Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We've been over these verses. I won't repeat all discussed but the first verse isn't referring to baptism. The others do not say baptism is essential. Indeed no verses say that and Christ is clear that faith alone is all that is necessary.

---

John 3:5 - Unless one if born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God
Matt 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, ..."

Sounds like Jesus really meant what he said. Please find an early source with supports your claim.

Mothra said:

---

Saying those verses support your position and those verse actually supporting your position are two very different things. I don't believe any reasonable person would read those verses, especially in context with christs words, and hold as you do. It's just not an intellectually honest position.

---

You're statemen was that those beliefs are NOT "rooted (much less mentioned) in scripture". I have demonstrated that they are rooted in scripture. You don't accept the interpretations. I merely stated that your point was incorrect and provided a better statement that we could possibly agree upon. You have chosen to stick to your guns.

Mothra said:

---

And no, all of those other denoms do not hold baptism is essential. That's not accurate

---

Please forgive my inclusion of the Presbyterians and Methodists. I was misremembering there.

Irrespective, more than 60% of Christians today, believe that it is salvific. It's not just a Catholic/protestant debate.

---

Again, we've been over this, so at the risk of repeating myself...

With respect to John 3:5, we undoubtedly agree that entering God's Kingdom requires a spiritual transformation, i.e. a new birth, symbolized by cleansing (water) and renewal (Spirit) by God which indicates a fundamental inner change brought about by the Holy Spirit. In other words, there is a single spiritual rebirth, where "water and the Spirit" describe two aspects of the same divine work of regeneration. Throughout scripture, water often symbolizes purification from sin, while the "Spirit" signifies the new life God imparts. In short, water in this verse is a metaphor for God's Word or the Holy Spirit's work - again, a metaphor used repeatedly in both NT and Old.

Notice what John 3:5 doesn't say, even though it could. Christ doesn't say, "Unless one is baptized of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God," despite his use of the term "baptism" on several occasions, including in Matt 16:16. Indeed, that is because Christ is very clear that is it by faith alone we are saved. See John 3:16; 6:40. And then of course, we have the thief on the cross, who of course disproves your entire narrative.

As for Mark 16:16, let's take a closer look at the entire verse, and not just the first part you quoted. The entire verse reads: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever disbelieves will be condemned." Interestingly, Christ doesn't mention baptism in the latter half of the verse when he speaks of condemnation, does he? He once again merely refers to faith or rather lack thereof (i.e. disbelief).

And of course, there is so much other NT scripture that talks about salvation without mentioning baptism:

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

But putting all that aside for a moment, I again go back to the fact that while scripture has repeatedly told us how we can be saved, not a single verse in scripture states that baptism is necessary for salvation. None of these verses you quoted, and no other verses. And once again, therein lies the problem with the Catholic position on the subject. There is no legitimate, intellectually honest "interpretation" that deems water baptism as necessary for salvation.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Rooted in their argument about the infallible canon is their claim for an infallible authority to authenticate their unbiblical traditions. They need to establish that the same authority behind the canon is the same authority behind their traditions. You claim authority for the canon, you claim authority to add anything you want to what the original apostles taught. That's how you get from the gospel of grace.... to a gospel of works, an insufficient divine sacrifice requiring sacraments and purgatory to make man "right" with God, and even giving Mary credit for our salvation.

---

You are half correct here.

You are COMPETELY incorrect about the Church's traditions being unbiblical. They are ALL biblical, you just don't accept them.

The part that you are correct about is the fact that the Church does have the infallible authority to discern canon and that means that Scripture is NOT the ONLY sole infallible rule.

This frightens you so much. Because it shatters your false believe in sola scriptura. And if that is false (which it is), it destroys your whole made-up theology.

---

We don't accept your arguments that your traditions are biblical, because they are all complete non sequitur eisegetical nonsense, as has been repeatedly shown throughout this and many other threads. Shall we demonstrate it again here? Show how the assumption of Mary is biblical. Show how icon veneration is biblical. Then explain how your church has an "infallible authority to discern canon", when we have to ask, "WHICH of your canons?" Because your church has approved different canons in different ecumenical councils, and then contradicted those canons at the Council of Trent. "Infallible" indeed.

And it needs to be asked: WHERE are we told that your church has this supposed infallibility to discern the canon? Where and when did God say this? In Scripture? If that's your claim, then your "authority" is mired in a circular argument fallacy.

"Frightened"? The only thing that frightens me is how deep in deception you Roman Catholics are. The only "made up theology" here is the one that has abandoned the sole infallible authority of Scripture while claiming infallibility for themselves, which has directly led to the bowing and praying to images of Mary, naming churches after her, going to her for salvation, and crediting her for it. This is such a PAINFULLY OBVIOUS and egregiously wicked heresy and idolatry even to the most ignorant and baby Christian, that it only reveals the depth of your deception. There is simply no explanation for not being able to discern it, other than the fact that you just aren't a true Christian. WAKE UP. This is your fair warning.

---

Assumption of Mary - Rev 11:19 - 12:2,5

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.... She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

Notice that John is discussing the Ark which is in Heaven. The original arc is still hidden on earth in a cave somewhere. The Ark (of the New Covenant) is Mary, who is now in heaven. The next passage directly links the her/the Ark to the Woman in Heaven who is pregnant with the child that will rule with an iron scepter (Psalms 2:9 - a fullfilment of the messianic prophesy.)

Venerations of Icons - Numbers 21:8 -

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live."

These aren't the topic at hand, it's sola scriptura.

Which can't prove itself as the ONLY sole rule of faith. Someone has got to determine what was canon and what wasn't.

---

This demonstrates yet another fundamental problem of Catholicism - citing verses that they allege support theological concepts that just don't state or even suggest same. None of those verses support the theological concept of the assumption of Mary or her veneration.

These are simply not logical or intellectually honest arguments in support of your position.

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

So, gist is, icon veneration is not mentioned in scripture, and it's not mention pre 350 AD, but so what.

Ok.

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

When you're basing your position on icon veneration on Chapters 5 through 8 of Revelation, you're in trouble.

Talk about reading something into scripture that simply isn't there. Remarkable.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Rooted in their argument about the infallible canon is their claim for an infallible authority to authenticate their unbiblical traditions. They need to establish that the same authority behind the canon is the same authority behind their traditions. You claim authority for the canon, you claim authority to add anything you want to what the original apostles taught. That's how you get from the gospel of grace.... to a gospel of works, an insufficient divine sacrifice requiring sacraments and purgatory to make man "right" with God, and even giving Mary credit for our salvation.

---

You are half correct here.

You are COMPETELY incorrect about the Church's traditions being unbiblical. They are ALL biblical, you just don't accept them.

The part that you are correct about is the fact that the Church does have the infallible authority to discern canon and that means that Scripture is NOT the ONLY sole infallible rule.

This frightens you so much. Because it shatters your false believe in sola scriptura. And if that is false (which it is), it destroys your whole made-up theology.

---

We don't accept your arguments that your traditions are biblical, because they are all complete non sequitur eisegetical nonsense, as has been repeatedly shown throughout this and many other threads. Shall we demonstrate it again here? Show how the assumption of Mary is biblical. Show how icon veneration is biblical. Then explain how your church has an "infallible authority to discern canon", when we have to ask, "WHICH of your canons?" Because your church has approved different canons in different ecumenical councils, and then contradicted those canons at the Council of Trent. "Infallible" indeed.

And it needs to be asked: WHERE are we told that your church has this supposed infallibility to discern the canon? Where and when did God say this? In Scripture? If that's your claim, then your "authority" is mired in a circular argument fallacy.

"Frightened"? The only thing that frightens me is how deep in deception you Roman Catholics are. The only "made up theology" here is the one that has abandoned the sole infallible authority of Scripture while claiming infallibility for themselves, which has directly led to the bowing and praying to images of Mary, naming churches after her, going to her for salvation, and crediting her for it. This is such a PAINFULLY OBVIOUS and egregiously wicked heresy and idolatry even to the most ignorant and baby Christian, that it only reveals the depth of your deception. There is simply no explanation for not being able to discern it, other than the fact that you just aren't a true Christian. WAKE UP. This is your fair warning.

---

Assumption of Mary - Rev 11:19 - 12:2,5

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.... She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

Notice that John is discussing the Ark which is in Heaven. The original arc is still hidden on earth in a cave somewhere. The Ark (of the New Covenant) is Mary, who is now in heaven. The next passage directly links the her/the Ark to the Woman in Heaven who is pregnant with the child that will rule with an iron scepter (Psalms 2:9 - a fullfilment of the messianic prophesy.)

Venerations of Icons - Numbers 21:8 -

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live."

These aren't the topic at hand, it's sola scriptura.

Which can't prove itself as the ONLY sole rule of faith. Someone has got to determine what was canon and what wasn't.

---

Just as I said - complete, non sequitur eisegetic nonsense.

There is nothing that says the woman in Revelation is Mary. It is highly symbolic imagery, not a real person. And even if it were, clearly she is feeling pain at childbirth which means she had sin, which goes against your belief in her sinlessness. So you're defeating your own beliefs. And also, even if that were Mary, there is nothing there that suggests she was "assumed" bodily into heaven eiher, only that she is IN heaven, like all believers are.

There is nothing that says the ark is Mary. And EVEN if your distorted mind says that it is, still, nothing there suggests she was assumed bodily into heaven, but only that she is IN heaven.

The serpent was not something they bowed and prayed to, as if it were a "window" to God. It was a prefigurement of Jesus. Now that Jesus has come, there is no instruction or reference whatsoever in all of the New Testament for Christians to do this. There is not a single instance of Jesus' church using pictures and images of himself or departed believers as part of prayer and worship. And in fact, it was the unanimous consensus among the early church fathers that icon veneration was forbidden.

And how many times are you going to repeat your failed argument about "scripture must prove scripture" in order for sola scriptura to be correct? Can you really not understand the logical flaw in that? Or that sola scriptura doesn't exist before scripture does? I'm literally talking to a wall.

Like I've already said, someone HAS told us what scripture is - Jesus. We believe him through faith. Jesus only gave his stamp of approval on the Tanakh and the words of the apostles. There is no "authority" that decides what the apostles wrote. The knowledge of what they wrote was known first hand by the first century Christians, which they passed down through testimony. The "authorities" were only essential in their preservation of that testimony. And it's obvious that this process was NOT infallible, as even Roman Catholic history reveals, given that the Council of Trent contradicted it's own previous councils, and even anathematized their rulings on the canon. None of you seem to want to deal with this fact. It's pretty obvious why.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Prime example why we must have an authority outside of scripture. Hermeneutics gone crazy. These people are literally convinced that scripture tells them this is righteous.

---

Sooo ironic.....

---

Let me add that I fully agree with you - wo DO need an authority outside of Scripture to keep people in line with Scripture. But this authority is NOT INFALLIBLE like Scripture, and is always subject to correction by Scripture. That's the key point of sola scriptura.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

So, gist is, icon veneration is not mentioned in scripture, and it's not mention pre 350 AD, but so what.

Ok.

---

It's mentioned in Revelations, the OT and elsewhere in the NT. Dura-Europos Church has icons dating back to 240AD.

Relics were present in the earliest days: Cloths that touched Paul's body are carried to the sick, and God works healings through them (Acts 19:1112). Scripture doesn't explain this away as symbolism, it presents it as God acting through material remains connected to His saints.

God commands Moses to make golden cherubim for the Ark (Exod. 25:1822), cherubim are woven into the Tabernacle (Exod. 26:1). Solomon's Temple is filled with carved images (1 Kings 67). Israel bows and prays facing the Ark (Josh. 7:6; Ps. 99:5) without worshiping wood or gold.

God commands an image through which He heals (Num. 21:89), and it's only destroyed later when people start worshiping it (2 Kings 18:4). Scripture condemns worshiping images, but commands using them.

Icons depict the Person of Christ. If Christ is one Person, His humanity is the humanity of God, and therefore can be depicted, venerated, and kissed without idolatry. We can't risk slipping into nestorianism.

If iconoclasm is accepted as a principle, it doesn't stop with icons. If matter can't truly mediate divine presence, then the Real Presence in the Eucharist becomes symbolic, baptismal regeneration also becomes symbolic, and the visible unity of the Church doesn't exist.

Christ is very real. He's not symbolic or intellectual.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Prime example why we must have an authority outside of scripture. Hermeneutics gone crazy. These people are literally convinced that scripture tells them this is righteous.

---

Sooo ironic.....

---

Let me add that I fully agree with you - wo DO need an authority outside of Scripture to keep people in line with Scripture. But this authority is NOT INFALLIBLE like Scripture, and is always subject to correction by Scripture. That's the key point of sola scriptura.

---

This transpired under sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura doesn't eliminate infallible authority, it relocates it to whoever happens to be interpreting Scripture at the moment.

I say the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ based on scripture. You say the complete opposite. Whose right?

Do you understand that Protestantism itself is a liberal, revolutionary, anti-authoritarian version of Christianity? It was always going to be progressive. It's terrifying to think what Millennials and Gen Z are going to turn it into.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayYes that's all that canonization means, recognizing what scripture comes from God. You'e just stating that God knows what scripture comes from Him as if that knowledge was written down and given to us, which it wasn't. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There were Christians pushing gnostic scripture early on. They thought it came from God, but they were wrong.
The Church debated on whether Hebrews, James and Revelation were legit or not. Many Christians said no.
If no authoritative judgment took place, then no one could say the gnostics were wrong or that Hebrews and Revelation belong in Scripture. But Christians do say that because the early Church settled the matter on the basis of apostolic authority.

The New Testament you use was recognized by the same Church you claim has no authority. There's no way around this. The moment you admit that some Christians were wrong and the Church had to resolve the dispute, you've already conceded authoritative canonization.

---

"Canonization" is an ecclesial act of man, who being fallible, may or may not correctly recognize the true canon, which is from God. We both agree that God's word is his word the moment it's written, NOT when it's declared to be so by man. You're not being honest with the implications of this. It clearly means that man does not have the "authority" to determine canon, only the responsibility to recognize and receive it. It is God that is the authority behind the canon. Let's start there - do you agree with this?

---

You can't move from "this happened" to "this must be binding" without a normative authority to bridge the gap.

We're talking solely about a book's status as being inspired by God.

You're moving from a descriptive claim about what happened (God's word when written) to a normative claim about what must be accepted, without explaining what bridges that gap.

---

I've told you what bridges that gap many times already. If we believe in the apostles' testimony, that Jesus died and rose from the dead, it means he is Lord. And the Lord told us what is the canon himself. I'd say that's a pretty solid basis for what must be accepted. Any "authority" of man that doesn't listen to Jesus is only making man's bible, not God's.

---

When in history did our Lord tell us what the canon is? How did he tell us what scripture belonged in the New Testament? Is that written down?

---

Are you not paying any attention to anything I'm saying? Am I talking to a wall?

---

You said "the Lord told us what is the canon himself".

I'm asking you to point out when and how that took place.

---

If the canon is to contain only the divine inspired word of God, then Jesus told us what that is. I've already shown you where. If you want to give men the authority to declare what that is instead of Jesus, then you're following the fallible canon of man, not the infallible canon of God.

---

So the 27 books in the New Testament in the Bible you own just happen to match the Church's testimony about which writings count as apostolic and inspired?

---

Yes, to their "testimony" as to the accurate history and preservation of the self-authenticating word of the apostles, as affirmed by the first-hand witness of the first century church - NOT through any inherent "church authority" to decide on its authentication and declare it as such.

"Testimony" is a much more accurate conceptualization of the canon process than "authority". There was only ONE authority over Scripture - the knowledge of which has been passed down in time fully preserved, through man's "testimony" rather than man's "authority".

---

You keep insisting on "testimony" instead of "authority," as if renaming the act somehow changes what's happening. It doesn't. If testimonies conflict, which they did on a tremendous level, someone must judge which testimony is true, which is false, and which is rejected. That act is authority in function, whether you like the word or not.

Jesus never defined the Trinity, Scripture never lists a Nicene formulation, and early Christians violently disagreed about it. By your logic (testimony without authority) why is Nicene Trinitarianism, that you hold to, binding rather than just the view that survived historically?

---

"Testimony" was YOUR word.

It's not changing what's happening, but what's happening is not an act of "authority" - rather, what the church did was formally recognize what was already known and practiced widely among the body of believers, knowledge which was received in a line of "testimonies" in succession from one preceding generation to the next, all of which traced back to the very first Christians who could directly authenticate the apostolicity of the writings in question. There was already a recognized and circulated canon among the churches that included the Gospels and the apostles' letters by the end of the first century resulting from this process.

The role of the church through its formal councils in the 4th century and beyond, was another link in that chain of testimony. Their decisions were fully subject to and dependent on the reliable testimony of those preceding them, in the same way that our understanding of the canon is dependent on the reliable transmission of that reliable testimony from those church councils which preceded us. In each link, the "decision" over the truthfulness or falseness of the preceding link's assessment has to be made. If you call this "authority", then every link in the chain can claim "authority" over succeeding links with regard to the canon. This would even subject the authority of the original apostles to the first Christians who had to "decide" the truthfulness of what they were saying. This makes the "authority" concept meaningless. Thus, the concept of "testimony" is a far better and more accurately reflects the mechanism behind the formulation of the canon.

---

Yet there was debate, and someone had to settle it. That's what you're missing.

The Council of Trent did not contradict earlier councils.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Prime example why we must have an authority outside of scripture. Hermeneutics gone crazy. These people are literally convinced that scripture tells them this is righteous.

---

Sooo ironic.....

---

Let me add that I fully agree with you - wo DO need an authority outside of Scripture to keep people in line with Scripture. But this authority is NOT INFALLIBLE like Scripture, and is always subject to correction by Scripture. That's the key point of sola scriptura.

---

This transpired under sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura doesn't eliminate infallible authority, it relocates it to whoever happens to be interpreting Scripture at the moment.

I say the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ based on scripture. You say the complete opposite. Whose right?

Do you understand that Protestantism itself is a liberal, revolutionary, anti-authoritarian version of Christianity? It was always going to be progressive. It's terrifying to think what Millennials and Gen Z are going to turn it into.

---

All of the arguments we're getting from you and the RC's are complete mischaracterizations, misconceptions, eisegetical nonsense, and straw men. It's getting quite ridiculous.

Sola scriptura does not relocate infallible authority. This is just a failed understanding of the concept. Ironically, your argument applies perfectly to what's happening in Roman Catholicism. When the church has the authority over the canon and its interpretation, ultimately, infalliblity is re-allocated to the church. It becomes solo ecclesia.

Your statement about Protestant beliefs regarding the Eucharist is another such example. Protestants have no problem with the view that there is a "real presence" of Jesus in the communion bread and win. The issue is what you mean by "real presence". Protestants are fine with the view that the presence is spiritual, no different than when Jeus is "present" when you pray. What we do NOT believe is transubstantiation - the presence is physical, that Jesus is physically embodied in the bread, and his blood in the wine.

I think it's pretty clear from Scripture that transubstantiation is incorrect. The literal interpretation of Jesus' flesh and blood having to be consumed would make no sense and would contradict many parts of Scripture. You as a prospective Orthodox Christian also believe that RC has it wrong too, correct? So whose "authority" is right between you two, their magisterium or yours?

Your last paragraph is just a ridiculous statement that is taking biased samples of false Protestant churches and applying it to the whole of Protestantism. Protestantism is nothing but the return to the original faith as given by the apostles, which was required because of egregious abuses and distortions by Catholicism. One part of your statement is correct, though - we are anti-authoritarians, which is a good and right thing. It is quite perplexing how you guys easily understand the problem of authoritarianism in politics, which is that since man is fallible, no one man should have all power because it will corrupt - but then you fully support it in religion, as if your understanding of the danger of man's fallibility completely disappears.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc HollidayYes that's all that canonization means, recognizing what scripture comes from God. You'e just stating that God knows what scripture comes from Him as if that knowledge was written down and given to us, which it wasn't. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There were Christians pushing gnostic scripture early on. They thought it came from God, but they were wrong.
The Church debated on whether Hebrews, James and Revelation were legit or not. Many Christians said no.
If no authoritative judgment took place, then no one could say the gnostics were wrong or that Hebrews and Revelation belong in Scripture. But Christians do say that because the early Church settled the matter on the basis of apostolic authority.

The New Testament you use was recognized by the same Church you claim has no authority. There's no way around this. The moment you admit that some Christians were wrong and the Church had to resolve the dispute, you've already conceded authoritative canonization.

---

"Canonization" is an ecclesial act of man, who being fallible, may or may not correctly recognize the true canon, which is from God. We both agree that God's word is his word the moment it's written, NOT when it's declared to be so by man. You're not being honest with the implications of this. It clearly means that man does not have the "authority" to determine canon, only the responsibility to recognize and receive it. It is God that is the authority behind the canon. Let's start there - do you agree with this?

---

You can't move from "this happened" to "this must be binding" without a normative authority to bridge the gap.

We're talking solely about a book's status as being inspired by God.

You're moving from a descriptive claim about what happened (God's word when written) to a normative claim about what must be accepted, without explaining what bridges that gap.

---

I've told you what bridges that gap many times already. If we believe in the apostles' testimony, that Jesus died and rose from the dead, it means he is Lord. And the Lord told us what is the canon himself. I'd say that's a pretty solid basis for what must be accepted. Any "authority" of man that doesn't listen to Jesus is only making man's bible, not God's.

---

When in history did our Lord tell us what the canon is? How did he tell us what scripture belonged in the New Testament? Is that written down?

---

Are you not paying any attention to anything I'm saying? Am I talking to a wall?

---

You said "the Lord told us what is the canon himself".

I'm asking you to point out when and how that took place.

---

If the canon is to contain only the divine inspired word of God, then Jesus told us what that is. I've already shown you where. If you want to give men the authority to declare what that is instead of Jesus, then you're following the fallible canon of man, not the infallible canon of God.

---

So the 27 books in the New Testament in the Bible you own just happen to match the Church's testimony about which writings count as apostolic and inspired?

---

Yes, to their "testimony" as to the accurate history and preservation of the self-authenticating word of the apostles, as affirmed by the first-hand witness of the first century church - NOT through any inherent "church authority" to decide on its authentication and declare it as such.

"Testimony" is a much more accurate conceptualization of the canon process than "authority". There was only ONE authority over Scripture - the knowledge of which has been passed down in time fully preserved, through man's "testimony" rather than man's "authority".

---

You keep insisting on "testimony" instead of "authority," as if renaming the act somehow changes what's happening. It doesn't. If testimonies conflict, which they did on a tremendous level, someone must judge which testimony is true, which is false, and which is rejected. That act is authority in function, whether you like the word or not.

Jesus never defined the Trinity, Scripture never lists a Nicene formulation, and early Christians violently disagreed about it. By your logic (testimony without authority) why is Nicene Trinitarianism, that you hold to, binding rather than just the view that survived historically?

---

"Testimony" was YOUR word.

It's not changing what's happening, but what's happening is not an act of "authority" - rather, what the church did was formally recognize what was already known and practiced widely among the body of believers, knowledge which was received in a line of "testimonies" in succession from one preceding generation to the next, all of which traced back to the very first Christians who could directly authenticate the apostolicity of the writings in question. There was already a recognized and circulated canon among the churches that included the Gospels and the apostles' letters by the end of the first century resulting from this process.

The role of the church through its formal councils in the 4th century and beyond, was another link in that chain of testimony. Their decisions were fully subject to and dependent on the reliable testimony of those preceding them, in the same way that our understanding of the canon is dependent on the reliable transmission of that reliable testimony from those church councils which preceded us. In each link, the "decision" over the truthfulness or falseness of the preceding link's assessment has to be made. If you call this "authority", then every link in the chain can claim "authority" over succeeding links with regard to the canon. This would even subject the authority of the original apostles to the first Christians who had to "decide" the truthfulness of what they were saying. This makes the "authority" concept meaningless. Thus, the concept of "testimony" is a far better and more accurately reflects the mechanism behind the formulation of the canon.

---

Yet there was debate, and someone had to settle it. That's what you're missing.

---

But DID they settle it? When? Which council?

That's what YOU'RE missing.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

So, gist is, icon veneration is not mentioned in scripture, and it's not mention pre 350 AD, but so what.

Ok.

---

It's mentioned in Revelations, the OT and elsewhere in the NT. Dura-Europos Church has icons dating back to 240AD.

Relics were present in the earliest days: Cloths that touched Paul's body are carried to the sick, and God works healings through them (Acts 19:1112). Scripture doesn't explain this away as symbolism, it presents it as God acting through material remains connected to His saints.

God commands Moses to make golden cherubim for the Ark (Exod. 25:1822), cherubim are woven into the Tabernacle (Exod. 26:1). Solomon's Temple is filled with carved images (1 Kings 67). Israel bows and prays facing the Ark (Josh. 7:6; Ps. 99:5) without worshiping wood or gold.

God commands an image through which He heals (Num. 21:89), and it's only destroyed later when people start worshiping it (2 Kings 18:4). Scripture condemns worshiping images, but commands using them.

Icons depict the Person of Christ. If Christ is one Person, His humanity is the humanity of God, and therefore can be depicted, venerated, and kissed without idolatry. We can't risk slipping into nestorianism.

If iconoclasm is accepted as a principle, it doesn't stop with icons. If matter can't truly mediate divine presence, then the Real Presence in the Eucharist becomes symbolic, baptismal regeneration also becomes symbolic, and the visible unity of the Church doesn't exist.

Christ is very real. He's not symbolic or intellectual.

---

Icon veneration is nowhere to be found in all of the New Testament, and was unanimously rejected by the early church.

So much for being the one, true, original faith.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Council of Trent did not contradict earlier councils.

---

They contradicted the canons approved in earlier ecumenical councils. The fact that you're trying real hard to avoid.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Council of Trent did not contradict earlier councils.

---

They contradicted the canons approved in earlier ecumenical councils. The fact that you're trying real hard to avoid.

---

Not at all.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

So, gist is, icon veneration is not mentioned in scripture, and it's not mention pre 350 AD, but so what.

Ok.

---

It's mentioned in Revelations, the OT and elsewhere in the NT. Dura-Europos Church has icons dating back to 240AD.

Relics were present in the earliest days: Cloths that touched Paul's body are carried to the sick, and God works healings through them (Acts 19:1112). Scripture doesn't explain this away as symbolism, it presents it as God acting through material remains connected to His saints.

God commands Moses to make golden cherubim for the Ark (Exod. 25:1822), cherubim are woven into the Tabernacle (Exod. 26:1). Solomon's Temple is filled with carved images (1 Kings 67). Israel bows and prays facing the Ark (Josh. 7:6; Ps. 99:5) without worshiping wood or gold.

God commands an image through which He heals (Num. 21:89), and it's only destroyed later when people start worshiping it (2 Kings 18:4). Scripture condemns worshiping images, but commands using them.

Icons depict the Person of Christ. If Christ is one Person, His humanity is the humanity of God, and therefore can be depicted, venerated, and kissed without idolatry. We can't risk slipping into nestorianism.

If iconoclasm is accepted as a principle, it doesn't stop with icons. If matter can't truly mediate divine presence, then the Real Presence in the Eucharist becomes symbolic, baptismal regeneration also becomes symbolic, and the visible unity of the Church doesn't exist.

Christ is very real. He's not symbolic or intellectual.

---

Icon veneration is nowhere to be found in all of the New Testament, and was unanimously rejected by the early church.

So much for being the one, true, original faith.

---

Icon veneration as understood today was not clearly rejected. Much of that debate was about pagan practices or pagan understanding of icons, like the belief that the presence of the venerated deity or saint was contained in the icon itself. Others objected to the use of any artistic representation whatsoever, an opinion we obviously don't hold today.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Prime example why we must have an authority outside of scripture. Hermeneutics gone crazy. These people are literally convinced that scripture tells them this is righteous.

---

Sooo ironic.....

---

Let me add that I fully agree with you - wo DO need an authority outside of Scripture to keep people in line with Scripture. But this authority is NOT INFALLIBLE like Scripture, and is always subject to correction by Scripture. That's the key point of sola scriptura.

---

This transpired under sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura doesn't eliminate infallible authority, it relocates it to whoever happens to be interpreting Scripture at the moment.

I say the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ based on scripture. You say the complete opposite. Whose right?

Do you understand that Protestantism itself is a liberal, revolutionary, anti-authoritarian version of Christianity? It was always going to be progressive. It's terrifying to think what Millennials and Gen Z are going to turn it into.

---

All of the arguments we're getting from you and the RC's are complete mischaracterizations, misconceptions, eisegetical nonsense, and straw men. It's getting quite ridiculous.

Sola scriptura does not relocate infallible authority. This is just a failed understanding of the concept. Ironically, your argument applies perfectly to what's happening in Roman Catholicism. When the church has the authority over the canon and its interpretation, ultimately, infalliblity is re-allocated to the church. It becomes solo ecclesia.

Your statement about Protestant beliefs regarding the Eucharist is another such example. Protestants have no problem with the view that there is a "real presence" of Jesus in the communion bread and win. The issue is what you mean by "real presence". Protestants are fine with the view that the presence is spiritual, no different than when Jeus is "present" when you pray. What we do NOT believe is transubstantiation - the presence is physical, that Jesus is physically embodied in the bread, and his blood in the wine.

I think it's pretty clear from Scripture that transubstantiation is incorrect. The literal interpretation of Jesus' flesh and blood having to be consumed would make no sense and would contradict many parts of Scripture. You as a prospective Orthodox Christian also believe that RC has it wrong too, correct? So whose "authority" is right between you two, their magisterium or yours?

Your last paragraph is just a ridiculous statement that is taking biased samples of false Protestant churches and applying it to the whole of Protestantism. Protestantism is nothing but the return to the original faith as given by the apostles, which was required because of egregious abuses and distortions by Catholicism. One part of your statement is correct, though - we are anti-authoritarians, which is a good and right thing. It is quite perplexing how you guys easily understand the problem of authoritarianism in politics, which is that since man is fallible, no one man should have all power because it will corrupt - but then you fully support it in religion, as if your understanding of the danger of man's fallibility completely disappears.

---

That's not how the New Testament speaks about the Eucharist at all.

When Jesus says, "This is my body" and "This is my blood", he doesn't say, "This represents my body", "This signifies my body, "This is spiritually like my body".

Then in John 6, when His listeners freak out to the point of leaving because they object that His teaching is too hard because He insists they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He does't correct them by saying, "It's symbolic", nor was symbolism obviously conveyed or they wouldn't have been troubled deeply. Nah he switched to a verb that literally means to chew or to gnaw, and then allowed many disciples to leave over it.

They had the same troubles you're having.

Paul makes the problem worse for your interpretation. In 1 Corinthians 10-11, Paul says that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily are "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord", eating and drinking "judgment upon themselves" or even becoming sick or dying as a result. That makes no sense if the Eucharist is merely a spiritual reminder equivalent to prayer. People don't die from prayer… You can't be guilty of abusing Christ's body and blood if no such body and blood are actually being received.

Why does Scripture treat the Eucharist as something way more dangerous, sacred, and real than ordinary spiritual acts, if it's not what the Church has always claimed it to be?

Whose authority are you going to rely on for this topic? You can't even rely on the reformers, cause they saw it as transubstantiation. Do you rely on the second rupture after reformers were done murdering one another over disagreements? Your view didn't even even crystallize until the 19th century…I guess those were the guys who had it right this whole time?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

So, gist is, icon veneration is not mentioned in scripture, and it's not mention pre 350 AD, but so what.

Ok.

---

It's mentioned in Revelations, the OT and elsewhere in the NT. Dura-Europos Church has icons dating back to 240AD.

Relics were present in the earliest days: Cloths that touched Paul's body are carried to the sick, and God works healings through them (Acts 19:1112). Scripture doesn't explain this away as symbolism, it presents it as God acting through material remains connected to His saints.

God commands Moses to make golden cherubim for the Ark (Exod. 25:1822), cherubim are woven into the Tabernacle (Exod. 26:1). Solomon's Temple is filled with carved images (1 Kings 67). Israel bows and prays facing the Ark (Josh. 7:6; Ps. 99:5) without worshiping wood or gold.

God commands an image through which He heals (Num. 21:89), and it's only destroyed later when people start worshiping it (2 Kings 18:4). Scripture condemns worshiping images, but commands using them.

Icons depict the Person of Christ. If Christ is one Person, His humanity is the humanity of God, and therefore can be depicted, venerated, and kissed without idolatry. We can't risk slipping into nestorianism.

If iconoclasm is accepted as a principle, it doesn't stop with icons. If matter can't truly mediate divine presence, then the Real Presence in the Eucharist becomes symbolic, baptismal regeneration also becomes symbolic, and the visible unity of the Church doesn't exist.

Christ is very real. He's not symbolic or intellectual.

---

Icon veneration is nowhere to be found in all of the New Testament, and was unanimously rejected by the early church.

So much for being the one, true, original faith.

---

Icon veneration as understood today was not clearly rejected. Much of that debate was about pagan practices or pagan understanding of icons, like the belief that the presence of the venerated deity or saint was contained in the icon itself. Others objected to the use of any artistic representation whatsoever, an opinion we obviously don't hold today.

---

Completely false and a ridiculous lie.

The early church fathers were NOT saying that the pagan practice of icon veneration was wrong, but the Christian practice of icon veneration was okay. This is a pathetic and dishonest twisting of the truth. The early church fathers unanimously rejected any and all icon veneration, period. Icon veneration is NOT just any form of "artistic representation", it involves the specific use of that art in prayer, worship, and liturgy. This was overwhelmingly rejected by the early church.

You're making the same argument that is made to try to justify homosexuality - "the prohibition of homosexual activity in the Bible was only a prohibition of exploitive homosexual relationships, not loving homosexual ones".

Seriously, how are you not ashamed at this level of dishonesty?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Council of Trent did not contradict earlier councils.

---

They contradicted the canons approved in earlier ecumenical councils. The fact that you're trying real hard to avoid.

---

Not at all.

---

Oh wow, I'm convinced.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Prime example why we must have an authority outside of scripture. Hermeneutics gone crazy. These people are literally convinced that scripture tells them this is righteous.

---

Sooo ironic.....

---

Let me add that I fully agree with you - wo DO need an authority outside of Scripture to keep people in line with Scripture. But this authority is NOT INFALLIBLE like Scripture, and is always subject to correction by Scripture. That's the key point of sola scriptura.

---

This transpired under sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura doesn't eliminate infallible authority, it relocates it to whoever happens to be interpreting Scripture at the moment.

I say the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ based on scripture. You say the complete opposite. Whose right?

Do you understand that Protestantism itself is a liberal, revolutionary, anti-authoritarian version of Christianity? It was always going to be progressive. It's terrifying to think what Millennials and Gen Z are going to turn it into.

---

All of the arguments we're getting from you and the RC's are complete mischaracterizations, misconceptions, eisegetical nonsense, and straw men. It's getting quite ridiculous.

Sola scriptura does not relocate infallible authority. This is just a failed understanding of the concept. Ironically, your argument applies perfectly to what's happening in Roman Catholicism. When the church has the authority over the canon and its interpretation, ultimately, infalliblity is re-allocated to the church. It becomes solo ecclesia.

Your statement about Protestant beliefs regarding the Eucharist is another such example. Protestants have no problem with the view that there is a "real presence" of Jesus in the communion bread and win. The issue is what you mean by "real presence". Protestants are fine with the view that the presence is spiritual, no different than when Jeus is "present" when you pray. What we do NOT believe is transubstantiation - the presence is physical, that Jesus is physically embodied in the bread, and his blood in the wine.

I think it's pretty clear from Scripture that transubstantiation is incorrect. The literal interpretation of Jesus' flesh and blood having to be consumed would make no sense and would contradict many parts of Scripture. You as a prospective Orthodox Christian also believe that RC has it wrong too, correct? So whose "authority" is right between you two, their magisterium or yours?

Your last paragraph is just a ridiculous statement that is taking biased samples of false Protestant churches and applying it to the whole of Protestantism. Protestantism is nothing but the return to the original faith as given by the apostles, which was required because of egregious abuses and distortions by Catholicism. One part of your statement is correct, though - we are anti-authoritarians, which is a good and right thing. It is quite perplexing how you guys easily understand the problem of authoritarianism in politics, which is that since man is fallible, no one man should have all power because it will corrupt - but then you fully support it in religion, as if your understanding of the danger of man's fallibility completely disappears.

---

That's not how the New Testament speaks about the Eucharist at all.

When Jesus says, "This is my body" and "This is my blood", he doesn't say, "This represents my body", "This signifies my body, "This is spiritually like my body".

Then in John 6, when His listeners freak out to the point of leaving because they object that His teaching is too hard because He insists they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He does't correct them by saying, "It's symbolic", nor was symbolism obviously conveyed or they wouldn't have been troubled deeply. Nah he switched to a verb that literally means to chew or to gnaw, and then allowed many disciples to leave over it.

They had the same troubles you're having.

Paul makes the problem worse for your interpretation. In 1 Corinthians 10-11, Paul says that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily are "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord", eating and drinking "judgment upon themselves" or even becoming sick or dying as a result. That makes no sense if the Eucharist is merely a spiritual reminder equivalent to prayer. People don't die from prayer… You can't be guilty of abusing Christ's body and blood if no such body and blood are actually being received.

Why does Scripture treat the Eucharist as something way more dangerous, sacred, and real than ordinary spiritual acts, if it's not what the Church has always claimed it to be?

Whose authority are you going to rely on for this topic? You can't even rely on the reformers, cause they saw it as transubstantiation. Do you rely on the second rupture after reformers were done murdering one another over disagreements? Your view didn't even even crystallize until the 19th century…I guess those were the guys who had it right this whole time?

---

You're merely repeating the same arguments that have all been addressed at length in other threads, and defeated:

- When Jesus spoke with the woman at the well in John 4, was he talking about literal water? He even let the woman continue in her misunderstanding without correcting her. Does that mean he was being literal?

- When Jesus said "I am the door", "I am the gate", "I am the shepherd" does that mean he was a literal door, gate, and shepherd? He didn't say "I am like a door", so that must mean he was being literal, right? When Jesus told Peter to "feed my sheep", was Jesus talking about his literal sheep back at his ranch? He didn't say, "feed my sheep.. which is figurative for believers", did he?

- When Jesus said "Destroy this temple, and in three dies I will raise it up" - was he talking about the literal Temple? He let the disciples continue to believe he was being literal, so does that mean Jesus was being literal?

- If Jesus' words about eating his flesh were literal, then doesn't that mean Judas Iscariot, who partook in the Last Supper, was SAVED? But clearly, Jesus indicates that he was NOT, correct?

- If the Last Supper involved the disciples drinking literal blood, isn't that a violation of the Law, which they were still under, since Jesus hadn't been crucified and risen yet? And wouldn't it mean that Jesus instructed them to break the Law, which was a sin?

- If the disciples knew that Jesus was being literal in the Last Supper, and they actually drank blood, and that they understood Jesus was being literal in John chapter 6, in that drinking his literal blood was necessary otherwise one does not have eternal life.... then why did the disciples instruct the Gentile believers to "abstain from blood" in Acts 15?

- why does Paul referring to the judgement of sickness and death on those treating communion dishonorably necessarily mean that it was the literal flesh and blood of Jesus? Couldn't the judgement just be due to the sin of dishonoring the Lord - in the same way that Ananias and Sapphira were killed for lying to God in Acts 5? This is a complete non sequitur. You're reading your assumptions into the passage.


The whole of Scripture, plus basic logic and reasoning makes the belief in transubstantiation completely untenable. The question for you remains, though - who is right, Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, in regards to transsubstantiation?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

So, gist is, icon veneration is not mentioned in scripture, and it's not mention pre 350 AD, but so what.

Ok.

---

It's mentioned in Revelations, the OT and elsewhere in the NT. Dura-Europos Church has icons dating back to 240AD.

---

No, it's not. That is merely your self-serving interpretation. But at no point does scripture advise Christians to venerate icons. This is simply a lie.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- your "purgatory" verse has nothing to do with a purgatory. More non sequitur eisegetical nonsense.

---

Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century disagrees with you.

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Mary shall be called "blessed" - NOT called "Mediatrix", "Advocate", "Helper", "THE ALL HOLY ONE", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "sovereign", "the road to salvation", etc.

---

The bible does not address the use of titles given to Mary. Many refer to James as "James, the Just" or "the Righteous", which isn't biblical.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If water baptism saves, then the Eucharist is not required for salvation, which goes against your beliefs and literal interpretation of Jesus' words.

---

Another strawman argument in your post. Your post constantly refuses to comment on ACTULLY Catholic beliefs. Baptism is part of the initial salvation. The Eucharist is reserved for those who are already baptized. How disicples present at last supper with earthly Jesus were baptized?

Why do your posts constantly attempt to mislead people? It is so difficult for you to refute the ACTUAL Catholic position, not just a strawman view or opinion.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- your "purgatory" verse has nothing to do with a purgatory. More non sequitur eisegetical nonsense.

---

Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century disagrees with you.

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Mary shall be called "blessed" - NOT called "Mediatrix", "Advocate", "Helper", "THE ALL HOLY ONE", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "sovereign", "the road to salvation", etc.

---

The bible does not address the use of titles given to Mary. Many refer to James as "James, the Just" or "the Righteous", which isn't biblical.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If water baptism saves, then the Eucharist is not required for salvation, which goes against your beliefs and literal interpretation of Jesus' words.

---

Another strawman argument in your post. Your post constantly refuses to comment on ACTULLY Catholic beliefs. Baptism is part of the initial salvation. The Eucharist is reserved for those who are already baptized.

Why do your posts constantly attempt to mislead people? It is so difficult for you to refute the ACTUAL Catholic position, not just a strawman view or opinion.

---

- You're saying that "Augustine disagrees with you" regarding that particular verse you're referencing. But the Augustine quote you gave is not even talking about that verse. Read and think better.

- The point of Mary's titles just flew right over your head.

- It isn't a straw man. According to your belief in the literal interpretation of Jesus' words in John 6, you MUST believe the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. Because Jesus CLEARLY states that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, "you have no life in you". So if you're saying that this isn't true Catholic teaching, then you're contradicting your own view that Jesus was being literal in John 6. But if you're saying that it IS true Catholic teaching, then your view that water baptism saves is not true, because you still need the Eucharist. You're stuck - you contradict yourself either way. This proves your views are false.

I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm just here to defend Catholic teaching and encourage any interest you may have in it. I haven't seen much interest, to be honest, but that's up to you.

Mothra said:

---

Again, we've been over this, so at the risk of repeating myself...

With respect to John 3:5, we undoubtedly agree that entering God's Kingdom requires a spiritual transformation, i.e. a new birth, symbolized by cleansing (water) and renewal (Spirit) by God which indicates a fundamental inner change brought about by the Holy Spirit. In other words, there is a single spiritual rebirth, where "water and the Spirit" describe two aspects of the same divine work of regeneration. Throughout scripture, water often symbolizes purification from sin, while the "Spirit" signifies the new life God imparts. In short, water in this verse is a metaphor for God's Word or the Holy Spirit's work - again, a metaphor used repeatedly in both NT and Old.

---

This makes NO sense. Essentially, you are stating that Jesus said, "Unless you are born again of Spirit and Spirit." That completely redundant and illogical.

Acts 22:16 shows that Paul was to be baptized with water

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

The Greek in this verse is "baptizo", which means "immerse, dip, or wash with water."

Mothra said:

---

Notice what John 3:5 doesn't say, even though it could. Christ doesn't say, "Unless one is baptized of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God," despite his use of the term "baptism" on several occasions, including in Matt 16:16. Indeed, that is because Christ is very clear that is it by faith alone we are saved. See John 3:16; 6:40. And then of course, we have the thief on the cross, who of course disproves your entire narrative.

---

The only time the Bible uses the phrase "Faith only" in in James when he states that we are "NOT saved by faith alone."

Mothra said:

---

As for Mark 16:16, let's take a closer look at the entire verse, and not just the first part you quoted. The entire verse reads: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever disbelieves will be condemned." Interestingly, Christ doesn't mention baptism in the latter half of the verse when he speaks of condemnation, does he? He once again merely refers to faith or rather lack thereof (i.e. disbelief).

And of course, there is so much other NT scripture that talks about salvation without mentioning baptism:

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

---

These are all amazing verses that the Catholic Church 100% believes in them, in the context of the whole.

Matthew 7:21 says

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Doing the will of God is having an active faith, being baptized, not sinning, and partaking in the Eucharist.

Mothra said:

---

But putting all that aside for a moment, I again go back to the fact that while scripture has repeatedly told us how we can be saved, not a single verse in scripture states that baptism is necessary for salvation. None of these verses you quoted, and no other verses. And once again, therein lies the problem with the Catholic position on the subject. There is no legitimate, intellectually honest "interpretation" that deems water baptism as necessary for salvation.

---

1 Peter 3:15 clearly states

to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter tells us outright that Baptism is salvific. We know that he wants us to use water and it's not just the spirit, because, like Noah, who was saved thru water, we, too, will be saved by that water when baptized in Jesus' name.


Let's take a brief look at history with a few of the Church fathers '

"'I have heard, sir,' said I [to the Shepherd], 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'" (The Shepherd4:3:12 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr - "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Justin Martyr believes that the "water" in John 3 is water, NOT the spirit.

I can list a dozen other Church Fathers in history that posit the same view.

Mothra said:

---

This demonstrates yet another fundamental problem of Catholicism - citing verses that they allege support theological concepts that just don't state or even suggest same. None of those verses support the theological concept of the assumption of Mary or her veneration.

These are simply not logical or intellectually honest arguments in support of your position.

---

If Luke clearly states that "all generations will call be Blessed", is it wrong to give the Mary, the Mother of God, honor?

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It means that it's GOD that decides on and gives the canon, NOT man. This is your misconception. Man does not have the "authority" to "decide" the canon. The canon exists before man recognizes it or knows it's there. Their responsibility is to recognize it correctly and receive it. ......How do you know this?

---

It's known because it's a logical truth based on what is a true, agreed upon principle, that a writing is the word of God the moment it's written, not because man declares it to be.

The only way you can say it's NOT known, is to say that a writing can become the word of God simply by man's word, thereby putting man above God. And that is utter blasphemy.

---

Ok, I get the logic, but who says that a particular writing was the word of God at its beginning? To me, that's still a human decision.

---

Jesus said so. The human decision is whether you believe in Jesus or not, when he says the Tanakh and the word of the apostles regarding him is the word of God. The determination of the apostles' writings as being authentic and reliable is not based on any "authority" to claim it so, as others here are arguing, but rather is based on the unbroken chain of witness that started way back with the very first Christians who were able to verify first hand the authenticity of the writings as being from the apostles.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

This demonstrates yet another fundamental problem of Catholicism - citing verses that they allege support theological concepts that just don't state or even suggest same. None of those verses support the theological concept of the assumption of Mary or her veneration.

These are simply not logical or intellectually honest arguments in support of your position.

---

If Luke clearly states that "all generations will call be Blessed", is it wrong to give the Mary, the Mother of God, honor?

---

Luke doesn't say to give her honor. And he certainly doesn't say to honor her in a manner that is consistent with how we honor God, as other posters have suggested.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm just here to defend Catholic teaching and encourage any interest you may have in it. I haven't seen much interest, to be honest, but that's up to you.

---

I am here to convince you. You simply can not defend the infallibility of the councils. The Council of Trent anathematized its own earlier councils that approved different canons. Niceae II anathematized those who don't venerate icons and claimed the practice came from the apostles, when it is completely absent in Scripture and the overwhelming witness of the early church was vehemently opposed to it. There are many other examples. Unfortunately, you guys are so hard of heart and are being intellectually dishonest in order to preserve your traditions, and also your psyche, quite frankly. You guys are caring about identity and your tribe more than the truth.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, we've been over this, so at the risk of repeating myself...

With respect to John 3:5, we undoubtedly agree that entering God's Kingdom requires a spiritual transformation, i.e. a new birth, symbolized by cleansing (water) and renewal (Spirit) by God which indicates a fundamental inner change brought about by the Holy Spirit. In other words, there is a single spiritual rebirth, where "water and the Spirit" describe two aspects of the same divine work of regeneration. Throughout scripture, water often symbolizes purification from sin, while the "Spirit" signifies the new life God imparts. In short, water in this verse is a metaphor for God's Word or the Holy Spirit's work - again, a metaphor used repeatedly in both NT and Old.

---

This makes NO sense. Essentially, you are stating that Jesus said, "Unless you are born again of Spirit and Spirit." That completely redundant and illogical.

Acts 22:16 shows that Paul was to be baptized with water

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

The Greek in this verse is "baptizo", which means "immerse, dip, or wash with water."

Mothra said:

---

Notice what John 3:5 doesn't say, even though it could. Christ doesn't say, "Unless one is baptized of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God," despite his use of the term "baptism" on several occasions, including in Matt 16:16. Indeed, that is because Christ is very clear that is it by faith alone we are saved. See John 3:16; 6:40. And then of course, we have the thief on the cross, who of course disproves your entire narrative.

---

The only time the Bible uses the phrase "Faith only" in in James when he states that we are "NOT saved by faith alone."

Mothra said:

---

As for Mark 16:16, let's take a closer look at the entire verse, and not just the first part you quoted. The entire verse reads: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever disbelieves will be condemned." Interestingly, Christ doesn't mention baptism in the latter half of the verse when he speaks of condemnation, does he? He once again merely refers to faith or rather lack thereof (i.e. disbelief).

And of course, there is so much other NT scripture that talks about salvation without mentioning baptism:

• Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".
• John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
• Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
• Romans 10:9: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
• Luke 7:50 And He(Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
• John 6:28-29 - Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 11:26: " Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."
• Philippians 3:9 - And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Notice that none of these verses talk about baptism, or any other ministerial act, being necessary for salvation. Indeed, as I explained previously, anyone that truly knows and has a relationship with Christ knows he doesn't condemn a man who has repented and had a heart change, and filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the man never got dunked or sprinkled. The very idea runs contrary to the actions of Christ. He was not a task master who simply wanted man to check a box, but he was instead a loving God who desired a relationship with humanity.

---

These are all amazing verses that the Catholic Church 100% believes in them, in the context of the whole.

Matthew 7:21 says

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Doing the will of God is having an active faith, being baptized, not sinning, and partaking in the Eucharist.

Mothra said:

---

But putting all that aside for a moment, I again go back to the fact that while scripture has repeatedly told us how we can be saved, not a single verse in scripture states that baptism is necessary for salvation. None of these verses you quoted, and no other verses. And once again, therein lies the problem with the Catholic position on the subject. There is no legitimate, intellectually honest "interpretation" that deems water baptism as necessary for salvation.

---

1 Peter 3:15 clearly states

to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter tells us outright that Baptism is salvific. We know that he wants us to use water and it's not just the spirit, because, like Noah, who was saved thru water, we, too, will be saved by that water when baptized in Jesus' name.


Let's take a brief look at history with a few of the Church fathers '

"'I have heard, sir,' said I [to the Shepherd], 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'" (The Shepherd4:3:12 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr - "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Justin Martyr believes that the "water" in John 3 is water, NOT the spirit.

I can list a dozen other Church Fathers in history that posit the same view.

---

To the contrary, it makes perfect sense to those who don't have a works-based faith.

You are once again reading into scripture concepts that scripture doesn't say. John 3:5 doesn't mention baptism. That is merely your interpretation. Christ could have of course used the term baptism, as he had used it multiple times in the Gospels. But that's not what he says. Indeed, putting that prerequisite on the believer is both against his nature, and against the verses I cited above - which say only faith/belief are necessary.

And again, there is the thief on the cross.

I am not terribly interested in what some of the Church Fathers believed but what scripture says, and it is consistent on this point.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

This demonstrates yet another fundamental problem of Catholicism - citing verses that they allege support theological concepts that just don't state or even suggest same. None of those verses support the theological concept of the assumption of Mary or her veneration.

These are simply not logical or intellectually honest arguments in support of your position.

---

If Luke clearly states that "all generations will call be Blessed", is it wrong to give the Mary, the Mother of God, honor?

---

I fully believe that if the real Mary knew what all you Roman Catholics were doing for her, she would feel it is doing her the greatest dishonor imaginable.

Remember how it works, Coke. Your interpretation is your interpretation, but Mothra doesn't have to interpret. He just tells you "what Scripture says."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It means that it's GOD that decides on and gives the canon, NOT man. This is your misconception. Man does not have the "authority" to "decide" the canon. The canon exists before man recognizes it or knows it's there. Their responsibility is to recognize it correctly and receive it. ......How do you know this?

---

It's known because it's a logical truth based on what is a true, agreed upon principle, that a writing is the word of God the moment it's written, not because man declares it to be.

The only way you can say it's NOT known, is to say that a writing can become the word of God simply by man's word, thereby putting man above God. And that is utter blasphemy.

---

Ok, I get the logic, but who says that a particular writing was the word of God at its beginning? To me, that's still a human decision.

---

rather is based on the unbroken chain of witness that started way back with the very first Christians who were able to verify first hand the authenticity of the writings as being from the apostles.

---

How does one prove 'Unbroken chain of witnesses'? There is the concept of the kerygma, and then
there are the copies of the copies. How does one prove each of those copies of copies is the same? When confronted with variants copists had to choose or change.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Remember how it works, Coke. Your interpretation is your interpretation, but Mothra doesn't have to interpret. He just tells you "what Scripture DOESN'T say."

---

FIFY. Hooked on Phonics did wonders for me.