So what do you do when you have two people who claim revelation from God, but they contradict each other? Which is correct? They can't both be, if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided. Upon what standard of truth will you decide?Waco1947 said:Again, I enter into the fray. Scripture is the inspired revelation of God but not the only revelation. God encounters humans with God-self's. I think of Jesus revelation to me that saved me and I think of mu own call from God. I, also, see the incarnation of God in other people, particularly people in mission and, of course, Matthew reminds of Christ in the hungry, naked, imprisoned, thirsty, etc. Christ's incarnation in these the least, the last, and the lost is a revelation from God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
214,058 Views |
2841 Replies |
Last: 8 min ago by Waco1947
It is you who cannot see. Invoking those in the communion of the saints has nothing to do with worshipping idols or gods. Just because you reject that belief doesn't make you correct. One more time (since you seem incredibly slow to grasp such a simple concept): seeking the intercession of all faithful people who have ever lived, who are alive now, or who may ever live is all the same in the eternal now. Pretty sure you will ignore it, but I commend to all Charles Williams' novel, Descent Into Hell. It profoundly influenced my perception of time. Williams was one of the Inklings along with Owen Barfield, JRR Tolkein, CS Lewis and others, btw.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If Catholics don't feel what they're doing is wrong, that it doesn't violate the part about bowing to graven images in the Ten Commandments, then why do they remove it from their teaching?Coke Bear said:I've been reading several commentaries on this. Essentially St. Augustine grouped the first two "thou shall not's" together because he saw that as an extension of the first "Have no other gods before me." He recognized that making images (statues, pictures, etc.) is not inherently wrong. (God commands Moses to make a serpent and cherubs for the Ark.) Worshiping them as gods is.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.
The bowing referred to in Exodus and Deuteronomy is concerned with worshiping the false idols that were "believed" to be actual Gods. No Catholic believes that the statues are gods.
You don't think Christians should bow. OK, but doesn't mean it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. There are certain things that I don't do a mass out of reverence that Catholics are permitted to do. That doesn't make me right or better. I just hold myself to a different standard.
Catholics don't believe that the cross or statues have "special power" or that they have "intercessory" ability. The angels and saints themselves do. Rev 5:8.
I've stated the Catholic belief here. You don't accept it. I feel that we should just move on from this topic.
And you can say that Catholics don't believe the statues to be gods all you like, but the inescapable fact is that they treat them as such. Catholics make supplications to the entities they represent, believing they have the ability to hear their thoughts and prayers, have "jurisdiction" over certain specific areas, and can effect results. This is no different than the worship of idols and gods in the pagan world. How is it that you can't see this?
This link may help if you have any interest in gaining some insight into acts of piety and reverence. Guessing you don't care, but hope springs. Bowing, kneeling, making the sign of the cross, and reverencing the altar are practiced among Episcopal churches. Some much more than others. Just depends on the local history and culture of each parish. I've been blessed to be in a parish where all of these things are practiced by most. Not a hint of idolatry, just love and respect.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your argument againt "personal Savior" is highly absurd. You're really trying here, but it just doesn't hold any water. "Savior" is a completely biblical concept, and Jesus being "personal" is a completely biblical concept. It'd be like saying although Mary being Jesus' "mother" is biblical, and her being "blessed" is biblical, you can't say "blessed mother" because that exact phrase isn't in the bible. You're REALLY reaching.Coke Bear said:You're dancing on both sides of the street here with your unbiblical belief of Sola Scriptura. You are adding to your bible. No where does the bible say that Jesus is the "Personal Savior." No passage in the bible forbids from giving someone a term of endearment.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Saying that even though Jesus is constantly referred to as "Lord" and "Savior", and that he is characterized as a personal God, the phrase "personal Savior" is invalid because that exact phrase isn't in the bible, is ridiculous and wholly misses the point. There IS scriptural backing to say that. There ISN'T any scriptural backing to claim Mary is the "Queen of Heaven". You have to infer that fact from an interpretation of Revelation which virtually no early Christian even though about, let alone believed. And then you have to explain why the woman in Revelation had birth pangs, if she is supposed to be a sinless Mary. The way you explain it is by using an ad hoc explanation, saying the pains represent her anguish at her son's crucifixion. Do you see what I mean? No scripture, just ad hoc inference and explanation. If God didn't clearly tell us Mary is "Queen", then He doesn't want you to think that, let alone build a whole system of worship around it.
If you believe that Jesus is the King of the Universe and Mary is His mother. They are both in heaven now. In the bible the mother of the king is the queen; therefore, it doesn't violent biblical norms to call her the Queen of Heaven. You just don't like it.Once again this is false. I have pointed out several references to those in the early Church that believed these dogmas:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Just because certain beliefs about Mary have been around a long time, it doesn't mean they aren't false beliefs. Again, this is an argument from tradition fallacy. The bottom line is, beliefs about Mary's sinlessness, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, etc. were not held by the early Christians, nor did they even enter their minds. These were slowly developed over time without any real witness or historical evidence, incorporated as tradition, and later dogmatized, then reinforced using the circular argument of the authority of the Church to decide what is true and what isn't, and using the power of anathematizing anyone who dares to go against it.
Immaculate Conception - Ascension of Isaiah 70 AD, Odes of Solomon 80 AD, Justin Martyr 155 AD, Irenaeus 189 AD, etc.
Perpetual Virginity - Protoevangelium of James 120 AD, Origen 248 AD, Hilary of Poitiers 354 AD, etc.
Assumption Epiphanius 377, Gregory of Tours 575 AD, Modestus of Jerusalem 634 AD, etc.
These are all considered part of the early Church. The last of the 7 recognized ecumenical councils didn't occur until 787 AD when the Church was still fighting against heresies and defining terms.You're dancing again. NO where in the bible does it state that one can bow to a cross. At best, you are hypocritical. At worst, you're an idolator.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Catholics CLEARLY remove the part about bowing to idols in the Ten Commandments in their teaching. That isn't debatable. The numbering issue is not what's relevant here, it's the removing of that part in their teaching. Bowing and kneeling to the cross, which I already explained before, is not idolatry if they consider the cross a symbol of Jesus, and therefore they're really bowing to Jesus. Although, I do believe Christians should not do it, because we shouldn't even make an appearance of idolatry. If, however, they were bowing to the cross because they are attributing special significance and power to that cross, and they are making appeals/prayers to it, then YES, that would be idolatry.
There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. It is a natural body posture. The commandment is to NOT make or worship something as a God. Protestants have statues and pictures of Jesus in their cars, homes, churches, etc. That would make them in violation of the commandment. Do you or your church put up a nativity set during Advent? That would be considered idolatry according to you.
For the last time on this, Catholic do not believe that statues are gods. Catholics are not worshiping the statues as gods. They are simply honoring a great person that lived a holy life that is not in heaven.Yes, you actually do. You place your wife in the same category as property in your ten commandments. That's disrespectful.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I know of no Protestant that puts wives in the category of property, nor do I know of any Scriptural reference that says to do this.Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
I will get into more detail tonight when I have more time, but Marian dogmas were NOT believed by the early church. Neither was the papacy or papal infallibility.
If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.
The Catholic belief that Protestants are putting their wives in the same category as property just because they include both property and their wives in that one commandment, is stupid and illogical. The commandment groups all the things that one should not covet together. Coveting is the subject. It makes sense to organize the commandments by they type of sin they're covering. You're argument is that since Protestants consider coveting ONE topic, it means that everything in the list of things not to covet is all equal to each other (property=spouse). This is complete logical nonsense. It just means one should not covet anything that belongs to one's neighbor. The commandment even groups humans together (wife, maidservant, manservant) to separate it from the house and animals. So this is yet another tremendous reach in search for a criticism in order to divert blame away from the blatant disregard of Scripture by Catholics when they remove a whole section.
Would you argue that a woman can covet another woman's husband, since the commandment was only against coveting wives? No, you wouldn't. So don't be similarly intellectually dishonest in your reading of the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. The Protestant version doesn't remove whole sections of the Commandments in their teaching, like the Catholics do. THAT's the issue.
Later tonight I will take on Sola Scriptura, or maybe later today if I have more time.
https://rcspirituality.org/finding_the_plug/introductory-rites-reverence-to-the-altar-and-greeting-of-the-assembled-people/
I see it a different way, curtpenn.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
This thread demonstrates that there are sharp disagreements between different groups on important Doctrines.
So how to resolve such disagreements?
One of the few things almost everyone in the Community of Christ agrees on, are the Gospel accounts. What Jesus said and did is consistent in the four canon Gospels. Now I agree that there were councils held to determine the authenticity of purported documents, but even the people who just took the Survey Religion courses know that authorship, internal consistency and consistency with the Old Testament were all confirmed.
That is, the veracity of Scripture was not dependent on the people who made the decision on Canon, but on the evidence submitted,
And I would never discount Scripture to the level of individual leaders, whom History has shown were and are quite fallible.
Saying scripture alone is wrong because scripture says so is not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
No, it is not a circular argument if the argument is between two groups who agree to the initial premise that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and the written testimonies about him are authentic, valid, and reliable. Because if this is an accepted premise, then it follows that the Old Testament is 100% authoritative because Jesus himself declared it ("every jot and tittle") and so is the word from the apostles (John 14:26). Therefore, Scripture (Old Testament + writings of apostles) is the word of God, as verified by Jesus himself. And according to the testimonies of Jesus, Jesus did not give the same stamp of authority onto anything else. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
Catholics and non-Catholic believers like Protestants both agree with the premise because ostensibly they share the same faith about Jesus, so concepts like "Sola Scriptura" can indeed be argued and "proven" in a logical sense. It only becomes a circular argument if the other party doesn't agree with the premise, i.e. non-believers.
I tend to agree with everything you said. Just don't think I can "prove" what I believe in the sense that I think these matters are inherently unprovable. Therefore, I depend on faith rather than proof. Spent 20 years trying to prove to my own satisfaction the validity of my beliefs before finally coming to a point of being somewhat past the need for proof. For me, the orthodox expression of the Anglican via media is both Catholic and Reformed and able to incorporate the truth of both traditions. Sadly, we mostly resolve disagreements with our feet.Oldbear83 said:I see it a different way, curtpenn.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
This thread demonstrates that there are sharp disagreements between different groups on important Doctrines.
So how to resolve such disagreements?
One of the few things almost everyone in the Community of Christ agrees on, are the Gospel accounts. What Jesus said and did is consistent in the four canon Gospels. Now I agree that there were councils held to determine the authenticity of purported documents, but even the people who just took the Survey Religion courses know that authorship, internal consistency and consistency with the Old Testament were all confirmed.
That is, the veracity of Scripture was not dependent on the people who made the decision on Canon, but on the evidence submitted,
And I would never discount Scripture to the level of individual leaders, whom History has shown were and are quite fallible.
Again, the underlying assumption cannot be proven so all such arguments are a form of infinite regression. All you are doing is arguing which is not persuasive or edifying to anyone and likely off putting and offensive to most.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it is not a circular argument if the argument is between two groups who agree to the initial premise that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and the written testimonies about him are authentic, valid, and reliable. Because if this is an accepted premise, then it follows that the Old Testament is 100% authoritative because Jesus himself declared it ("every jot and tittle") and so is the word from the apostles (John 14:26). Therefore, Scripture (Old Testament + writings of apostles) is the word of God, as verified by Jesus himself. And according to the testimonies of Jesus, Jesus did not give the same stamp of authority onto anything else. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
Catholics and non-Catholic believers like Protestants both agree with the premise because ostensibly they share the same faith about Jesus, so concepts like "Sola Scriptura" can indeed be argued and "proven" in a logical sense. It only becomes a circular argument if the other party doesn't agree with the premise, i.e. non-believers.
What do you hope to gain here? I can assure you that I think you are an ******* (if I'm being honest). But I'm old and not as circumspect in my expression as I might once have been.
I am sorry to say I agree with that last sentence. And far too many people would rather argue than try to learn what someone else is trying to say. They get into arguments, and before long only bitterness is produced.curtpenn said:I tend to agree with everything you said. Just don't think I can "prove" what I believe in the sense that I think these matters are inherently unprovable. Therefore, I depend on faith rather than proof. Spent 20 years trying to prove to my own satisfaction the validity of my beliefs before finally coming to a point of being somewhat past the need for proof. For me, the orthodox expression of the Anglican via media is both Catholic and Reformed and able to incorporate the truth of both traditions. Sadly, we mostly resolve disagreements with our feet.Oldbear83 said:I see it a different way, curtpenn.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
This thread demonstrates that there are sharp disagreements between different groups on important Doctrines.
So how to resolve such disagreements?
One of the few things almost everyone in the Community of Christ agrees on, are the Gospel accounts. What Jesus said and did is consistent in the four canon Gospels. Now I agree that there were councils held to determine the authenticity of purported documents, but even the people who just took the Survey Religion courses know that authorship, internal consistency and consistency with the Old Testament were all confirmed.
That is, the veracity of Scripture was not dependent on the people who made the decision on Canon, but on the evidence submitted,
And I would never discount Scripture to the level of individual leaders, whom History has shown were and are quite fallible.
It's nowhere in the Bible, but I can just see Jesus face-palming after some of the ways his followers have behaved.
It is oxymoronic to argue that using only scripture is wrong.....by using only an argument from scripture.curtpenn said:Saying scripture alone is wrong because scripture says so is not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
This is you to a tee.Oldbear83 said:I am sorry to say I agree with that last sentence. And far too many people would rather argue than try to learn what someone else is trying to say. They get into arguments, and before long only bitterness is produced.curtpenn said:I tend to agree with everything you said. Just don't think I can "prove" what I believe in the sense that I think these matters are inherently unprovable. Therefore, I depend on faith rather than proof. Spent 20 years trying to prove to my own satisfaction the validity of my beliefs before finally coming to a point of being somewhat past the need for proof. For me, the orthodox expression of the Anglican via media is both Catholic and Reformed and able to incorporate the truth of both traditions. Sadly, we mostly resolve disagreements with our feet.Oldbear83 said:I see it a different way, curtpenn.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
This thread demonstrates that there are sharp disagreements between different groups on important Doctrines.
So how to resolve such disagreements?
One of the few things almost everyone in the Community of Christ agrees on, are the Gospel accounts. What Jesus said and did is consistent in the four canon Gospels. Now I agree that there were councils held to determine the authenticity of purported documents, but even the people who just took the Survey Religion courses know that authorship, internal consistency and consistency with the Old Testament were all confirmed.
That is, the veracity of Scripture was not dependent on the people who made the decision on Canon, but on the evidence submitted,
And I would never discount Scripture to the level of individual leaders, whom History has shown were and are quite fallible.
It's nowhere in the Bible, but I can just see Jesus face-palming after some of the ways his followers have behaved.
It is ironic, not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is oxymoronic to argue that using only scripture is wrong.....by using only an argument from scripture.curtpenn said:Saying scripture alone is wrong because scripture says so is not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
Speaking of irony...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This is you to a tee.Oldbear83 said:I am sorry to say I agree with that last sentence. And far too many people would rather argue than try to learn what someone else is trying to say. They get into arguments, and before long only bitterness is produced.curtpenn said:I tend to agree with everything you said. Just don't think I can "prove" what I believe in the sense that I think these matters are inherently unprovable. Therefore, I depend on faith rather than proof. Spent 20 years trying to prove to my own satisfaction the validity of my beliefs before finally coming to a point of being somewhat past the need for proof. For me, the orthodox expression of the Anglican via media is both Catholic and Reformed and able to incorporate the truth of both traditions. Sadly, we mostly resolve disagreements with our feet.Oldbear83 said:I see it a different way, curtpenn.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
This thread demonstrates that there are sharp disagreements between different groups on important Doctrines.
So how to resolve such disagreements?
One of the few things almost everyone in the Community of Christ agrees on, are the Gospel accounts. What Jesus said and did is consistent in the four canon Gospels. Now I agree that there were councils held to determine the authenticity of purported documents, but even the people who just took the Survey Religion courses know that authorship, internal consistency and consistency with the Old Testament were all confirmed.
That is, the veracity of Scripture was not dependent on the people who made the decision on Canon, but on the evidence submitted,
And I would never discount Scripture to the level of individual leaders, whom History has shown were and are quite fallible.
It's nowhere in the Bible, but I can just see Jesus face-palming after some of the ways his followers have behaved.
In your old age, maybe you've forgotten that the underlying assumption is, at least ostensibly, agreed upon by both the parties in the debate. As such, your point here is irrelevant. So if anything, this post of yours is doing nothing but arguing.curtpenn said:Again, the underlying assumption cannot be proven so all such arguments are a form of infinite regression. All you are doing is arguing which is not persuasive or edifying to anyone and likely off putting and offensive to most.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it is not a circular argument if the argument is between two groups who agree to the initial premise that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and the written testimonies about him are authentic, valid, and reliable. Because if this is an accepted premise, then it follows that the Old Testament is 100% authoritative because Jesus himself declared it ("every jot and tittle") and so is the word from the apostles (John 14:26). Therefore, Scripture (Old Testament + writings of apostles) is the word of God, as verified by Jesus himself. And according to the testimonies of Jesus, Jesus did not give the same stamp of authority onto anything else. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
Catholics and non-Catholic believers like Protestants both agree with the premise because ostensibly they share the same faith about Jesus, so concepts like "Sola Scriptura" can indeed be argued and "proven" in a logical sense. It only becomes a circular argument if the other party doesn't agree with the premise, i.e. non-believers.
What do you hope to gain here? I can assure you that I think you are an ******* (if I'm being honest). But I'm old and not as circumspect in my expression as I might once have been.
What I hope to gain is simply putting out the truth. If you don't accept it, don't accept it. You can continue your silly insults - it only shows you really have no substance to argue. I'm actually all the more entertained by them. Besides, I fully expect the truth to be offensive to those in darkness. That is most definitely a biblical truth.
It is two contradictory concepts juxtaposed - scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right.curtpenn said:It is ironic, not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is oxymoronic to argue that using only scripture is wrong.....by using only an argument from scripture.curtpenn said:Saying scripture alone is wrong because scripture says so is not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
If you want to keep pedanticizing the issue instead of actually engage in substantive argument, then please go somewhere else.
The Gospels weren't plagiarized. They were written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events. 2 were written by Apostles and 2 were written by Associates of Apostles. In Ancient history, it was common not to write anything down for hundreds of years at times. The fact that the Gospels were written within a couple of decades after the events is remarkably fast for back then. The fulfilled prophecies prove the validity of Scripture. Nothing was added to the Bible either. That's false. A thinker will realize that the Bible is true. The Bible doesn't say to send money for Salvation. That's a lie. It's not a swindle. It's factual God's truth and you will be Judged by it.
It appears we have two parties in this thread - those that are debating the actual contest, and those on the sidelines acting like referees and spectators, throwing penalty flags and hurling insults at the visiting team.
Please, continue with your thoughts.
Please, continue with your thoughts.
Speaking of "morons".....curtpenn said:Speaking of irony...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This is you to a tee.Oldbear83 said:I am sorry to say I agree with that last sentence. And far too many people would rather argue than try to learn what someone else is trying to say. They get into arguments, and before long only bitterness is produced.curtpenn said:I tend to agree with everything you said. Just don't think I can "prove" what I believe in the sense that I think these matters are inherently unprovable. Therefore, I depend on faith rather than proof. Spent 20 years trying to prove to my own satisfaction the validity of my beliefs before finally coming to a point of being somewhat past the need for proof. For me, the orthodox expression of the Anglican via media is both Catholic and Reformed and able to incorporate the truth of both traditions. Sadly, we mostly resolve disagreements with our feet.Oldbear83 said:I see it a different way, curtpenn.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
This thread demonstrates that there are sharp disagreements between different groups on important Doctrines.
So how to resolve such disagreements?
One of the few things almost everyone in the Community of Christ agrees on, are the Gospel accounts. What Jesus said and did is consistent in the four canon Gospels. Now I agree that there were councils held to determine the authenticity of purported documents, but even the people who just took the Survey Religion courses know that authorship, internal consistency and consistency with the Old Testament were all confirmed.
That is, the veracity of Scripture was not dependent on the people who made the decision on Canon, but on the evidence submitted,
And I would never discount Scripture to the level of individual leaders, whom History has shown were and are quite fallible.
It's nowhere in the Bible, but I can just see Jesus face-palming after some of the ways his followers have behaved.
You walked right into it. I had to take it.
You argue endlessly about something that cannot truly be proven regardless of stipulations so your arguments are irrelevant. You are the pedant here. This is the truth as any reader can see. Happy to help entertain you since you clearly are incapable of critical thinking beyond the surface and are unlikely to actually learn something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In your old age, maybe you've forgotten that the underlying assumption is, at least ostensibly, agreed upon by both the parties in the debate. As such, your point here is irrelevant. So if anything, this post of yours is doing nothing but arguing.curtpenn said:Again, the underlying assumption cannot be proven so all such arguments are a form of infinite regression. All you are doing is arguing which is not persuasive or edifying to anyone and likely off putting and offensive to most.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it is not a circular argument if the argument is between two groups who agree to the initial premise that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and the written testimonies about him are authentic, valid, and reliable. Because if this is an accepted premise, then it follows that the Old Testament is 100% authoritative because Jesus himself declared it ("every jot and tittle") and so is the word from the apostles (John 14:26). Therefore, Scripture (Old Testament + writings of apostles) is the word of God, as verified by Jesus himself. And according to the testimonies of Jesus, Jesus did not give the same stamp of authority onto anything else. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
Catholics and non-Catholic believers like Protestants both agree with the premise because ostensibly they share the same faith about Jesus, so concepts like "Sola Scriptura" can indeed be argued and "proven" in a logical sense. It only becomes a circular argument if the other party doesn't agree with the premise, i.e. non-believers.
What do you hope to gain here? I can assure you that I think you are an ******* (if I'm being honest). But I'm old and not as circumspect in my expression as I might once have been.
What I hope to gain is simply putting out the truth. If you don't accept it, don't accept it. You can continue your silly insults - it only shows you really have no substance to argue. I'm actually all the more entertained by them. Besides, I fully expect the truth to be offensive to those in darkness. That is most definitely a biblical truth.
Don't think being called a moron by the likes of you is as meaningful as you pretend. Carry on with your delusions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Speaking of "morons".....curtpenn said:Speaking of irony...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This is you to a tee.Oldbear83 said:I am sorry to say I agree with that last sentence. And far too many people would rather argue than try to learn what someone else is trying to say. They get into arguments, and before long only bitterness is produced.curtpenn said:I tend to agree with everything you said. Just don't think I can "prove" what I believe in the sense that I think these matters are inherently unprovable. Therefore, I depend on faith rather than proof. Spent 20 years trying to prove to my own satisfaction the validity of my beliefs before finally coming to a point of being somewhat past the need for proof. For me, the orthodox expression of the Anglican via media is both Catholic and Reformed and able to incorporate the truth of both traditions. Sadly, we mostly resolve disagreements with our feet.Oldbear83 said:I see it a different way, curtpenn.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
This thread demonstrates that there are sharp disagreements between different groups on important Doctrines.
So how to resolve such disagreements?
One of the few things almost everyone in the Community of Christ agrees on, are the Gospel accounts. What Jesus said and did is consistent in the four canon Gospels. Now I agree that there were councils held to determine the authenticity of purported documents, but even the people who just took the Survey Religion courses know that authorship, internal consistency and consistency with the Old Testament were all confirmed.
That is, the veracity of Scripture was not dependent on the people who made the decision on Canon, but on the evidence submitted,
And I would never discount Scripture to the level of individual leaders, whom History has shown were and are quite fallible.
It's nowhere in the Bible, but I can just see Jesus face-palming after some of the ways his followers have behaved.
You walked right into it. I had to take it.
Here's what you said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is two contradictory concepts juxtaposed - scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right.curtpenn said:It is ironic, not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is oxymoronic to argue that using only scripture is wrong.....by using only an argument from scripture.curtpenn said:Saying scripture alone is wrong because scripture says so is not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
If you want to keep pedanticizing the issue instead of actually engage in substantive argument, then please go somewhere else.
Quote:
You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
This is not an oxymoron. It is also not this:
"scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right."
Try harder, crawdad.
Thank you for your post, BTD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This is you to a tee.Oldbear83 said:I am sorry to say I agree with that last sentence. And far too many people would rather argue than try to learn what someone else is trying to say. They get into arguments, and before long only bitterness is produced.curtpenn said:I tend to agree with everything you said. Just don't think I can "prove" what I believe in the sense that I think these matters are inherently unprovable. Therefore, I depend on faith rather than proof. Spent 20 years trying to prove to my own satisfaction the validity of my beliefs before finally coming to a point of being somewhat past the need for proof. For me, the orthodox expression of the Anglican via media is both Catholic and Reformed and able to incorporate the truth of both traditions. Sadly, we mostly resolve disagreements with our feet.Oldbear83 said:I see it a different way, curtpenn.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
This thread demonstrates that there are sharp disagreements between different groups on important Doctrines.
So how to resolve such disagreements?
One of the few things almost everyone in the Community of Christ agrees on, are the Gospel accounts. What Jesus said and did is consistent in the four canon Gospels. Now I agree that there were councils held to determine the authenticity of purported documents, but even the people who just took the Survey Religion courses know that authorship, internal consistency and consistency with the Old Testament were all confirmed.
That is, the veracity of Scripture was not dependent on the people who made the decision on Canon, but on the evidence submitted,
And I would never discount Scripture to the level of individual leaders, whom History has shown were and are quite fallible.
It's nowhere in the Bible, but I can just see Jesus face-palming after some of the ways his followers have behaved.
Ok, so I just got done explaining how we don't need to "truly prove" something that is mutually agreed upon between Catholics and Protestants as being true, therefore arguments stemming from this truth aren't "irrelevant". So I don't understand why you are continuing on like this. You're harping on a point that just doesn't apply here, seemingly just out of spite. Please get your tantrum over with, so a substantive debate can continue.curtpenn said:You argue endlessly about something that cannot truly be proven regardless of stipulations so your arguments are irrelevant. You are the pedant here. This is the truth as any reader can see. Happy to help entertain you since you clearly are incapable of critical thinking beyond the surface and are unlikely to actually learn something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In your old age, maybe you've forgotten that the underlying assumption is, at least ostensibly, agreed upon by both the parties in the debate. As such, your point here is irrelevant. So if anything, this post of yours is doing nothing but arguing.curtpenn said:Again, the underlying assumption cannot be proven so all such arguments are a form of infinite regression. All you are doing is arguing which is not persuasive or edifying to anyone and likely off putting and offensive to most.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it is not a circular argument if the argument is between two groups who agree to the initial premise that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and the written testimonies about him are authentic, valid, and reliable. Because if this is an accepted premise, then it follows that the Old Testament is 100% authoritative because Jesus himself declared it ("every jot and tittle") and so is the word from the apostles (John 14:26). Therefore, Scripture (Old Testament + writings of apostles) is the word of God, as verified by Jesus himself. And according to the testimonies of Jesus, Jesus did not give the same stamp of authority onto anything else. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.curtpenn said:Regardless of what one thinks about whether or not Sola Scriptura is Biblical, it cannot be "proven" to be true as it is a circular argument. This gets to the heart of the matter. The truth of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura or any other related construction can only be asserted and never proven. Think about that - can never be proven. We can only exercise faith and belief and hope in that portion of grace granted unto us that it is sufficient.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
You're kind of proving my point. So to begin this topic, please clarify your belief here. What does "Sola Scriptura" mean to you? And why do you think it is wrong?
Catholics and non-Catholic believers like Protestants both agree with the premise because ostensibly they share the same faith about Jesus, so concepts like "Sola Scriptura" can indeed be argued and "proven" in a logical sense. It only becomes a circular argument if the other party doesn't agree with the premise, i.e. non-believers.
What do you hope to gain here? I can assure you that I think you are an ******* (if I'm being honest). But I'm old and not as circumspect in my expression as I might once have been.
What I hope to gain is simply putting out the truth. If you don't accept it, don't accept it. You can continue your silly insults - it only shows you really have no substance to argue. I'm actually all the more entertained by them. Besides, I fully expect the truth to be offensive to those in darkness. That is most definitely a biblical truth.
Crawdad? Is that worse that "Pharisee"? Or worse than "a**hole"? I've lost track of your colorful metaphors.curtpenn said:Here's what you said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is two contradictory concepts juxtaposed - scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right.curtpenn said:It is ironic, not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is oxymoronic to argue that using only scripture is wrong.....by using only an argument from scripture.curtpenn said:Saying scripture alone is wrong because scripture says so is not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
If you want to keep pedanticizing the issue instead of actually engage in substantive argument, then please go somewhere else.Quote:
You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
This is not an oxymoron. It is also not this:
"scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right."
Try harder, crawdad.
The point was that "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical" asserts two contradictory concepts within the same phrase - one, that arguing from scripture alone is wrong; and the other, that arguing from scripture alone is right. So I called the phrase oxymoronic. If you just want to be a literary pedant rather than address my arguments regarding Sola Scriptura (or Mariology the papacy, etc) then I guess it's your prerogative to be a bore. However, if you've got any kind of a rebuttal to my arguments, then let's hear it. So far, it seems like the only contribution you want to make is hurl insults and argue out of spite. It's amusing, but I'm really looking to discuss this with others who have more substance.
The difference between us is that you rely on the traditions of fallible man, while I rely on the infallible word of God. I reject the belief in "invoking" saints and Mary for intercession, because that is completely unbiblical. This was NEVER taught by Jesus and his apostles, and it was never believed or practiced by the early Church. We are told that we have only ONE intercessor - Jesus. We are to pray, worship, praise, and make supplications from God (Jesus) and Him alone. The only intercessions we are to ask for is through Jesus alone. To believe that one must go through the saints or Mary for intercession is an attack on Jesus' character and nature.curtpenn said:It is you who cannot see. Invoking those in the communion of the saints has nothing to do with worshipping idols or gods. Just because you reject that belief doesn't make you correct. One more time (since you seem incredibly slow to grasp such a simple concept): seeking the intercession of all faithful people who have ever lived, who are alive now, or who may ever live is all the same in the eternal now. Pretty sure you will ignore it, but I commend to all Charles Williams' novel, Descent Into Hell. It profoundly influenced my perception of time. Williams was one of the Inklings along with Owen Barfield, JRR Tolkein, CS Lewis and others, btw.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If Catholics don't feel what they're doing is wrong, that it doesn't violate the part about bowing to graven images in the Ten Commandments, then why do they remove it from their teaching?Coke Bear said:I've been reading several commentaries on this. Essentially St. Augustine grouped the first two "thou shall not's" together because he saw that as an extension of the first "Have no other gods before me." He recognized that making images (statues, pictures, etc.) is not inherently wrong. (God commands Moses to make a serpent and cherubs for the Ark.) Worshiping them as gods is.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.
The bowing referred to in Exodus and Deuteronomy is concerned with worshiping the false idols that were "believed" to be actual Gods. No Catholic believes that the statues are gods.
You don't think Christians should bow. OK, but doesn't mean it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. There are certain things that I don't do a mass out of reverence that Catholics are permitted to do. That doesn't make me right or better. I just hold myself to a different standard.
Catholics don't believe that the cross or statues have "special power" or that they have "intercessory" ability. The angels and saints themselves do. Rev 5:8.
I've stated the Catholic belief here. You don't accept it. I feel that we should just move on from this topic.
And you can say that Catholics don't believe the statues to be gods all you like, but the inescapable fact is that they treat them as such. Catholics make supplications to the entities they represent, believing they have the ability to hear their thoughts and prayers, have "jurisdiction" over certain specific areas, and can effect results. This is no different than the worship of idols and gods in the pagan world. How is it that you can't see this?
Again, you can deny it all you want that you're not worshiping idols or gods. But the belief that saints and Mary are able to hear your thoughts and prayers is ascribing to them a divine quality. So if you go to saints and to Mary instead of Jesus like you're told to in Scripture, then do not be suprised if Jesus sees it that way. You've been warned.
Crawdad is a mostly southern colloquialism that describes someone who backs up. Taken from the typical defensive response of the crayfish when threatened to back up quickly and wave it's claws about. Consider it part of your continuing education. You're welcome.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Crawdad? Is that worse that "Pharisee"? Or worse than "a**hole"? I've lost track of your colorful metaphors.curtpenn said:Here's what you said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is two contradictory concepts juxtaposed - scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right.curtpenn said:It is ironic, not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is oxymoronic to argue that using only scripture is wrong.....by using only an argument from scripture.curtpenn said:Saying scripture alone is wrong because scripture says so is not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
If you want to keep pedanticizing the issue instead of actually engage in substantive argument, then please go somewhere else.Quote:
You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
This is not an oxymoron. It is also not this:
"scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right."
Try harder, crawdad.
The point was that "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical" asserts two contradictory concepts within the same phrase - one, that arguing from scripture alone is wrong; and the other, that arguing from scripture alone is right. So I called the phrase oxymoronic. If you just want to be a literary pedant rather than address my arguments regarding Sola Scriptura (or Mariology the papacy, etc) then I guess it's your prerogative to be a bore. However, if you've got any kind of a rebuttal to my arguments, then let's hear it. So far, it seems like the only contribution you want to make is hurl insults and argue out of spite. It's amusing, but I'm really looking to discuss this with others who have more substance.
Your incorrect usage of oxymoron is this example is typical of your pedantry and reliance on straw man constructions. Surprised you have any straw left. You change your choice of words and then misrepresent.
This is not an oxymoron: " one, that arguing from scripture alone is wrong; and the other, that arguing from scripture alone is right."
Speaking of insults, how do you think Roman Catholics or others who invoke Mary receive your invective here? Your behavior is certainly boorish.
Great question!
BTD said "So what do you do when you have two people who claim revelation from God, but they contradict each other? Which is correct? They can't both be, if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided. Upon what standard of truth will you decide?"
1. "if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided." Neither God nor the Holy Spirit are divided rather humans are divided on their interpretations of God and the Holy Spirit. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that God is love and by the Holy Spirit we know that love. Psalm 143:10
"Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Let your good spirit lead me on a level path.
Love is not divided. God is love .
2. You ask, "Upon what standard of truth will you decide?" Let I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."
The standard of truth is that which reveals God's love. All other standards are secondary and judged by love.
J
3. esus reduced the commandments to two Matthew 22: "37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Then this note by Jesus "40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I would suggest all interpretation of scripture rests on these two commandments.
If any belief or dogma or interpretation falls outside of the love commandment then it is false.
BTD said "So what do you do when you have two people who claim revelation from God, but they contradict each other? Which is correct? They can't both be, if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided. Upon what standard of truth will you decide?"
1. "if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided." Neither God nor the Holy Spirit are divided rather humans are divided on their interpretations of God and the Holy Spirit. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that God is love and by the Holy Spirit we know that love. Psalm 143:10
"Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Let your good spirit lead me on a level path.
Love is not divided. God is love .
2. You ask, "Upon what standard of truth will you decide?" Let I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."
The standard of truth is that which reveals God's love. All other standards are secondary and judged by love.
J
3. esus reduced the commandments to two Matthew 22: "37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Then this note by Jesus "40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I would suggest all interpretation of scripture rests on these two commandments.
If any belief or dogma or interpretation falls outside of the love commandment then it is false.
The difference between us is that I understand there are at least 3-5 Solas and am not a slave to Bibliolatry. Do I believe Holy Scripture is the divinely inspired (spirit breathed) Word of the Living God and is inerrant in its original language? Yes. That said, I have no way to prove that. I accept it on faith and recognize it for the circular argument it truly is. Further, I understand that it is possible for Christians to interpret and apply Scripture differently. Duh. How many denominations are there?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The difference between us is that you rely on the traditions of fallible man, while I rely on the infallible word of God. I reject the belief in "invoking" saints and Mary for intercession, because that is completely unbiblical. This was NEVER taught by Jesus and his apostles, and it was never believed or practiced by the early Church. We are told that we have only ONE intercessor - Jesus. We are to pray, worship, praise, and make supplications from God (Jesus) and Him alone. The only intercessions we are to ask for is through Jesus alone. To believe that one must go through the saints or Mary for intercession is an attack on Jesus' character and nature.curtpenn said:It is you who cannot see. Invoking those in the communion of the saints has nothing to do with worshipping idols or gods. Just because you reject that belief doesn't make you correct. One more time (since you seem incredibly slow to grasp such a simple concept): seeking the intercession of all faithful people who have ever lived, who are alive now, or who may ever live is all the same in the eternal now. Pretty sure you will ignore it, but I commend to all Charles Williams' novel, Descent Into Hell. It profoundly influenced my perception of time. Williams was one of the Inklings along with Owen Barfield, JRR Tolkein, CS Lewis and others, btw.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If Catholics don't feel what they're doing is wrong, that it doesn't violate the part about bowing to graven images in the Ten Commandments, then why do they remove it from their teaching?Coke Bear said:I've been reading several commentaries on this. Essentially St. Augustine grouped the first two "thou shall not's" together because he saw that as an extension of the first "Have no other gods before me." He recognized that making images (statues, pictures, etc.) is not inherently wrong. (God commands Moses to make a serpent and cherubs for the Ark.) Worshiping them as gods is.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.
The bowing referred to in Exodus and Deuteronomy is concerned with worshiping the false idols that were "believed" to be actual Gods. No Catholic believes that the statues are gods.
You don't think Christians should bow. OK, but doesn't mean it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. There are certain things that I don't do a mass out of reverence that Catholics are permitted to do. That doesn't make me right or better. I just hold myself to a different standard.
Catholics don't believe that the cross or statues have "special power" or that they have "intercessory" ability. The angels and saints themselves do. Rev 5:8.
I've stated the Catholic belief here. You don't accept it. I feel that we should just move on from this topic.
And you can say that Catholics don't believe the statues to be gods all you like, but the inescapable fact is that they treat them as such. Catholics make supplications to the entities they represent, believing they have the ability to hear their thoughts and prayers, have "jurisdiction" over certain specific areas, and can effect results. This is no different than the worship of idols and gods in the pagan world. How is it that you can't see this?
But the belief that saints and Mary are able to hear your thoughts and prayers is ascribing to them a divine quality. So if you go to saints and to Mary instead of Jesus like you're told to in Scripture, then do not be suprised if Jesus sees it that way. You've been warned.
You speak of the "early Church" as some arbitrary frozen period of time into which you have perfect insight. You should consider that most people were illiterate, there was no printing press, no mass communication, and so forth so it required centuries for Church practices and doctrine to develop. I know you know this but you disregard the implications. It simply isn't true that invoking Mary or the saints was "never believed or practiced by the early Church".
"The only intercessions we are to ask for is through Jesus alone." = Unbiblical right there.
"To believe that one must go through the saints or Mary for intercession is an attack on Jesus' character and nature." I don't know anyone who believes that one "must go through the saints or Mary for intercession. I certainly don't. Just another of your straw men.
" But the belief that saints and Mary are able to hear your thoughts and prayers is ascribing to them a divine quality." = Argumentum ad nauseum.
"Again, you can deny it all you want that you're not worshiping idols or gods." = Straw man.
"You've been warned." Your inner Inquisitor speaks.
Continuing education? Then do I get a thank you for explaining to you that Christians believe in Christianity?curtpenn said:Crawdad is a mostly southern colloquialism that describes someone who backs up. Taken from the typical defensive response of the crayfish when threatened to back up quickly and wave it's claws about. Consider it part of your continuing education. You're welcome.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Crawdad? Is that worse that "Pharisee"? Or worse than "a**hole"? I've lost track of your colorful metaphors.curtpenn said:Here's what you said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is two contradictory concepts juxtaposed - scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right.curtpenn said:It is ironic, not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is oxymoronic to argue that using only scripture is wrong.....by using only an argument from scripture.curtpenn said:Saying scripture alone is wrong because scripture says so is not an oxymoron.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ok, let's start here: you said "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical", correct?Quote:Sola Scriptura.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?
Can you see the oxymoron? You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
If you want to keep pedanticizing the issue instead of actually engage in substantive argument, then please go somewhere else.Quote:
You're saying that scripture alone is wrong because....scripture says so.
This is not an oxymoron. It is also not this:
"scripture only is wrong, scripture only is right."
Try harder, crawdad.
The point was that "Sola Scriptura is unbiblical" asserts two contradictory concepts within the same phrase - one, that arguing from scripture alone is wrong; and the other, that arguing from scripture alone is right. So I called the phrase oxymoronic. If you just want to be a literary pedant rather than address my arguments regarding Sola Scriptura (or Mariology the papacy, etc) then I guess it's your prerogative to be a bore. However, if you've got any kind of a rebuttal to my arguments, then let's hear it. So far, it seems like the only contribution you want to make is hurl insults and argue out of spite. It's amusing, but I'm really looking to discuss this with others who have more substance.
Your incorrect usage of oxymoron is this example is typical of your pedantry and reliance on straw man constructions. Surprised you have any straw left. You change your choice of words and then misrepresent.
This is not an oxymoron: " one, that arguing from scripture alone is wrong; and the other, that arguing from scripture alone is right."
Speaking of insults, how do you think Roman Catholics or others who invoke Mary receive your invective here? Your behavior is certainly boorish.
What would you call two contradictory concepts being asserted in one phrase?
You and perhaps others see it as an "invective". That's how it appears to someone in darkness when someone doesn't pull punches and just tells you the truth.
This is 100% FALSE and unbiblical. 1 Tim 2:5 states that:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The difference between us is that you rely on the traditions of fallible man, while I rely on the infallible word of God. I reject the belief in "invoking" saints and Mary for intercession, because that is completely unbiblical. This was NEVER taught by Jesus and his apostles, and it was never believed or practiced by the early Church. We are told that we have only ONE intercessor - Jesus. We are to pray, worship, praise, and make supplications from God (Jesus) and Him alone. The only intercessions we are to ask for is through Jesus alone. To believe that one must go through the saints or Mary for intercession is an attack on Jesus' character and nature.
"There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanitythe man Christ Jesus."
The first 4 verses before this say:
"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
You have confused mediation with intercession. There is a huge difference between the two. Paul calls us to pray for one another.
What is your evidence that praying to saints or to Mary was taught by, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles and/or the early church? How did it begin, and what was it based on, on what basis of truth? Was it based on what you believe to be the divinely inspired Word of God? If not, then what?curtpenn said:The difference between us is that I understand there are at least 3-5 Solas and am not a slave to Bibliolatry. Do I believe Holy Scripture is the divinely inspired (spirit breathed) Word of the Living God and is inerrant in its original language? Yes. That said, I have no way to prove that. I accept it on faith and recognize it for the circular argument it truly is. Further, I understand that it is possible for Christians to interpret and apply Scripture differently. Duh. How many denominations are there?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The difference between us is that you rely on the traditions of fallible man, while I rely on the infallible word of God. I reject the belief in "invoking" saints and Mary for intercession, because that is completely unbiblical. This was NEVER taught by Jesus and his apostles, and it was never believed or practiced by the early Church. We are told that we have only ONE intercessor - Jesus. We are to pray, worship, praise, and make supplications from God (Jesus) and Him alone. The only intercessions we are to ask for is through Jesus alone. To believe that one must go through the saints or Mary for intercession is an attack on Jesus' character and nature.curtpenn said:It is you who cannot see. Invoking those in the communion of the saints has nothing to do with worshipping idols or gods. Just because you reject that belief doesn't make you correct. One more time (since you seem incredibly slow to grasp such a simple concept): seeking the intercession of all faithful people who have ever lived, who are alive now, or who may ever live is all the same in the eternal now. Pretty sure you will ignore it, but I commend to all Charles Williams' novel, Descent Into Hell. It profoundly influenced my perception of time. Williams was one of the Inklings along with Owen Barfield, JRR Tolkein, CS Lewis and others, btw.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If Catholics don't feel what they're doing is wrong, that it doesn't violate the part about bowing to graven images in the Ten Commandments, then why do they remove it from their teaching?Coke Bear said:I've been reading several commentaries on this. Essentially St. Augustine grouped the first two "thou shall not's" together because he saw that as an extension of the first "Have no other gods before me." He recognized that making images (statues, pictures, etc.) is not inherently wrong. (God commands Moses to make a serpent and cherubs for the Ark.) Worshiping them as gods is.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.
The bowing referred to in Exodus and Deuteronomy is concerned with worshiping the false idols that were "believed" to be actual Gods. No Catholic believes that the statues are gods.
You don't think Christians should bow. OK, but doesn't mean it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. There are certain things that I don't do a mass out of reverence that Catholics are permitted to do. That doesn't make me right or better. I just hold myself to a different standard.
Catholics don't believe that the cross or statues have "special power" or that they have "intercessory" ability. The angels and saints themselves do. Rev 5:8.
I've stated the Catholic belief here. You don't accept it. I feel that we should just move on from this topic.
And you can say that Catholics don't believe the statues to be gods all you like, but the inescapable fact is that they treat them as such. Catholics make supplications to the entities they represent, believing they have the ability to hear their thoughts and prayers, have "jurisdiction" over certain specific areas, and can effect results. This is no different than the worship of idols and gods in the pagan world. How is it that you can't see this?
But the belief that saints and Mary are able to hear your thoughts and prayers is ascribing to them a divine quality. So if you go to saints and to Mary instead of Jesus like you're told to in Scripture, then do not be suprised if Jesus sees it that way. You've been warned.
You speak of the "early Church" as some arbitrary frozen period of time into which you have perfect insight. You should consider that most people were illiterate, there was no printing press, no mass communication, and so forth so it required centuries for Church practices and doctrine to develop. I know you know this but you disregard the implications. It simply isn't true that invoking Mary or the saints was "never believed or practiced by the early Church".
It's possible for Christians to interpret and apply scripture differently - but it's also possible for it to be incorrect. That's the issue here.
And what is "Bibliolatry" to someone who claims to believe the bible to be the inerrant, inspired Word of God? What does that mean?
No, I didn't confuse anything. Jesus is our only intercessor before God.Coke Bear said:This is 100% FALSE and unbiblical. 1 Tim 2:5 states that:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The difference between us is that you rely on the traditions of fallible man, while I rely on the infallible word of God. I reject the belief in "invoking" saints and Mary for intercession, because that is completely unbiblical. This was NEVER taught by Jesus and his apostles, and it was never believed or practiced by the early Church. We are told that we have only ONE intercessor - Jesus. We are to pray, worship, praise, and make supplications from God (Jesus) and Him alone. The only intercessions we are to ask for is through Jesus alone. To believe that one must go through the saints or Mary for intercession is an attack on Jesus' character and nature.
"There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanitythe man Christ Jesus."
The first 4 verses before this say:
"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
You have confused mediation with intercession. There is a huge difference between the two. Paul calls us to pray for one another.
curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The difference between us is that you rely on the traditions of fallible man, while I rely on the infallible word of God. I reject the belief in "invoking" saints and Mary for intercession, because that is completely unbiblical. This was NEVER taught by Jesus and his apostles, and it was never believed or practiced by the early Church. We are told that we have only ONE intercessor - Jesus. We are to pray, worship, praise, and make supplications from God (Jesus) and Him alone. The only intercessions we are to ask for is through Jesus alone. To believe that one must go through the saints or Mary for intercession is an attack on Jesus' character and nature.curtpenn said:It is you who cannot see. Invoking those in the communion of the saints has nothing to do with worshipping idols or gods. Just because you reject that belief doesn't make you correct. One more time (since you seem incredibly slow to grasp such a simple concept): seeking the intercession of all faithful people who have ever lived, who are alive now, or who may ever live is all the same in the eternal now. Pretty sure you will ignore it, but I commend to all Charles Williams' novel, Descent Into Hell. It profoundly influenced my perception of time. Williams was one of the Inklings along with Owen Barfield, JRR Tolkein, CS Lewis and others, btw.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If Catholics don't feel what they're doing is wrong, that it doesn't violate the part about bowing to graven images in the Ten Commandments, then why do they remove it from their teaching?Coke Bear said:I've been reading several commentaries on this. Essentially St. Augustine grouped the first two "thou shall not's" together because he saw that as an extension of the first "Have no other gods before me." He recognized that making images (statues, pictures, etc.) is not inherently wrong. (God commands Moses to make a serpent and cherubs for the Ark.) Worshiping them as gods is.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If someone is bowing in front of a cross because in their heart they are bowing to Jesus, then no, that is not idolatry. They are not having any gods before Jesus. But as I explained to you, I personally believe Christians shouldn't do it, just in case God would indeed consider it idolatry. So how that makes me hypocritical, you've lost me. However, if someone is bowing to the cross because they believe the cross to have special power and significance, and they believe it to have some kind of "intercessory" ability with Jesus, then YES, that would be idolatry.
The bowing referred to in Exodus and Deuteronomy is concerned with worshiping the false idols that were "believed" to be actual Gods. No Catholic believes that the statues are gods.
You don't think Christians should bow. OK, but doesn't mean it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with bowing. There are certain things that I don't do a mass out of reverence that Catholics are permitted to do. That doesn't make me right or better. I just hold myself to a different standard.
Catholics don't believe that the cross or statues have "special power" or that they have "intercessory" ability. The angels and saints themselves do. Rev 5:8.
I've stated the Catholic belief here. You don't accept it. I feel that we should just move on from this topic.
And you can say that Catholics don't believe the statues to be gods all you like, but the inescapable fact is that they treat them as such. Catholics make supplications to the entities they represent, believing they have the ability to hear their thoughts and prayers, have "jurisdiction" over certain specific areas, and can effect results. This is no different than the worship of idols and gods in the pagan world. How is it that you can't see this?
But the belief that saints and Mary are able to hear your thoughts and prayers is ascribing to them a divine quality. So if you go to saints and to Mary instead of Jesus like you're told to in Scripture, then do not be suprised if Jesus sees it that way. You've been warned.
"The only intercessions we are to ask for is through Jesus alone." = Unbiblical right there.==> no, Jesus is the only intercessor between us and God.
"To believe that one must go through the saints or Mary for intercession is an attack on Jesus' character and nature." I don't know anyone who believes that one "must go through the saints or Mary for intercession. I certainly don't. Just another of your straw men. ==> Catholics certainly do.
" But the belief that saints and Mary are able to hear your thoughts and prayers is ascribing to them a divine quality." = Argumentum ad nauseum. ==> does this somehow suggest it isn't true? Some people need constant repetition of the truth.
"Again, you can deny it all you want that you're not worshiping idols or gods." = Straw man.==> the Ten Commandments isn't a strawman. Prayer is worship. Bowing to statues in church is worship. Ascribing divine capacities to saints and to Mary, to which one makes supplications through prayer, is idolatry and hardly any different than what the pagan world did to their idols and gods.
"You've been warned." Your inner Inquisitor speaks.===> No, that warning is from God.
But what if one says that the Holy Spirit is telling them to allow gay marriage in Church, because it is loving of gays.....but the other says the Holy Spirit is telling them to NOT allow gay marriage in church, because that is loving toward God (and loving gays "as themselves", meaning that to love someone means they shouldn't encourage the sin of that person)? Both say they are following those two greatest commandments. But they are saying opposite things, and they both can't be right. So how do you decide?Waco1947 said:
Great question!
BTD said "So what do you do when you have two people who claim revelation from God, but they contradict each other? Which is correct? They can't both be, if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided. Upon what standard of truth will you decide?"
1. "if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided." Neither God nor the Holy Spirit are divided rather humans are divided on their interpretations of God and the Holy Spirit. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that God is love and by the Holy Spirit we know that love. Psalm 143:10
"Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Let your good spirit lead me on a level path.
Love is not divided. God is love .
2. You ask, "Upon what standard of truth will you decide?" Let I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."
The standard of truth is that which reveals God's love. All other standards are secondary and judged by love.
J
3. esus reduced the commandments to two Matthew 22: "37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Then this note by Jesus "40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I would suggest all interpretation of scripture rests on these two commandments.
If any belief or dogma or interpretation falls outside of the love commandment then it is false.
That's why we have the magisterium.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But what if one says that the Holy Spirit is telling them to allow gay marriage in Church, because it is loving of gays.....but the other says the Holy Spirit is telling them to NOT allow gay marriage in church, because that is loving toward God (and loving gays "as themselves", meaning that to love someone means they shouldn't encourage the sin of that person)? Both say they are following those two greatest commandments.Waco1947 said:
Great question!
BTD said "So what do you do when you have two people who claim revelation from God, but they contradict each other? Which is correct? They can't both be, if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided. Upon what standard of truth will you decide?"
1. "if God and His Holy Spirit is not divided." Neither God nor the Holy Spirit are divided rather humans are divided on their interpretations of God and the Holy Spirit. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that God is love and by the Holy Spirit we know that love. Psalm 143:10
"Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Let your good spirit lead me on a level path.
Love is not divided. God is love .
2. You ask, "Upon what standard of truth will you decide?" Let I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."
The standard of truth is that which reveals God's love. All other standards are secondary and judged by love.
J
3. esus reduced the commandments to two Matthew 22: "37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Then this note by Jesus "40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I would suggest all interpretation of scripture rests on these two commandments.
If any belief or dogma or interpretation falls outside of the love commandment then it is false.