User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/1/2015 10:54:24 AM EDT
Yeah I know it was yesterday, but it is observed today in lots of churches.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2015 8:22:48 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2015 9:17:56 PM EDT
[#2]
On the 498th anniversary of the LUTHERAN Reformation...
"...Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders, Gott helfe mir, Amen.“ May He help me stand just as confident on the day I am asked. Amen! The Lutheran Confessions: http://bookofconcord.org/ Sseveeral quotes of Luther to ponder... “Let the man who would hear God speak read Holy Scripture.” “Christ is the Master; the Scriptures are only the servant. The true way to test all the Books is to see whether they work the will of Christ or not. No Book which does not preach Christ can be apostolic, though Peter or Paul were its author. And no Book which does preach Christ can fail to be apostolic, although Judas, Ananias, Pilate, or Herod were its author.” “He who believes God, recognizes Him as true and faithful, and himself as a liar; for he mistrusts his own thinking as false, and trusts the Word of God as being true, though it absolutely contradicts his own reasoning.” Commentary on Romans And finally on works... “Now you tell me, when a father goes ahead and washes diapers or performs some other mean task for his child, and someone ridicules him as an effeminate fool, though that father is acting in the spirit just described and in Christian faith, my dear fellow you tell me, which of the two is most keenly ridiculing the other? God, with all his angels and creatures, is smiling, not because that father is washing diapers, but because he is doing so in Christian faith. Those who sneer at him and see only the task but not the faith are ridiculing God with all his creatures, as the biggest fool on earth. Indeed, they are only ridiculing themselves; with all their cleverness they are nothing but devil’s fools.” READ your Bible! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 9:11:15 AM EDT
[#3]
More favorite Luther quotes
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522) Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)} Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. {Pelikan, ibid., v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } ". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 9:23:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Not sure how one can celebrate reformation day, It was not a victory for Christ. Rather than the unity preached in the scripture, we now have 26,000+ denominations, each professing to 1 Corinthians 1:10I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ... That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 10:45:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure how one can celebrate reformation day, It was not a victory for Christ. Rather than the unity preached in the scripture, we now have 26,000+ denominations, each professing to
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 1:13:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More favorite Luther quotes It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522) Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)} Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. {Pelikan, ibid., v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } ". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," [Romans 3:23] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 2:00:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Was gonna say the same thing. He had many faults, like everyone of us, but God used him to bring the true Gospel to many.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 3:25:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Was gonna say the same thing. He had many faults, like everyone of us, but God used him to bring the true Gospel to many.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 3:30:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So for 1500 years the gospel was false?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was gonna say the same thing. He had many faults, like everyone of us, but God used him to bring the true Gospel to many.
Says who? Cause that would be an incorrect statement. The Gospel has remained unchanged forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 3:32:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," [Romans 3:23] Quote HistoryQuoted: snip ". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," [Romans 3:23] http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm I find it amusing that from an evolutionary standpoint, without Luther there is no fundamentalism, but the fundamentalists completely deny him, especially on this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 3:43:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Whether Mary remained a virgin or not has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Christ. Are you implying that it does?
The term "full of grace" appears twice in the Greek writings that were translated to Latin and into the Vulgate. Once ...referring to Jesus John 1:14. And Stephen..Acts 6:8 I know that you will disagree, but I'm gonna have to side with the origional and not a mistranslation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 4:04:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What exactly does 'full of grace' mean? http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm I find it amusing that from an evolutionary standpoint, without Luther there is no fundamentalism, but the fundamentalists completely deny him, especially on this point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip
". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," [Romans 3:23] http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm I find it amusing that from an evolutionary standpoint, without Luther there is no fundamentalism, but the fundamentalists completely deny him, especially on this point. It comes as no surprise that you're attempt to justify catholic dogma, comes from more catholic dogma. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 4:43:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Says who? Cause that would be an incorrect statement. The Gospel has remained unchanged forever. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Was gonna say the same thing. He had many faults, like everyone of us, but God used him to bring the true Gospel to many. Says who? Cause that would be an incorrect statement. The Gospel has remained unchanged forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 4:52:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whether Mary remained a virgin or not has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Christ. Are you implying that it does? The term "full of grace" appears twice in the Greek writings that were translated to Latin and into the Vulgate. Once ...referring to Jesus John 1:14. And Stephen..Acts 6:8 I know that you will disagree, but I'm gonna have to side with the origional and not a mistranslation. I implied nothing. Of course, St. Jerome, that fool, mistranslated the Bible. Thanks for correcting him! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2015 5:31:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You must read all the quotes. I implied nothing. Of course, St. Jerome, that fool, mistranslated the Bible. Thanks for correcting him! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whether Mary remained a virgin or not has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Christ. Are you implying that it does? The term "full of grace" appears twice in the Greek writings that were translated to Latin and into the Vulgate. Once ...referring to Jesus John 1:14. And Stephen..Acts 6:8 I know that you will disagree, but I'm gonna have to side with the origional and not a mistranslation. I implied nothing. Of course, St. Jerome, that fool, mistranslated the Bible. Thanks for correcting him! I don't think anyone here believes Jerome was a fool. Nor do I believe he was perfect. Fact is, he made a mistranslation. When scholars and translators look at the origional Greek that the Scriptures were written in and at these documents, they do not make the same mistake. Are you saying it is impossible for Jerome to have made a mistranslation? Do you read Greek? If you do can you honestly say that the verse in question says "full of Grace?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2015 9:14:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So for 1500 years the gospel was false?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was gonna say the same thing. He had many faults, like everyone of us, but God used him to bring the true Gospel to many.
The Gospel has NEVER been false. It HAS been perverted and is still being perverted to this day. Luther simply restored 1st century teaching of it. “The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world. Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth. As a result we have this paradoxical situation: The Gospel supplies the world with the salvation of Jesus Christ, peace of conscience, and every blessing. Just for that the world abhors the Gospel Luther is a very interesting critter to study. All the quotes given by Twire are from his early years. It's very true that in his early years he had an obsession with Mary, but he outgrew it. HONOR Mary? Absolutely, for she was indeed chosen to be Jesus' mother. WORSHIP HER? PRAY TO HER? NEVER! On the so called "Asumption" of Mary... The festival of the assumption of Mary is papal throughout, that is, full of idolatry; and it has been established without any Scriptural basis." And Mary herself... "...For she was not crucified for us, nor did she for us or pray for us on the cross; but Christ was crucified for us and died and pleaded and prayed for us with tears on the cross. Therefore honor Mother Mary as you desire; but do not accord her the honor we should accord Christ. This too, is the reason why Christ puts His mother away from Him: He alone should be the One to whom we should cling. And... But the pope with his monks does the very opposite. He lets Christ, the Son, go and clings to the mother... Mary is justly to be honored. But to rely on her, to take Christ's honor and office and give them to His mother, is to deny Christ's suffering." Throughout his life, Luther was a work in progress. Because of this and because he was so prolific in his writings, he is dangerous to quote. Roman Catholics love to quote early Luther but seem to "overlook" his later writings. If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger. And, for what it's worth, Luther didn't give a rat's ass over what people thought about him: “Peace if possible. Truth at all costs.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2015 9:35:37 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...I find it amusing that from an evolutionary standpoint, without Luther there is no fundamentalism, but the fundamentalists completely deny him, especially on this point. I too must admit, that as a Lutheran Christian I get a cynical chuckle out of this as well. He had much to say about those who deny the sacraments for example, or those who deny that Christ died for all, and more, and they weren't complimentary. Luther wasn't so much anti-pope or anti-jew; he considered himself "anti-anti-gospel" or those that dilute it. Many who love to claim Reformation Day are in that group according to the Lutheran Confessions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2015 9:38:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whether Mary remained a virgin or not has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Christ. Are you implying that it does? The term "full of grace" appears twice in the Greek writings that were translated to Latin and into the Vulgate. Once ...referring to Jesus John 1:14. And Stephen..Acts 6:8 I know that you will disagree, but I'm gonna have to side with the origional and not a mistranslation. It had EVERYTHING to do with the Gospel. It was a fulfillment of the Scriptures. It was ONE of the signs showing that He IS God. Without it, He was just a guy with a really good philosophy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2015 10:08:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Rome has polluted and twisted the scripture to serve themselves.
Protestant churches are not much better. However, there are still some out there obeying the word. If you want to know Christ you must be born again. Christ specifically explained what one must do so simply a child can understand it. Man is sinful, including your Pope. Get on your knees or put your face to the ground in a secluded or quiet place by yourself and humble yourself before the Creator of the Universe. He will answer. As time continues on, more and more churches will pollute and twist the scripture to serve their own lusts and justify sin. I see it all the time. It's hard to find a church in modern day America that preaches the word as it is written. I long for Christs return. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2015 11:24:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It had EVERYTHING to do with the Gospel. It was a fulfillment of the Scriptures. It was ONE of the signs showing that He IS God. Without it, He was just a guy with a really good philosophy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whether Mary remained a virgin or not has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Christ. Are you implying that it does? The term "full of grace" appears twice in the Greek writings that were translated to Latin and into the Vulgate. Once ...referring to Jesus John 1:14. And Stephen..Acts 6:8 I know that you will disagree, but I'm gonna have to side with the origional and not a mistranslation. It had EVERYTHING to do with the Gospel. It was a fulfillment of the Scriptures. It was ONE of the signs showing that He IS God. Without it, He was just a guy with a really good philosophy. I'm gonna still have to say no it doesn't. I said "remained a virgin" yes she was a virgin when Jesus was born. I'm saying if she and Joseph consummated the marriage after the birth of Christ, and produced the brothers mentioned in the Bible, or if that's all a misprint, and she remained a virgin, has nothing to do with the Gospel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 6:57:21 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was gonna say the same thing. He had many faults, like everyone of us, but God used him to bring the true Gospel to many. Yeah, no.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 6:59:46 AM EDT
[#22]
Since just laughing at this foolishness is not allowed, I'll try to reply instead:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rome has polluted and twisted the scripture to serve themselves. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rome has polluted and twisted the scripture to serve themselves. Incorrect. The Catholic Church is the only reason you guys have a Scriptura to Sola to, and even then you and your new prophet Luther tore out a half-dozen inconvenient books and adjusted the translation so it suited his new take on things. Protestant churches are not much better. However, there are still some out there obeying the word. Which of the 65,000 Protestant denominations get it right, and how does anyone know? If you want to know Christ you must be born again. Christ specifically explained what one must do so simply a child can understand it. And yet Protestants ignore or redefine entire swaths of it. Man is sinful, including your Pope. Tell us something we don't know. The only people running around claiming the Pope is sinless are non-Catholics. Get on your knees or put your face to the ground in a secluded or quiet place by yourself and humble yourself before the Creator of the Universe. He will answer. The Bible says go to your room and close the door. Why are you adding to it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 3:43:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As time continues on, more and more churches will pollute and twist the scripture to serve their own lusts and justify sin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
As time continues on, more and more churches will pollute and twist the scripture to serve their own lusts and justify sin. Yep, but the CC will continue teaching the inerrant Truth it has been teaching for 2,000 years, going right back to the Appstles themselves. I see it all the time. It's hard to find a church in modern day America that preaches the word as it is written. And who appointed you as Chief Arbiter of what is Biblical? I long for Christs return. You and I, both... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 4:39:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since just laughing at this foolishness is not allowed, I'll try to reply instead: Incorrect. The Catholic Church is the only reason you guys have a Scriptura to Sola to, and even then you and your new prophet Luther tore out a half-dozen inconvenient books and adjusted the translation so it suited his new take on things. So the Hebrew Sages had nothing to do with keeping Scripture available? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 4:39:46 PM EDT
[#25]
I must reply to this rubbish I keep hearing...the book that the Catholic apologist keep pulling this number from...inside Protestant, includes LDS,SDA,and even non trinitarian believers. And if they kept reading they would see on page 11. ( that number comes from page 10) that the book also list over 250 ROMAN CATHOLIC denominations. But there is only one church....??? And the majority of the so called Protestant denominations don't even know what Sola Scriptora is. When the RCC cleans it's own house and starts fixing the issues they have with their own people who refuse to follow their doctrine, they can start judging others. Over 54% of Roman Catholics voted for the most pro abortion president we have ever had. I'd bet 90% of Catholics in the US use birth control. What about divorce? How many are given the sacraments when they haven't had their marriage annulled? I'm not judging here, so don't take it that way. There are Protestant churches that do the same thing. I am saying if someone wants to cast that stone, they better be sure their own house is clean.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 4:42:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, but the CC will continue teaching the inerrant Truth it has been teaching for 2,000 years, going right back to the Appstles themselves. I think you meant tweeking the truth for almost 1700 years, since their beginning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 4:46:08 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the Hebrew Sages had nothing to do with keeping Scripture available? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since just laughing at this foolishness is not allowed, I'll try to reply instead: Incorrect. The Catholic Church is the only reason you guys have a Scriptura to Sola to, and even then you and your new prophet Luther tore out a half-dozen inconvenient books and adjusted the translation so it suited his new take on things. So the Hebrew Sages had nothing to do with keeping Scripture available? How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible 
Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 7:34:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible
Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since just laughing at this foolishness is not allowed, I'll try to reply instead: Incorrect. The Catholic Church is the only reason you guys have a Scriptura to Sola to, and even then you and your new prophet Luther tore out a half-dozen inconvenient books and adjusted the translation so it suited his new take on things. So the Hebrew Sages had nothing to do with keeping Scripture available? How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible
Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC..... You weren't asking me, were you? I've said plenty of times that I'm not Scripture only, but I don't acknowledge anything that is contrary to Scripture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 8:37:34 PM EDT
[#29]
No, and Sola types acknowledge tradition also. Lots of stuff we do is tradition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 11:51:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC..... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Since just laughing at this foolishness is not allowed, I'll try to reply instead: Incorrect. The Catholic Church is the only reason you guys have a Scriptura to Sola to, and even then you and your new prophet Luther tore out a half-dozen inconvenient books and adjusted the translation so it suited his new take on things. So the Hebrew Sages had nothing to do with keeping Scripture available? How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC.....  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2015 11:52:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You weren't asking me, were you? I've said plenty of times that I'm not Scripture only, but I don't acknowledge anything that is contrary to Scripture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 12:20:27 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since just laughing at this foolishness is not allowed, I'll try to reply instead: Incorrect. The Catholic Church is the only reason you guys have a Scriptura to Sola to, and even then you and your new prophet Luther tore out a half-dozen inconvenient books and adjusted the translation so it suited his new take on things. So the Hebrew Sages had nothing to do with keeping Scripture available? How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible
Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC..... I actually agree with you.. What a joke to think they had to have a pope tell them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 1:55:12 AM EDT
[#33]
The lack of respect for other's beliefs in this thread has been very disappointing. As I mentioned in an IM to someone else, disagreement and respectful discussion are the intent of this forum. Everyone believes that their belief system is the correct (or the most correct) one. If you disagree, present your arguments why. Laughing at other's beliefs because they are not yours is not in keeping with the intent of this forum. Tone it back, stay on topic or refrain from posting in this forum.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 9:54:41 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible
Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since just laughing at this foolishness is not allowed, I'll try to reply instead: Incorrect. The Catholic Church is the only reason you guys have a Scriptura to Sola to, and even then you and your new prophet Luther tore out a half-dozen inconvenient books and adjusted the translation so it suited his new take on things. So the Hebrew Sages had nothing to do with keeping Scripture available? How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible
Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC..... Yes, the RCC gave us what we call "The Bible" today. Deal with it. And if you ask me how the people in Jesus' time knew what Scripture was, it was because their Church (the Jewish Temple) defined what was and was not in the Torah. This, of course, does not answer the great dilemma of the Sola Scripturists... If all we need for Salvation is in Scripture and only in Scripture, and if the only acceptable Scripture is the KJV, then how was anyone saved between 33AD and 1611AD? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 9:55:28 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, and Sola types acknowledge tradition also. Lots of stuff we do is tradition. And a whole slew of Sola types would consider you a heretic for daring to say such a thing... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 11:07:15 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, the RCC gave us what we call "The Bible" today. Deal with it. And if you ask me how the people in Jesus' time knew what Scripture was, it was because their Church (the Jewish Temple) defined what was and was not in the Torah. This, of course, does not answer the great dilemma of the Sola Scripturists... If all we need for Salvation is in Scripture and only in Scripture, and if the only acceptable Scripture is the KJV, then how was anyone saved between 33AD and 1611AD? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since just laughing at this foolishness is not allowed, I'll try to reply instead: Incorrect. The Catholic Church is the only reason you guys have a Scriptura to Sola to, and even then you and your new prophet Luther tore out a half-dozen inconvenient books and adjusted the translation so it suited his new take on things. So the Hebrew Sages had nothing to do with keeping Scripture available? How did the RCC give us Sola Scriptura? Are you saying the RCC gave us the bible
Let me ask you this then....how did the people in Jesus's time know what was scripture and what wasn't? Cause Jesus held them accountable to it. So they had to know what it was without the RCC..... Yes, the RCC gave us what we call "The Bible" today. Deal with it. And if you ask me how the people in Jesus' time knew what Scripture was, it was because their Church (the Jewish Temple) defined what was and was not in the Torah. This, of course, does not answer the great dilemma of the Sola Scripturists... If all we need for Salvation is in Scripture and only in Scripture, and if the only acceptable Scripture is the KJV, then how was anyone saved between 33AD and 1611AD? I think you are making stuff up, or you went to a goofy non RCC church. Only far out people say the KJ is the only real bible. You are lumping every non catholic in With a very small group. That would be like me saying if you don't whip yourself and inflict physical pain on yourself you can't be saved, because one small catholic denomination does that. The explanation you give on scripture is going to start a circular argument. If the Jewish temple defined scripture, why did the RCC add the apocrypha? It wasn't scripture to the Jews or Jesus. The RCC didnt give us the Bible. God did. The Bible was around before the RCC was started. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 11:09:07 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And a whole slew of Sola types would consider you a heretic for daring to say such a thing... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, and Sola types acknowledge tradition also. Lots of stuff we do is tradition. And a whole slew of Sola types would consider you a heretic for daring to say such a thing... How so? Is tradition bad? No. Is putting it on equal terms with scripture bad? Yes.is placing tradition over scripture bad? Yes. Is adapting scripture to reconcile with tradition bad? Yes. Tradition by itself isn't bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 12:00:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I must reply to this rubbish I keep hearing...the book that the Catholic apologist keep pulling this number from...inside Protestant, includes LDS,SDA,and even non trinitarian believers. And if they kept reading they would see on page 11. ( that number comes from page 10) that the book also list over 250 ROMAN CATHOLIC denominations. But there is only one church....??? And the majority of the so called Protestant denominations don't even know what Sola Scriptora is. When the RCC cleans it's own house and starts fixing the issues they have with their own people who refuse to follow their doctrine, they can start judging others. Over 54% of Roman Catholics voted for the most pro abortion president we have ever had. I'd bet 90% of Catholics in the US use birth control. What about divorce? How many are given the sacraments when they haven't had their marriage annulled? I'm not judging here, so don't take it that way. There are Protestant churches that do the same thing. I am saying if someone wants to cast that stone, they better be sure their own house is clean. Never said the people in the Church were perfect. After all, the Church is a hospital for sinners. And yes, it ticks me off to no end that so many Catholics vote Democrat, but in doing so, they are condoning (among other things) abortion, which the Church rails against across all time. But that just means that "Catholics" aren't following their Church, not that the Church is wrong... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 12:01:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you are making stuff up, or you went to a goofy non RCC church. Only far out people say the KJ is the only real bible. You are lumping every non catholic in With a very small group. That would be like me saying if you don't whip yourself and inflict physical pain on yourself you can't be saved, because one small catholic denomination does that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you are making stuff up, or you went to a goofy non RCC church. Only far out people say the KJ is the only real bible. You are lumping every non catholic in With a very small group. That would be like me saying if you don't whip yourself and inflict physical pain on yourself you can't be saved, because one small catholic denomination does that. Just stating what I've heard countless times from Protestants: that the KJV is the ONLY version. I'm not saying it. THEY ARE. As for me, I love the KJV. It's a beautifully-written translation, but one has to be mindful of its errors. The explanation you give on scripture is going to start a circular argument. If the Jewish temple defined scripture, why did the RCC add the apocrypha? It wasn't scripture to the Jews or Jesus. The RCC didnt give us the Bible. God did. The Bible was around before the RCC was started.
Wrong. The Apocrypha (as defined by Luther) were in common use across all of Judaism in the time of Christ, and are even quoted from by Paul. It was AFTER the Christian movement began, and in an attempt to squash it, that the Jews decided those books were not canonnical, and for no other reason that they were originally written in Greek rather than Hebrew. As for the Bible being around before the Church, wrong again. The Catholic Church was born on Pentacost, which predates ALL the books of the NT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 12:10:27 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How so? Is tradition bad? No. Is putting it on equal terms with scripture bad? Yes.is placing tradition over scripture bad? Yes. Is adapting scripture to reconcile with tradition bad? Yes. Tradition by itself isn't bad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, and Sola types acknowledge tradition also. Lots of stuff we do is tradition. And a whole slew of Sola types would consider you a heretic for daring to say such a thing... How so? Is tradition bad? No. Is putting it on equal terms with scripture bad? Yes.is placing tradition over scripture bad? Yes. Is adapting scripture to reconcile with tradition bad? Yes. Tradition by itself isn't bad. I'll remind you that the Sola Scriptura types eschew ANY tradition at all. That's why it's SOLA Scriptura. Now, Sacred Tradition is on par with Scripture, and does not conflict with it at all. If it did, Scripture would win. We do not place tradition over Scripture, nor do we modify Scripture to meet tradition. That's something that happens exclusively on the non-Catholic denominations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 2:11:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Give me your definition of sola scriptura.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 9:40:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Give me your definition of sola scriptura. The same definition every Protestant I've ever heard, met, or read has used: "If it's not in the Bible, I won't believe it." A corrolary use is the classic, "That's not Biblical". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 10:11:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.
That is the Wikipedia definition. I agree with it. Anglicans and Methodist don't, and many who claim they are all sola scriptura don't know what it means. So back to my previous post, yes I believe in tradition. I just think scripture trumps it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 1:29:09 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. That is the Wikipedia definition. I agree with it. Anglicans and Methodist don't, and many who claim they are all sola scriptura don't know what it means. So back to my previous post, yes I believe in tradition. I just think scripture trumps it. Welcome to the Catholic take on things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 2:39:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Welcome to the Catholic take on things. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. That is the Wikipedia definition. I agree with it. Anglicans and Methodist don't, and many who claim they are all sola scriptura don't know what it means. So back to my previous post, yes I believe in tradition. I just think scripture trumps it. Welcome to the Catholic take on things. What do you mean by that? That people who don't understand something critize it? Or that we agree on sola scriptura? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2015 11:42:49 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. That is the Wikipedia definition. I agree with it. Anglicans and Methodist don't, and many who claim they are all sola scriptura don't know what it means. So back to my previous post, yes I believe in tradition. I just think scripture trumps it. The Wiki definition initially identifies Sola Scriptura as Latin ablative case, which would mean 'with scripture alone' or 'from scripture alone' or 'by scripture alone.' Then the Wiki goes on to explain/refute the Latin translation. Must have been writeen by a fundamentalist. That dualism and tortuous logic pervades many if not all arguments in that regard. To argue that the Catholic Church did not define the canon of Scripture is to be ignorant of history. The Church pre-existed the Canon of scripture by nearly 400 years. Up til then it was anybody's guess as to what as 'inspired' vs. 'non-inspired.' We have writings like the Didache, which describes 'Catholic' practice and worship, that predate or parallel some of the books of the New Testament. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2015 3:25:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you mean by that? That people who don't understand something critize it? Or that we agree on sola scriptura? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. That is the Wikipedia definition. I agree with it. Anglicans and Methodist don't, and many who claim they are all sola scriptura don't know what it means. So back to my previous post, yes I believe in tradition. I just think scripture trumps it. Welcome to the Catholic take on things. What do you mean by that? That people who don't understand something critize it? Or that we agree on sola scriptura? We Catholics call it "Prima Scriptura", when such a discussion arises. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2015 6:47:43 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never happened in this forum. The Wiki definition initially identifies Sola Scriptura as Latin ablative case, which would mean 'with scripture alone' or 'from scripture alone' or 'by scripture alone.' Then the Wiki goes on to explain/refute the Latin translation. Must have been writeen by a fundamentalist. That dualism and tortuous logic pervades many if not all arguments in that regard. To argue that the Catholic Church did not define the canon of Scripture is to be ignorant of history. The Church pre-existed the Canon of scripture by nearly 400 years. Up til then it was anybody's guess as to what as 'inspired' vs. 'non-inspired.' We have writings like the Didache, which describes 'Catholic' practice and worship, that predate or parallel some of the books of the New Testament. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. That is the Wikipedia definition. I agree with it. Anglicans and Methodist don't, and many who claim they are all sola scriptura don't know what it means. So back to my previous post, yes I believe in tradition. I just think scripture trumps it. The Wiki definition initially identifies Sola Scriptura as Latin ablative case, which would mean 'with scripture alone' or 'from scripture alone' or 'by scripture alone.' Then the Wiki goes on to explain/refute the Latin translation. Must have been writeen by a fundamentalist. That dualism and tortuous logic pervades many if not all arguments in that regard. To argue that the Catholic Church did not define the canon of Scripture is to be ignorant of history. The Church pre-existed the Canon of scripture by nearly 400 years. Up til then it was anybody's guess as to what as 'inspired' vs. 'non-inspired.' We have writings like the Didache, which describes 'Catholic' practice and worship, that predate or parallel some of the books of the New Testament. God Himself thru His Holy Spirit preserved His Word thru Godly Men. And kept what was needed. The Roman Catholic church had nothing to do with saving anything, The Scriptures as they are now has everything needed for Salvation and how to live a Godly life in Christ. Nothing is missing or has been removed. If what is written is not enough then what is? if the New Testament is not enough as it is then more books are not going to help you. If you are saved and received the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit you'll know what is inspired by God and what is not. Was Pauls letter to the Romans written to what is now the Roman Catholic church or some other? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2015 12:45:35 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: God Himself thru His Holy Spirit preserved His Word thru Godly Men. And kept what was needed. The Roman Catholic church had nothing to do with saving anything, The Scriptures as they are now has everything needed for Salvation and how to live a Godly life in Christ. Nothing is missing or has been removed. If what is written is not enough then what is? if the New Testament is not enough as it is then more books are not going to help you. If you are saved and received the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit you'll know what is inspired by God and what is not. Was Pauls letter to the Romans written to what is now the Roman Catholic church or some other? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. That is the Wikipedia definition. I agree with it. Anglicans and Methodist don't, and many who claim they are all sola scriptura don't know what it means. So back to my previous post, yes I believe in tradition. I just think scripture trumps it. The Wiki definition initially identifies Sola Scriptura as Latin ablative case, which would mean 'with scripture alone' or 'from scripture alone' or 'by scripture alone.' Then the Wiki goes on to explain/refute the Latin translation. Must have been writeen by a fundamentalist. That dualism and tortuous logic pervades many if not all arguments in that regard. To argue that the Catholic Church did not define the canon of Scripture is to be ignorant of history. The Church pre-existed the Canon of scripture by nearly 400 years. Up til then it was anybody's guess as to what as 'inspired' vs. 'non-inspired.' We have writings like the Didache, which describes 'Catholic' practice and worship, that predate or parallel some of the books of the New Testament. God Himself thru His Holy Spirit preserved His Word thru Godly Men. And kept what was needed. The Roman Catholic church had nothing to do with saving anything, The Scriptures as they are now has everything needed for Salvation and how to live a Godly life in Christ. Nothing is missing or has been removed. If what is written is not enough then what is? if the New Testament is not enough as it is then more books are not going to help you. If you are saved and received the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit you'll know what is inspired by God and what is not. Was Pauls letter to the Romans written to what is now the Roman Catholic church or some other? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2015 7:31:56 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have no reply to a post that proudly flaunts a complete ignorance of history. I have no comment toward an mere opinion. Facts are facts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. That is the Wikipedia definition. I agree with it. Anglicans and Methodist don't, and many who claim they are all sola scriptura don't know what it means. So back to my previous post, yes I believe in tradition. I just think scripture trumps it. The Wiki definition initially identifies Sola Scriptura as Latin ablative case, which would mean 'with scripture alone' or 'from scripture alone' or 'by scripture alone.' Then the Wiki goes on to explain/refute the Latin translation. Must have been writeen by a fundamentalist. That dualism and tortuous logic pervades many if not all arguments in that regard. To argue that the Catholic Church did not define the canon of Scripture is to be ignorant of history. The Church pre-existed the Canon of scripture by nearly 400 years. Up til then it was anybody's guess as to what as 'inspired' vs. 'non-inspired.' We have writings like the Didache, which describes 'Catholic' practice and worship, that predate or parallel some of the books of the New Testament. God Himself thru His Holy Spirit preserved His Word thru Godly Men. And kept what was needed. The Roman Catholic church had nothing to do with saving anything, The Scriptures as they are now has everything needed for Salvation and how to live a Godly life in Christ. Nothing is missing or has been removed. If what is written is not enough then what is? if the New Testament is not enough as it is then more books are not going to help you. If you are saved and received the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit you'll know what is inspired by God and what is not. Was Pauls letter to the Romans written to what is now the Roman Catholic church or some other? Even your first Pope talked about Pauls letters in 2 Peter 3:15-16 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Peter even put Pauls letters on the same level as other Scriptures, Probably meant the Old testament or quite Possible James, Judes letters. What year would this have been? may not have been called the New Testament but the scriptures were around long before the 400 years your church say they were. Facts are Facts! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
