rkwright Posted September 6, 2006 Author Share Posted September 6, 2006 [quote name='Eutychus' post='1057787' date='Sep 6 2006, 11:58 AM'] I would submit that this be the FINAL TEST. [img]http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/bible.gif[/img] [/quote] But the Holy Bible wasn't even written during the times we are talking about. You said from Day One, yet the Bible, and wasn't put together for another 300 years. How are the likes of St Paul and St John supposed to stop apostacy when there is no Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 [quote name='Eutychus' post='1057787' date='Sep 6 2006, 12:58 PM'] I would submit that this be the FINAL TEST. [img]http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/bible.gif[/img] [/quote] so the bible answers you? ?? or is it more like what you think the bible says? your personal interpretation of what the bible says? and what if what you think it says is something different than another generic christian down the street? what makes your opinion any better than theirs? what makes budge right and the unitarians and jws and catholics wrong? unless you answer these questions you are blowing in the wind. I [b]dare[/b] you to answer these questions [ no cut and paste accepted] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Protestants have as their sole rule of faith the written Word of God, which we find in Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church has as its sole rule of faith, the entire Word of God, as it is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. All of the Word of God was at one time passed on orally...Sacred Tradition. Eventually, some of Sacred Tradition was written down...this became Sacred Scripture, which is written tradition. However, Scripture itself tells us that not all of the things that Jesus said and did were written down. And listen to what Paul says about "tradition": 2 Thes 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to "stand firm and hold to". Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 1 Cor 11:2, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 2 Tim 2:2: "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition. 1 Thes 2:13, "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers." So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture. In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church's teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. *** freely plagarized from www.biblechristiansociety.com with permission from the author *** : : Sorry folks, but the Bible itself states that the Bible itself is NOT the full deposit of faith, nor the "pillar and foundation of truth, which is the church...". Please do not pick and choose which verses to keep and which to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 [quote name='Eutychus' post='1057787' date='Sep 6 2006, 09:58 AM'] I would submit that this be the FINAL TEST. [img]http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/bible.gif[/img] [/quote] great.. the last time i talked to it and asked it if i was in error, it did not say much back to me in return... would not the inerrant Word of God (Bible) need and infallible interpretor (Church)? ain't there something about private interpretation that is kinda frowned upon in the Bible?? or do Catholic Bibles the only ones that don't talk back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eutychus Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 [quote] great.. the last time i talked to it and asked it if i was in error, it did not say much back to me in return...[/quote] I do believe you revealed there a LOT MORE about yourself, than you intended to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted September 6, 2006 Author Share Posted September 6, 2006 [quote name='Eutychus' post='1057998' date='Sep 6 2006, 04:32 PM'] I do believe you revealed there a LOT MORE about yourself, than you intended to do so. [/quote] You actually going to respond to the arguments in front of you?? or just make one liner comments that have nothing to do with anything... Lets make it out of 'round 1'... we're waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 I, as rkwright am still waiting for a response to some very important questions. When asked who is to decide what apostacy is, Eutychus responded by stating that the Holy Bible be the Final Test. Eutychus, Who should be trusted to properly interpret the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 There's something about Scripture twisting the weak of mind. Euty, yours can't even stay awake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Let's try to stay on topic. Eutychus, Who should be trusted to properly interpret the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budge Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 [quote]Who should be trusted to properly interpret the Bible?[/quote] Not these guys. [img]http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2006/03/24/1143218737_6220.jpg[/img] [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html"]CATHOLIC CHURCH NO LONGER SWEARS BY THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Thanks Budge, However, I asked who we [i]should[/i] trust. Notice how you evade the question. Please tell me who should be trusted to interpret scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budge Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 (edited) You [u]SHOULDNT[/u] trust them either. I know you folks love the word games. Remember Him? [size=5] Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [whi[u]ch is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,[/u] [b]he shall teach you all things[/b], and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.[/size] Edited September 9, 2006 by Budge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 How can it be that the Holy Spirit leads you to believe one thing, and the Methodist down the street something entirely different, and the Pentecostal something else? Surely God does not lie, He is Truth. So how is it that you and the X number of other Christian denominations all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit when you teach and believe different things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted September 9, 2006 Author Share Posted September 9, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1059572' date='Sep 9 2006, 10:24 AM'] You [u]SHOULDNT[/u] trust them either. I know you folks love the word games. Remember Him? [size=5] Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [whi[u]ch is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,[/u] [b]he shall teach you all things[/b], and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.[/size] [/quote] (1) We should only trust the Holy Spirit with regards to Scripture (2) Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles Tim 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (3) The Cardinals carry on the lineage of the Apostles (4) The Holy Spirit has stayed with the Cardinals (the Canon of scripture itself proves this) (5) We should listen to the Cardinals [quote]The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).[/quote] lets try the same thing with a protestant minister... ((1) We should only trust the Holy Spirit with regards to Scripture (2) Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles (3) The Holy Spirit was given to a protestant minister (4) We should trust a protestant minister Premise 3 is terrible at best. There is no proof of this at all. Therefore we should reject the conclusion (4). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budge Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 (edited) [quote](3) The Cardinals carry on the lineage of the Apostles[/quote] This is where your train falls off the tracks. [quote]We reject the claim of the Roman Church to be the true Church of God and the successors of the Apostles. Instead, we believe that the true successors of the Apostles are those who hold fast to Apostolic doctrine and Apostolic practice as revealed in the Word of God. We further reject as outlined in Para. 16 that Christ’s Church is identifiable and “subsists in [subsist in] the Catholic Church governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. The true Church consists of all those, and only those, who are in union with Christ through saving faith in his finished work on the Cross and whose union with Christ is exhibited in lives that reflect something of the holiness of God. [size=5]We further reject the specious claim that apostolic authority has been passed on through the laying on of hands and that the Pope is the true successor to Peter, as there is no Scrip-tural evidence that Peter was to head the Church and to have successors.[/size] This is especially true when we see that the early Church in Jerusalem was guided by James, the brother of Jesus, and not by Peter (Acts 15). [/quote] [url="http://www.the-highway.com/dominus.html"]LINK[/url] Apostolic succession is a myth. "Today's apostles" if they were legitimate would not preach interfaithism and joining with the NWO system. Rome makes claims to apostolic succession so you will follow. We were sent the Holy Spirit to lead us, not men who are easily corrupted. TODAYS APOSTLE? [img]http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/6/63/300px-Ourladyoftheangelsdedication.jpg[/img] [url="http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_08_18_Bunting_SundayReport.htm"]I DON"T THINK SO![/url] [quote] lets try the same thing with a protestant minister... ((1) We should only trust the Holy Spirit with regards to Scripture (2) Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles (3) The Holy Spirit was given to a protestant minister (4) We should trust a protestant minister Premise 3 is terrible at best. There is no proof of this at all. Therefore we should reject the conclusion (4).[/quote] Terrible argument because no one in Prot churches claims infallibility for mere men. If they err and go against God's Word, they are not to be followed. Notice I dont make excuses for the Word of Faithers, Benny Hinn and other apostates? Edited September 9, 2006 by Budge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now