you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[Montalban]

Not a pattern. An example.

One no longer relevant.

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.

No. I've examined that 'one tiny portion' and shown it to be flawed -which you believe anyway.

Just saying "I believe in Jesus" is not enough.

The Bible says so "Not all who cry "Lord! Lord!" will be saved" (normally I actually reference this, but I'm cutting down on this because you offer evidence-lite arguments).

If that thief was an example for us all, we'd not need to believe in the resurrection - as he didn't.

You used this 'example' to coutner regarding deacons, priests and bishops - and you've not answered my questions on that too.

 

[Montalban]

The question remains, where in the Bible does it say that one should only rely on the Bible?

 

[Uphill Battle]

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)

the diffrence between you and I, is that I don't think the Holy Spirit ever was sent as a promise to make sure your every single doctrine, idea, and teaching of your church is to be accurate.

The holy Spirit is NOT "your faith." nor is it mine. the Holy Spirit leads us to Christ. It convicts us of sins. Nowhere are we promised that the HS will rubber stamp of approval caveats and theologies.

so no, I don't have to answer that question. It's a false question. And before you start crowing about divisions, I suggest you look at your own history. (Isn't that how you validate your "one true churchery" in the first place?)

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

of what possible relevance is this?

What things?

Schism. It started with YOU. (of course, YOU blame it on the RCC, and wash your hands of the matter... the RCC does the same, in blaming the EO, and washing THEIR hands of it. Everyone "unified".)

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

uh, you know the distinction, you're being disengenous.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The question remains, where in the Bible does it say that one should only rely on the Bible?

It doesn't.

you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to the why, and application of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Montalban]

It doesn't.

you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to the why, and application of Sola Scriptura.

What other things are you relying upon? What scriptures/teachings?

 

[holo]

to me you're just spamming the thread with your opinion which you say is flawed anyway.

I've never said my opinion is flawed. I'm saying opinions are opinions, and that I'm not omniscient. I don't see why that is a problem, unless I should be omniscient, or unless someboy else is.

 

[Montalban]

the diffrence between you and I, is that I don't think the Holy Spirit ever was sent as a promise to make sure your every single doctrine, idea, and teaching of your church is to be accurate.

That's right. God would send Jesus and make sure we'd never be entirely certain just what is we're supposed to believe in!

The holy Spirit is NOT "your faith." nor is it mine. the Holy Spirit leads us to Christ. It convicts us of sins. Nowhere are we promised that the HS will rubber stamp of approval caveats and theologies.

But all the Protestants here believe that the Holy Spirit has guided them. Which are wrong?

so no, I don't have to answer that question. It's a false question. And before you start crowing about divisions, I suggest you look at your own history. (Isn't that how you validate your "one true churchery" in the first place?)

Giving me a vauge reference to 'my church' (my church's divisions) doesn't mean anything.

of what possible relevance is this?

It's a nice quote

He talks of relying on the teachings of a great teacher.

Schism. It started with YOU. (of course, YOU blame it on the RCC, and wash your hands of the matter.

That's silly. That's like saying because your wife divorces you it's all your fault!

the RCC does the same, in blaming the EO, and washing THEIR hands of it. Everyone "unified"

Doesn't mean that the 'core' remaining is flawed.

uh, you know the distinction, you're being disengenous.

In the other thread you suggested that there was NO distinctions, just belief in Jesus Christ. Please make up your mind.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What other things are you relying upon? What scriptures/teachings?

none.

Scripture is what I use for rule of faith. Everything else may or may not be true.

 

[Montalban]

I've never said my opinion is flawed. I'm saying opinions are opinions, and that I'm not omniscient. I don't see why that is a problem, unless I should be omniscient, or unless someboy else is.

So you're not perfect but your opinions are?

Make up your mind on this before you post

 

[Montalban]

none.

Scripture is what I use for rule of faith. Everything else may or may not be true.

I'm game...
a) What for you are scriptures?
and
b) Which scriptures say only scriptures should be relied upon?


and as a side-bar, do you agree with Holo's 'flawed Bible' opinion?

 

[Uphill Battle]

That's right. God would send Jesus and make sure we'd never be entirely certain just what is we're supposed to believe in!

God sent Jesus to seek and to save that which was lost.

not to make you feel good about knowing everything there is to know.

But all the Protestants here believe that the Holy Spirit has guided them. Which are wrong?

neither. or both. Depending on what they are claiming the HS lead them to/

Giving me a vauge reference to 'my church' (my church's divisions) doesn't mean anything.

so then, you pretend that Schism never happened with your church. Gotcha.

It's a nice quote

He talks of relying on the teachings of a great teacher.

uh huh.

That's silly. That's like saying because your wife divorces you it's all your fault!

no, I'm saying that both sides of the schism blame the other.

Doesn't mean that the 'core' remaining is flawed.

according to the RCC, THEY are the unflawed remaining core.

In the other thread you suggested that there was NO distinctions, just belief in Jesus Christ. Please make up your mind.

you know I don't mean intellectual assent to the existance of Jesus.

you know I mean faith in Christ.

give this line a rest, it's petty to the nth degree.

 

[holo]

a) show me where the Bible must contain all Chrisitan teachings. You refuse to answer this

I don't claim that the bible must contain all christian teaching. I'm just saying that a lot of doctrines taught in many churches today aren't actually found in the bible. A lot of it stems from tradition. The idea the the believer is subject to the ten commandments, for example, is one doctrine I don't find in the bible. But people are teaching it, and that's fine by me. But it's not fine anymore when they say that this doctrine is found in the bible, because it's not.

(Obviously, many would argue that it IS to be found in the bible, but I'm only mentioning here as an example, not to debate that particular doctrine).

c) you're wrong because the APostles collected the money from the faithful and distributed it to the poor

That's not tithing, though, and it's not the same as the congregation paying its leaders. Personally, I prefer to give to the poor directly.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm game...

I'm sure you are. You've been taught that you have all the answers through your perfect Church.

a) What for you are scriptures?

The bible.

b) Which scriptures say only scriptures should be relied upon?

none. Again demonstrating that you don't understand Sola Scriptura.

and as a side-bar, do you agree with Holo's 'flawed Bible' opinion?

not particularly. Makes no difference to me though. He has faith in Christ, I have faith in Christ, Brothers. Done deal.

 

[holo]

Still circular.

And your faith is NOT ciruclar because...?

 

[holo]

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

ROFL!

Well, since you apparently missed it, I referred to research on how the culture was in the days of Paul. If you must have some book title and page and all, I guess I could dig that up for you. There's a lot of bible commentaries that adress these things.

But hey, all the while you're complaining that I'm not answering your questions in an honest way, you're not answering mine at all... why do YOU believe these things are NOT cultural?

 

[holo]

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

At least I'm trying.

 

[Montalban]

God sent Jesus to seek and to save that which was lost.

Sure, but for you we'd be permanently lost, with regards to not knowing the truth, yet 'saved' for believing in one truth!

not to make you feel good about knowing everything there is to know.

Jesus didn't hide anything from us. Nor would he have held back any teaching.

neither. or both. Depending on what they are claiming the HS lead them to

So it does matter about the truth -that family I mentioned before you said it didn't matter. Which do you believe in now?

so then, you pretend that Schism never happened with your church. Gotcha.
uh huh.

I make no such claim. But because they split from us doesn't make our church flawed any more than the Apostles were flawed because Judas fell away from their number

no, I'm saying that both sides of the schism blame the other.

Indeed they do. Does that make both wrong?

according to the RCC, THEY are the unflawed remaining core.

Indeed. Does that make neither true? Anytime you see two people arguing then you must conclude they're both wrong!

you know I don't mean intellectual assent to the existance of Jesus.

The devils believe in Jesus.

you know I mean faith in Christ.

It either matters how you believe in him, or it doesn't.

give this line a rest, it's petty to the nth degree.

I'm sorry to point out the flaw in your attempt to have it all, argument-wise

 

[Montalban]

I'm sure you are. You've been taught that you have all the answers through your perfect Church.

I personally don't. But yes I do believe that the Apostles wouldn't appoint deacons, priests and bishops just for fun.

The bible.

SO how was my opinion flawed?

none. Again demonstrating that you don't understand Sola Scriptura.

So when I say you only rely on scripture you say its flawed because you only rely on the Bible

not particularly. Makes no difference to me though. He has faith in Christ, I have faith in Christ, Brothers. Done deal.

So it doesn't matter how you believe in Jesus!

Please make up your mind!

 

[Montalban]

Uphill Battle, I now fully appreciate your UserName!

 

[holo]

One no longer relevant.

I believe it is very much relevant. Paul refers all the way back to Abraham, who lived even before the law came, and uses him as an example for us.

Yes, surely things have changed since the cross. If some executed thief could be saved by simply believing on Christ before He died, taking the sins of the world with Him, surely the threshold hasn't been raised since then!

No. I've examined that 'one tiny portion' and shown it to be flawed -which you believe anyway.

Just saying "I believe in Jesus" is not enough.

I agree with that.

If that thief was an example for us all, we'd not need to believe in the resurrection - as he didn't.

Well, I'm not so sure one must techincally believe in the resurrection either. If you don't, you'll obviously miss out on a whol lot of blessing, but it won't mean you're not saved. I mean, all these Catholics, for example, who walk about believeing they are still sinners (and thusly not truly believing in the resurrection, or at least not in all that actually happened there), are just as saved as I am, though I believe they are badly mistaken about certain very important things.

And speaking for myself... there were years when I had no idea what the point of the resurrection was, why it was so important. To me, all that I could grasp and appreciate, was Jesus' death - I didn't understand what the resurrection was supposed to accomplish for me personally. Now I do. But I was still saved even back then. I just didn't know exactly how saved I was

You used this 'example' to coutner regarding deacons, priests and bishops - and you've not answered my questions on that too.

I did, but in another post