you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[Montalban]

Some things are more reasonable than others. For example, there are those who would claim that the entire bible is just a grand scheme plotted out by the devil himself. I don't think that's a reasonable claim. I have too many arguments and experiences of the opposite.

You are also arguing based on your opinion. You're not omniscient either, you don't have the ability to understand and interpret everything flawlessly. Why do YOU believe the things YOU believe?

Not at all. I've evidenced my argument. You offer self-annhilating argument.

I take exception that you would reduce my argument to your series of 'just-so' statements

 

[Montalban]

Nope, never said that.

Evidence for Bible errors??? Where is it????

 

[Montalban]

uh, it was a jibe, bro.

That misses its mark. It suggested hypocricy of 'you too' and it doesn't work

you said "oh, look, Protestants separate!

I said, we learned it from the best.

connect the dots, bro!

(BTW, notice you are quoting 100,000 Protestant denoms... shall I put that up on the bulliten board along with the 25,000, 35,000, 30,000 50,000 and 60,000 that other people have said? It's a crock.)

Whatever you want. It's hard to know an exact number of how many churches Protestants have split into.

I saw a doco about this horrendous American family that heckle funerals of Gulf War soldiers and they're a church just unto themselves, that one family

 

[Montalban]

No, I already mentioned the fact that the gospel accounts are conflicting.

Great, you're back to restating your opinion.

That's just you though. I ask for evidence. You shy away from that.

Maybe that seems 'more reasonable to you', but to me you're just spamming the thread with your opinion which you say is flawed anyway.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That misses its mark. It suggested hypocricy of 'you too' and it doesn't work

why not?

Whatever you want. It's hard to know an exact number of how many churches Protestants have split into.

I saw a doco about this horrendous American family that heckle funerals of Gulf War soldiers and they're a church just unto themselves, that one family

bully for them.

 

[Montalban]

If any of you sola scriptura people want to show where from Scripture it says you should only rely on Scripture, please forward this.

I've been waiting some days. Some have just left the thread. Holo chooses to continue to post but endeavours not to add any evidence at all.

 

[holo]

I still don't get your point. Are you criticising the church when you don't believe in sola scriptura?

My point is that I don't agree that the bible has a certain doctrine on tithing, for example, at least not in the new covenant. But a lot of churches have made a doctrine about it. That's fine, they're free to do that, but they shouldn't claim that it's strictly "biblical", if you know what I mean.

As for knowing God, I don't believe that neither the bible nor tradition, nor the two together, are able to make me know God. I think the only way to know God is by the Spirit - it's a supernatural thing. The Spirit may make use of the bible or some church or tradition or whatever, though, when leading someone to Christ.

You said before you didn't.

Sorry, I lost you there. What did I say I didn't?

No where would Luther say he's not acting without the spirit, so you're using it in a way unique to you.

I'm not saying nobody else than me are relying on the Spirit.

How can you be reliant on a Bible you say is erring?

I believe, as a matter of faith, that the bible is correct on the vital stuff. It's not vital to my faith, for example, whether or not both the thieves blasphemed Jesus on the cross.

But I don't rely on the bible. I rely on God. The bible, just like certain pastors and friends and experiences, have taught me a lot about God. But I would never rely on any of them. God has revealed Himself through them. I like to say that the bible is like a finger pointing at God - it's not the finger itself we should believe in or trust. Let's rather look at what it's pointing at

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is sufficient to know the truth (with or without the Holy Spirit)?

It doesn't, to my knowledge.

Sure and Adam had a realatioship with God. Did this mean Jesus' coming was pointless? No, of course not. So what then was the point in Jesus coming and establishing the church?

There are a lot of useful and valuable things that benefit us. Like the bible, congregations, teachings, music and so forth. But we don't depend on any of those things. The bible is full of stories about people who had to make do without the benefits of the bible or churches and such. Jonah in the whale's belly, for example. Adam and Eve. Abraham. Jonathan in the lion's den. Etc.

While something may be useful and all, it's not exactly essential.

That doesn't answer the question. Why would they do this?

For the same reason they wrote down the gospels, I guess. For the same reason Paul wrote letters to the congregations around. To help them, to benefit them.

 

[Montalban]

why not?

We're not the same as you guys

bully for them.

They're in your invisible church of all believers!

(Guided as they are by the Holy Spirit!)

 

[holo]

That's circular reasoning. You discard it because it's only 'cultural', based on you believing it's only cultural.

But I have good reasons to believe it's cultural, though. Especially when I research literature on how the culture was at that time and in those countries.

But what about you? Why do you believe it's NOT cultural?

So you don't sin anymore?

I'm not a sinner anymore. When I was a sinner, I was a sinner by birth. It was my nature. I sinned because that was who I was. When I was born again, it was God Himself who gave birth to me, and whatever is born of Him is perfect and does not sin. I got me a new spirit. I still live in the same flesh though, and after having sinned my whole life, that's still what I'm accustomed to. So sometimes I forget who I really am, and act like a sinner.

But that doesn't make me a sinner, any more than the prodigal son's acting like a pig made him a pig. He was just mistaken about who he really was, and about how his father saw him.

Saints are saints because they are born of God. A sinner can struggle for an eternity and try to be good, but that will neve make him a saint. The only way to stop being a sinner is by dying. That's the genius of the gospel - we actually died with Christ on the cross

 

[Montalban]

My point is that I don't agree that the bible has a certain doctrine on tithing,

a) show me where the Bible must contain all Chrisitan teachings. You refuse to answer this, thus I reduce my response to you.
b) show me the Bible errors
c) you're wrong because the APostles collected the money from the faithful and distributed it to the poor -
Acts 2:44-47

I Corinthians 16:2

II Corinthians 9:7

then they gave this to the Deacons to run as a more 'mundane' function.

Hey, you're wrong again!

 

[Montalban]

But I have good reasons to believe it's cultural, though.

Still circular.

 

[Uphill Battle]

We're not the same as you guys


They're in your invisible church of all believers!

(Guided as they are by the Holy Spirit!)

no, of course not! You're not like us!

exactly the kind of attitude I've been talking about.

haughty, self-aggrandizing.

lest you forget that the first to do what us dirty unwashed protestants have done, is YOU.

ah well. You're not like us.

(brings to mind a parable Jesus once taught....)

and if they believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour, yes, they are a part of the Church. What they do for worship it their perogative. I don't really care.

 

[holo]

Which destroys your belief in your own faith.

How's that?

And again, why do YOU believe the things YOU believe?

So was Jesus wrong to pick people to teach?

No, Jesus was not wrong to pick people to teach. Not quite sure what you're replying to here, actually. But anyway, what I said is that I'm simply acknowledging that I'm a human being and not ominscient.

None of my teachers have been omniscient. They have still taught me a lot of truth though.

Well I'm sure you'd just pick and choose from him to.

Maybe, just as I'm sure you'd pick and choose from Luther

I don't argue that any one person was flawless. I say that the church is.

And the church is...?

I belive the church is people. That the church consists of its members. And therefore it's no better or worse than its members.

It's a matter of checks and balances that Jesus established - and he promised that the church would not fail.

Fail at what, that's the question. I don't believe He was talking about stuff like doctrines on baptism and such.

I've yet to understand why you argue passionately for being right about being wrong!

No wonder you don't understand that, because it's not what I'm doing.

Do you believe you are 100% flawlessly correct about everything you believe and that you can't possibly change your mind? No? Well neither do I. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[Montalban]

Oops, Acts 6! I forgot to evidence about the deacons doing more mundane things.

I use evidence. Holo uses opinion, avoids answering questions - except where he uses circular logic.

"I've got reasons for believing this"

Circular!

"No, I've got GOOD reasons for believing this"

ROFL!

 

[Montalban]

How's that?

It's you happily asking questions but not answering them

 

[holo]

Holo takes examples of salvation before Jesus' resurrection as if they're the patterns for all time....

Not a pattern. An example.

By Holo's 'logic' the devils are saved too!

No, because you're taking one tiny portion of what I've said and assume that that's ALL I believe about it. I don't believe Jesus died to save the devils. Therefore, by holo's logic, the devils are not saved.

 

[holo]

Not at all. I've evidenced my argument. You offer self-annhilating argument.

I take exception that you would reduce my argument to your series of 'just-so' statements

Maybe I missed something. The question is, WHY do you believe the things you believe. The closest I'm getting to an answer, if I've understood you correctly, is that "tradition says so" or "Iraneus" says so. What am I missing here?

 

[Montalban]

no, of course not! You're not like us!

You must either now believe we're not of the Holy Spirit (our faith) or answer why did the Holy Spirit lead us to divisions of faith (in that we're different from you)

exactly the kind of attitude I've been talking about.

haughty, self-aggrandizing.

I'm happy to be basing my beliefs on the authority of the church. Is that worse then setting myself up as my own Pope? I don't think so! As my favourite author says...
"When we read in Bouchet about miracles associated with the relics of Saint Hilary we can shrug it off: His right to be believed is not great enough to take away our freedom to challenge him. But to go on from there and condemn all similar accounts seems to me to be impudent in the extreme. Such a great saint as Augustine swears that he saw: a blind child restored to sight by the relics of Saint Gervaise and Saint Protasius at Milan; a woman in Carthage cured of a cancer by the sign of the cross made by a woman who had just been baptised; his close friend Hesperius driving off devils (who were infesting his house) by using a little soil taken from the sepulchre of our Lord, and that same soil, borne into the Church, suddenly curing a paralytic; a woman who, having touched the reliquary of Saint Stephen with a posy of flowers during a procession, rubbed her eyes with them afterwards and recovered her sight which she had recently lost... What are we to accuse him of - hum and the two holy bishops, Aurelius and Maximinus, whom he calls on as witnesses? Is it of ignorance, simple-mindedness, credulity, deliberate deception or imposture? .... 'Qui, ut rationem mullan afferent, ipsa auhtoritate me frangerent (Why, even if they gave no reasons, they would convince me by their very authority)
Michel de Montaigne in "That it is madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities" in
Michel de Montaigne (1993), "The Essays: A Selection", Penguin Classics

lest you forget that the first to do what us dirty unwashed protestants have done, is YOU.

What things?

ah well. You're not like us.

(brings to mind a parable Jesus once taught....)

and if they believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour, yes, they are a part of the Church. What they do for worship it their perogative. I don't really care.

Just like the devils!
"For "the devils also believe and tremble," as the Scripture tells us." Augustine - Homily X


You really need to read Hogg's book!

The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner: Written by Himself by James Hogg available here

 

[Montalban]

What am I missing here?

My first thought was a lack of respect. You ask, but don't answer questions.

 

[holo]

Evidence for Bible errors??? Where is it????

Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with those passages. My bad. Anyway, here they are:

Matt 27:44
In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Luke 23:39-41
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."[ /I]

Surely you can see why I see that as a "bible error"? Even if you don't agree?

But anyway, now you know a little about why I believe the bible is NOT flawless. How about letting me know why you think it is?