as well as providing for the church and its offices, etc.

    And as you should know, infallibility is only provided for by Rome when the pope or a ecumenical council in union with him declares/defines a matter of faith or morals for the entire church. And which requires "assent of faith/theological assent."
    Yet religious assent/“ordinary assent” (or religious submission of will and intellect) is required for non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. And which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching" though some non-public dissent may be tolerated, for as such teachings may contain non-salvific error and are subject to revision or even revocation, while also see a General Magisterium, which may include the possibility of significant error.

    But since there is no infallible list for what magisterial level each Catholic teaching RCs belongs to, then which level each belongs to, and this what manner of assent they are to give, can be subject to interpretation, as can the meaning of which. Thus we have RCs attacking certain Catholics rejecting what some of what papal bullls states, and even parts of encyclicals, or certain interpretations by Vatican Two of historical teaching as being contrary to them, while others basically say just obey what is currently taught and don't question:
    Sorry that you seem unable to see me defining it as being oral and written transmission of the word of God according to Rome, while as the OP only wants to deal with SS then elaboration on Sacred Tradition should no be expected.


     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  14. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,351
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Honestly, if you could speak with out your sarcasm and arrogance showing through, you might be more believable in the things you say.

    You did not like the Scriptures being posted.

    Then when they are not posted you don't like that either.

    Who missed what?????
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  15. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,984
    Anabaptist
    "Believeable" requires being in line with all Scripture, as Jesus told His disciples.
     
  16. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +5,623
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    You did.

    My point (and the train which left the station an hour ago).

    All I did was appreciate the fact that the member made the point without posting a ginormous wall of text. I'm honestly not sure why that would bother anybody.
     
  17. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    His posting is actually grievous, and it is a "he" not a "she," as I had surmised before looking.
     
  18. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    Since you seem reluctant to plainly affirm what I asked, but nonetheless affirm that an infallible magisterium is essential for common people to assuredly ascertain what is of God.

    Then if this is true as you in many words insist it is, then as has been explained to you but ignored - despite your stated confidence that you have covered everything pertinent - then you have essential nuked the NT church.
    [​IMG]
    (This is not flaming.)


    For the NT church began with common souls having ascertained what/who is of God, holding to a body of books as being inspired by God and holding men such as John the Baptist as being "a prophet indeed," (Mark 11:32) and likewise common souls heard Jesus of Nazareth gladly, (Mark 12:37) another Itinerant Preacher, both of whom were rejected (Mark 11:27-33) by those who sat in the historical magisterial seat of Moses over Israel. (Mt. 23:2) Who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation if and as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    But whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    Therefore an infallible magisterium is NOT is essential for common people to assuredly ascertain what is of God, nor does being the magisterial stewards of Scripture require or mean such possess the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, so that whatever they have will solemnly define in accordance with their scope and subject-based criteria, will be infallible (though they do not speak as wholly inspired of God, as men such as the apostles could, as well as thereby provide new public revelation).

    Only in cults do we see leadership uniquely (or not) presuming such. The case of Caiaphas (John 1:49-51) was only that of the non-formulaic spontaneous uttering of prophecy, even of evil intent, not defining faith or morals whenever speaking according to Rome's infallibly defined formula.
    This is true, yet this does not mean that the Truth cannot be rightly discerned and win out. And despite your attempt to help God out, an ensured perpetual infallible magisterium was never God's means of providing and preserving faith -though the OT magisterium certainly had authority to enjoin conditional obedience, as do civil courts (Dt. 17:8-13; Rm. 13:1-7) - but God actually often raised up men who reproved those who sat in the official magisterial seat, and were rejected by them.

    Therefore the real NT church did not begin under the premise of ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, but upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, both rebels in the sight of those who often seat of Moses, whom the Lord charged with persecuting. (Matthew 23:31-37; cf. Acts 7:52)

    And rather than an autocratic infallible magisterium defining what to believe and requiring implicit assent to it under that premise of ensured veracity, God allows false teachers to test the people, and tells them to themselves "try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1; cf. 1Ths. 5:21)
    And which solution is nowhere promised or found in Scripture, despite spurious Cath attempts to extrapolate it out of general promises such as to be progressively led into all Truth (while censuring us for interpreting the Scriptures rather than letting Rome do so).

    In addition, unity itself is not the goal, but unity in Truth, and not by autocratic dictatorial controls, but by how the NT church obtained followers:

    But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

    If unity is the criteria for veracity, and disunity means error, then cults such as the Watchtower Society would have the ascendancy, since their clone-like indoctrinated, slow-walking members walk in far greater lock-step unity with their leadership than Catholics do. Nor do Catholics overall testify to greater unity in basic beliefs than evangelical do. And as one who remained a weekly Mass-going RC for 6 years (this is not the Bible belt by far) after becoming manifestly becoming born again, and realized the profound basic changes in heart and life versus institutionalized Catholicism or Protestantism, I can attest I find far more of the essential unity of the Spirit (which rejoices in the living Christ and what He did in us, versus "The (particular) Church" being the main focus and security) than in Catholicism (the charismatics showed some promise).

    But it is the quality of unity resulting from Berean-type souls searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of what is taught that is superior to the implicit assent Rome requires of her faithful.

    Yet in reality, while your premise is that an infallible magisterium is essential for correct interpretation of Scripture, just what has Rome accomplished by her i(self-proclaimed) infallible magisterium?

    • Has she infallibly defined more than just a few verses out of the over 31,000 verses in the Bible? No.
    • Has she produced any infallible commentary on the whole Bible? No.
    • Has she infallibly defined anything close to all the Truths found in the Bible? No.
    • Has she even product an infallible list of all infallible teachings (and thus all that RCs must provide assent of faith to)? No.
    • Is Scripture so obtuse that its essential Truths requires an infallible magisterium, as they cannot otherwise be deduced, with the due use of ordinary means? No.
    • Are all infallible teaching so clear that their preclude the need for interpretation, and preclude variant ones? No.
    • Can RCs expect timely responses to disputes as to what Scripture means?
    • Within basic parameters, do Catholics have a great deal of liberty to interpret (wrest) texts in order to support their church? Yes.
    • Are those whom Rome counts and treats as members more unified in basic beliefs than those who most strongly hold to the authority and integrity of Scripture? No.

    Pinging redleghunter, JayW, Major1
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  19. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,984
    Anabaptist
    From Adam and Havah in the Garden of Eden,
    until Jesus returns,
    YHWH Never appointed any man as if infallible, rather often showing that no man is, except Jesus, and Him uniquely alone.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  20. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    That is indeed an interesting question. The NAB even has the Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur, unlike his "true RC" opinion, and RCs are to follow the pastors. But they do interpret their interpreter, even as meaning they need not affirm all to all that papal Bulls and encyclicals teach, including the Popes Laudato si‘: (Praise be to you – On Care For Our Common Home)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...