A heretical teaching dismantled with the help of Paul the Evangelist.

[Taken]

Funny…
You can never debate me on the issues. Just the usual flow of anti-Catholic epithets – like so much verbal diarrhea . . .

There is no debate.
You continue to SIN.
You continue to ask for forgiveness.
You expect others to continue to SIN.
You expect others to continue to ask for forgiveness.
No one is subject to your beliefs, your understanding or your expectations.
And you want to debate WHY NOT?
LOL

 

[Taken]

Thanks for another verbose, psychotic rant.
Do you even know the meaning of “concise”??

James is writing to an established Church community with elders/presbyters (James 5:14) – not a groups of new “candidates”. They HAVE the truth (James 5:19) and James warns them not to lose it.

LEARM how to rightly-divide Scripture . . .

Oh yipes…until you grasp the difference between Belief and Confession of Belief…
You will continue spinning in circles of trying everything and hoping it is sufficient.

 

[Taken]

Why didn't you just say this in the first place instead of saying "IF/THEN"?

Now I better understand your theory.

IF/Then was a sufficient response.
The odd thing is, IF/Then is Scriptural teaching of Gods word and you think that is my Theory.

 

[Taken]

“Learn the Bible for yourselves” is taught NOWHERE on that Bible.

2 Tim 2:
[15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Taken]

“Learn the Bible for yourselves” is taught NOWHERE on that Bible.

1 Tim 4:
[13] Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

 

[Illuminator]

1 Tim 4:
[13] Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

www.catholic.com

 

[Marymog]

2 Tim 2:
[15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You do know that Timothy is a pastoral letter from Paul to Timothy? Instructions to pastors/elders....

 

[Philip James]

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

www.catholic.com

Hello Illuminator,

Excellent.

the unwritten tenant of the Reformation is oneself may judge their elders and if unsatisfied may go out and preach ones own Truth and begin ones own 'church'.

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

All are welcome to come to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." Let the hearer say, "Come." Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water.


Pax et Bonum

 

[Taken]

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

Doesn’t matter to me what association (denomination) an individual chooses to be a member of.

I believe the Scripture is sufficient…
Scripture itself says; read the scriptures, search the scriptures, study the scriptures, Believe the scriptures…..AND: WHY…

Because:

2 Tim 3:
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Taken]

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

The interpretation OF Gods Word is interpreted BY God, the author of His Own Word.

The interpretation OF the US Constitution is interpreted BY it’s authors.

Certainly in either case, the Authors interpretation can (and often is) ignored…

Attorneys, courts, judges, can merely render their own interpretative OPINION.

An individual person can choose to trust the authors interpretation OR NOT.





But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

www.catholic.com

 

[Taken]

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings.

Giving ALL (self-deemed) negative credit to Protestantism is ridiculous on it’s face.

Individuals either trust an author’s interpretation of his own words or he doesn’t.

Any man can guess what an author of:
Books, poems, letters, songs, etc. MEANS…
It is the AUTHOR that knows his own interpretation.
“IF” an individual is so inclined to ASK the AUTHOR for his interpretation, then so also will that individual KNOW the Understanding of the Author’s interpretation.

God Himself has Provided a WAY FOR His “sons” to KNOW His interpretation and Understanding of His words.

Rather than DEBATE religious affiliations…it is “sons” of God who Have an OPEN DOOR to the Author of Gods Word to ASK Him anything.

 

[Taken]

Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

www.catholic.com

2 Thes 2:
[15] Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Are you implying the Catholic Church is the LONE Christian Denomination that Adheres to traditions TAUGHT by the Apostles, words or epistles?

Because MANY of the Catholic Churches TRADITIONS were NOT Taught by Jesus’ Words, the Apostles words, nor the Apostles epistles.

So what “traditions” are you calling necessary to arrive at the TRUTH?

 

[Taken]

You do know that Timothy is a pastoral letter from Paul to Timothy? Instructions to pastors/elders....

1 Tim 1:
[3] As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

Did your clerics get the memo?

 

[Marymog]

1 Tim 1:
[3] As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

Did your clerics get the memo?

Do you have the ability to answer a question:

You do know that Timothy is a pastoral letter from Paul to Timothy? Instructions to pastors/elders....

 

[Marymog]

2 Tim 3:
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

You have been corrected multiple times by me, @Illuminator and @BreadOfLife.

 

[Marymog]

2 Tim 3:
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Hey Taken,

What have your men taught you about this passage; 2 Peter 3:16? How do YOU decide who is twisting Scripture?

Example: When YOU have different interpretation of Scripture than what your men have taught you.........Are YOU twisting Scripture OR are they twisting Scripture? Is it your job to correct them and instruct them in righteousness? Or do you accept what they teach and adhere to what Scripture tells you to do in Hebrews 13:17?

Myself, @Illuminator and @BreadOfLife can answer those questions with complete confidence. Can you?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

1 Tim 1:
[3] As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

Did your clerics get the memo?

Yes Taken....Our "clerics", thru Apostolic Succession, adhere to the 2,000-year teachings/doctrines of The Church. They got the memo.......

Do your clerics adhere to that memo? (I already know you are not going to answer, but maybe you will surprise me and actually try to have a conversation)

Curious Mary

PS: at least you got @L.A.M.B. to "like" your condescending quip

 

[Marymog]

2 Thes 2:
[15] Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Are you implying the Catholic Church is the LONE Christian Denomination that Adheres to traditions TAUGHT by the Apostles, words or epistles?

Because MANY of the Catholic Churches TRADITIONS were NOT Taught by Jesus’ Words, the Apostles words, nor the Apostles epistles.

So what “traditions” are you calling necessary to arrive at the TRUTH?

Dear Taken,

I am not speaking for @Illuminator and I suspect he will give a more articulate answer than I will since he is more well read, but here is my 2 cents worth:

No, The Catholic Church is not the lone Christian church that adheres to the traditions that were taught by the Apostles. There are some Protestant denominations that have fallen away from The Church that adheres to them also.

What traditions that were taught by word of mouth or epistle do you adhere to taken? (I know you won't answer, but I am hopeful)



Mary

 

[Marymog]

IF/Then was a sufficient response.
The odd thing is, IF/Then is Scriptural teaching of Gods word and you think that is my Theory.

Dear, Dear Taken,

You can continue to lie to yourself all you want. IF/Then was NOT a sufficient response. Only YOU knew what it meant. It wasn't until you articulated your theory (misinterpretation and partial quoting of Scripture to support what you believe) in a different post that I better understood what you meant. I appreciate you having a conversation and clarifying what you believe in that latter post.

I say that you misinterpreted Scripture because you gave a (singular) passage from Scripture (Romans 10:9) to support your theory that "Believing, Saved and Quickened men CAN NOT lose their salvation." Here is what you have not been taught by your men:

To be saved one must first believe (John 3:16, Acts 16:31). They must be repentant and get baptized (Acts 2:38, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21). To be saved one must declare with your mouth (Luke 12:8, Romans 10:9). We will be judged and justified by our works (Romans 2:6, James 2:24).

IF one does all those things and they THEN continue doing them until the end, they will be saved. It is not a "do this one time and you are saved" offer by God. Even Paul knew/taught that (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

Why haven't your men taught you this?

Curious Mary

 

[Taken]

Do you have the ability to answer a question:

You do know that Timothy is a pastoral letter from Paul to Timothy? Instructions to pastors/elders....

Your need to box in a letter between “teachers/preachers” of the word of God AS IF, that letter, is EXCLUSIVE and should ONLY be LIMITED, read, considered BY “pastors”, is a load of irrelevant nonsense.

Anyone READING THAT Letter, becomes AWARE of things THEIR Pastor SHOULD be Teaching…and Challenge Pastor’s WHOSE teaching IS to the Contrary.

ALSO, A head of household…HAS the SAME information Available to him, to Teach and Pastor his own household … particularly his Children.

I already know you place a high and exclusive merit on Church Pastors…..However God did not exclude, as a matter of fact, INCLUDED individual households, the master of the household, the head of the household, with the responsibility of overseeing his household, according to Gods Word. Which means, the Head of House-hold, While not a “ORDAINED” recognized Pastor….needs to have the same knowledge and perform the same teaching in his own household.

So WHO IS THAT LETTER TO, pastoral teachers, from a pastoral teacher. And WHO is that LETTER FOR? Anyone who is taught BY an ordained pastoral teacher AND who anyone who is Head of his own household.