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.
So you're admitting you've been indoctrinated, based on your assumption that I've been indoctrinated?
Bene, you're my favorite Cajun. Are you an LSU football fan as well?
We believe the Catholic Church is the universal Church made up of all Christians.
The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination who claims superiority over the rest of christianity.
Yes, all scripture is inspired by God... doesn't say only scripture is inspried by God.
and if all scripture is inspired by God then why do you reject the 7 books? It's scripture.. no theologian alive disputes that, and Paul said all scripture is inspired so there you go.
We get the old testament from the witness of the Jews. the Septuagint was a greek translation with disputed books in it. Like our modern day ESV with apocrypha.
The traditional jews claim the 39 books of the OT as inspired. We believe them.
my bible says perfect not complete but yes scripture does perfect us (sanctfy us) and with scripture we are furnished (sanctified) to do every good work out there but there is no scripture that say it does solely.
Complete or perfect are both strong words that mean you don't need anything else.
In other words, ths is all you need to be perfect and complete.
I'm looking for that verse Dave, can you show it to me?
Here is is in the RSV translation.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
You cannot change the meaning of the word complete or perfect. It is conclusive Bene.
You have no more God given authority to interpret the bible then I have. I'm just as good as you are to interpret.
The words are the words. I don't see how the meaning can change. It supports Sola Scriptura entirely.
What you need to do is give me a good reason why I should reject my interpretation that comes down to us from the apostles, the lens I read the bible through is that of the early Church.. I'm all ears, tell me why I should abandon that and and go for a 16th century revisionist interpretation instead
First of all the early Church was splintered all over the place and those who could actually get their hands on the entirety of scripture generally got a copy that wasn't even in their native tongue. One of the first major effors at the consolidation of scripture was to put it into a language that people understood, (Latin) so we have Jerome's Vulgate
Since the advent of the prinitng press and the advancement of translations into the vernaculars the knowledge of scripture has exploded.
There is a big difference between now and then in that regard.
You're view of the reformation seems narrow and one sided. Calvin didn't revise scripture. He simply expounded upon it and debated with others what he read there. He pretty much naild it. He just repeated what it said.
One must read scripture as a unified whole. The old covenant comes first then the new convenant...etc
I'm a Saints fan- LSU's alright.
I'm an OU fan. And a disgruntled Dallas Cowboy fan.
and sure we are all indoctrinated-- but I know my indoctrination comes from Christ and the apostles, I can historically prove this... yours comes from a 16th century Lawyer who broke from Christ's Church. I can also historically prove that.
You really need to investigate what gave him the authrty to do that.
Actually my interpretation comes from reading scripture. I found out later that what I believe is what is called Calvinism.
I did not set out to learn about Calvinism or even learn in the complany of Calvinists.
Once I discovered that they agree with my views on scripture I took it like thisOh no! I'm a Calvinist!
Then I started to give ear to other Calvinists and have found the one I agree with most is R.C. Sproul.
I check everyone against scripture however.
So, I was indoctrinated by the bible.
oh, okay.... sure.I'm an OU fan. And a disgruntled Dallas Cowboy fan.
Actually my interpretation comes from reading scripture. I found out later that what I believe is what is called Calvinism.
I did not set out to learn about Calvinism or even learn in the complany of Calvinists.
Once I discovered that they agree with my views on scripture I took it like thisOh no! I'm a Calvinist!
Then I started to give ear to other Calvinists and have found the one I agree with most is R.C. Sproul.
I check everyone against scripture however.
So, I was indoctrinated by the bible.
well guess what- you and Calvin both disagree with the faith of the fathers. You do not make him right anymore then what he can make you right,
The doctrine of grace was taught by Christ and Paul... but the doctrine of grace alone was taught by Luther and Calvin copied.
and what's with all this alone stuff? Scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone... y'all are one lonely bunch but God is not a loner- He's a family thus Mary is our mother. what family does not have a mother? A dysfunctional one... Gd is not dysfunctional.
and I am out.................................................................................................
God is NOT the author of confusion.
Actually my interpretation comes from reading scripture. I found out later that what I believe is what is called Calvinism.
Problem with that is that they were talking with Jesus and if you will notice who they were and the reasoning behind who they were.I just wanted to say, Elijah and Moses appearing at the Transfiguration shows that the Saints in Heaven are not far from us and are alive, not dead in fact, this is a lot like the Mary apparitions!
were are we told to follow the faith of the fathers? For scripture teaches us that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. And if scripture can fully equip a man why would I need the faith of fathers? I get my doctrine also from the scriptures.. I didn't even know anything about calvinism until I came here.. I believed in predestination as scripture teaches us. Its just that calvin believed the scriptures instead of the faith of men..oh, okay.... sure.
well guess what- you and Calvin both disagree with the faith of the fathers. You do not make him right anymore then what he can make you right,
Protestant has been able to explain to me how it can say in the Bible that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth if sola scriptura is true.
According to 1 Timothy 3:15 and 2 Timothy 2:19 the church functions as a stable platform for the message of the gospel. The term pillar carries the idea of strength and support, as does foundation. The church is to be the unshakable repository of the truth. Since the gospel is the truth, it must be upheld at all costs.http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=50965506#_ftn2
Problem with that is that they were talking with Jesus and if you will notice who they were and the reasoning behind who they were.They were not there to speak to the disciples but to Christ himself.. Unlike the Mary aparations..
were are we told to follow the faith of the fathers? For scripture teaches us that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. And if scripture can fully equip a man why would I need the faith of fathers? I get my doctrine also from the scriptures.. I didn't even know anything about calvinism until I came here.. I believed in predestination as scripture teaches us. Its just that calvin believed the scriptures instead of the faith of men..
Note, sir, that it is the Gospel, the Good News of salvation and redemption in Christ, that is the truth that is to be upheld at all costs-- not any one denominational theology or ecclesiology, the Bible, or any other created thing. I for one feel that's an important distinction to make.
As in this example: no Christian has any objection to seeking the intercession of the saints, that is, asking one's brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for oneself or for one's concerns. The really large issue raised here is whether it is appropriate, or even possible, to ask the saints of the Church Triumphant, that is, the saints who have gone to their reward, to do likewise. Notice that we are not talking about canonized Saints, but the members of the church, the communion of saints.
because there are different ways to INTERPRET Scripture.. and the Protestant interpretation is modern. It's different than how all Christians have always interpreted the Bible since the early Church days. Are you saying that they were all wrong?
Here is a good article about what the early Church believed about Sola Scriptura: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html
Here is an excerpt from the article
"The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture."
um...we all believe Scripture is inspired by God, surprise surprise..
so far no Protestant has been able to explain to me how it can say in the Bible that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth if sola scriptura is true.
why focus on that verse and ignore this one??..
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Conclusively prooves sola scriptura.
Scripture makes a man COMPLETE! God didn't leave anything out.
It needs not say anything else it nailed it.
complete in the sense of "equipped", not completed (teleios)
-- as the previous verse notes, righteous (as Zachariah, Symeon, etc.)
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?