tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post7351426175848614656..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: "Common Ground": An Exciting Ecumenical Venture (DVD and Book) I'm Privileged to Have Been Part OfDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-21974042756784421512010-05-30T14:42:50.201-04:002010-05-30T14:42:50.201-04:00Holy scripture says: "a tale out of season i...Holy scripture says: "a tale out of season is as music in mourning." [Sirach 22:6]—St Jerome Letter 118 Section 1, Paragraph 2 To Julian<br /><br />http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter2.html many example of where Jerome calls the deuterocanonicals holy Scripture.therutegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00139402885287658770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-39626103305390930822010-01-29T13:01:30.555-05:002010-01-29T13:01:30.555-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56994221068552184272010-01-29T02:51:35.259-05:002010-01-29T02:51:35.259-05:00Adomnan said .: So what are the issues?
The issues...Adomnan said .: So what are the issues?<br />The issues are that Ken wants to be right even when he is wrong.He wants to change also the words in the bible to convince himself that he is right.He adds words and he also takes away words from the bible for the same reason.He like Luther before him says that faith alone saves,and the bible tells us very clearly that faith alone without works is dead,but again,that was James.Probably Ken will argue that James was catholic lol.<br />Our Lord Jesus also in John 6 ,was comparing the eating of the manna with the eating of His body,now not one single person ever said that the Jews didnt literaly eat manna,in fact did they truly eat the manna,or not?and they all answer yes they did.Now we know that the manna was a symbol of the Eucharist,in fact that is why our Lord mentioned the manna and compared eating the manna with eating his body.But people like Ken would rather accept the symbol as 100%truth and the truth as 100% symbol,and change and ignore the words eat and chew and instead uses trust,and say that Jesus didnt actualy asked us to eat his body and he even accepted that many disciples misunderstood him and left and didnt even try to tell them,i didnt mean literaly to eat but just a symbol...And he also caused and accepted that all the christians for 1500 years commited the same error and believed that he truly meant it...<br />Well Ken,keep on denying the truth and keep insisting that you are correct....Marounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-72443800743439860792010-01-28T16:36:20.727-05:002010-01-28T16:36:20.727-05:00Ken: Ben,
Most of what you wrote had nothing to do...Ken: Ben,<br />Most of what you wrote had nothing to do with the issues.<br /><br />Adomnan: So what are the issues?Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36522065791296255042010-01-28T16:29:31.647-05:002010-01-28T16:29:31.647-05:00Ken: The Spirit gave life for the Disciples to see...Ken: The Spirit gave life for the Disciples to see beyond the literal words and realize that it is not cannibalism as those that left thought.<br /><br />Adomnan: Cannibalism is the eating of dead human flesh. The eucharist flesh and blood of Christ are living, and so there is no cannibalism. <br /><br />Besides, it's the substance of the body and blood of Christ that are eaten, not their atoms, molecules or chemical components. After all, a 60-year-old man can say he has the same body as his two-month-old self, even if his current body doesn't share a single atom with his infantile body. It is the substance that persists, not the physical make-up. Thus, the eucharist can be the body of Christ even if all its molecules and chemical compounds are those of bread. <br /><br />In other words, transubstantiation simply means that we eat Christ's body and drink His blood under the forms of bread and wine. <br /><br />Again, no "cannibalism."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43710520524266486582010-01-28T16:17:03.156-05:002010-01-28T16:17:03.156-05:00Ken: Adomnan, I did not insert the word into the t...Ken: Adomnan, I did not insert the word into the text, but it is the main meaning of pisteuw with the phrase "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" - believing into (eis) or in (ev, or with various dative forms) are indeed trusting in the person and work of Christ Himself.<br /><br />Adomnan: You're wrong. "Pisteuo eis" means "believe in," not "trust in." "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" means "believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He died for our sins and was raised for our justification" i.e., acknowledge that this is true, that God has revealed Himself in Christ. <br /><br />Trust is only required when there is some doubt, when we entertain the possibility that something hoped for may not be accomplished. Thus, we might "trust" God to help us get a job, but that's only because God has not revealed that He will get a job and so the appropriate attitude is to trust, or hope, that His providence will provide what we are seeking. <br /><br />But trust is not appropriate when God has revealed something. Then, the only appropriate response is faith; i.e., assent to what God has revealed. Protestants "trust" what they should believe in, as if they doubt God.<br /><br />Ken: It is much deeper that just "assent to revealed truth" - that is what the demons do in James 2:19. <br /><br />Adomnan: Once again, Ken, you show your inability to understand what is right in front of your eyes. This is your spiritual blindness. When James says that the demons believe, he is clearly saying that they have faith (pisteuo, pistis). Thus, he is saying that one can have belief or faith, but still not trust or hope in God, which evidently proves that belief or faith is NOT the same as trust, but is, rather, simply asent to what God has revealed (which the demons have). That's the whole point James is making, and yet you miss it. <br /><br />Thus James defines faith in the same way as I do. <br /><br />And, yes, there can be "demon faith," which is why one cannot be justified by faith alone, as James says, but only by "faith working through love" as Paul writes in Galatians.<br /><br />Ken: If so, your faith is bankrupt; and it is not Biblical faith at all.<br /><br />Adomnan: James uses "believe, have faith" of demons, and so "demon faith" is biblical, if James is biblical. Of course, it doesn't justify, and so it's not justifying faith. <br /><br />What makes you think that you can deny faith is assent to what God has revealed by citing a passage in James where it is precisely defined as assent, and not as trust, even if not justifying?<br /><br />Ken: Dave even demolished your idea in his posts on trust.<br /><br />Adomnan: As I read him, Dave agreed with me in the end that Christian "hope" corresponds more closely to "trust," as used in the Old Testament, than to New Testament faith. In any event, I'm not denying any element of trust in NT faith. I'm simply saying that it is generally to be understood as the response of assent to what God has revealed, and not as a mere trusting attitude. Paul and the other NT writers did not have to "trust" that God had revealed certain truths, because they didn't doubt Him. Do you think that Paul "trusted" that Christ had risen from the dead, after seeing Him? Or did he "trust" that God existed? What would it even mean to "trust" that God existed or to trust that when He revealed something He was telling the truth?<br /><br />As for me, I don't have to trust that Christ died for my sins and rose for my justification, because I believe it. I must, however, fulfill the conditions that Christ laid down. The promise is not unconditional.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-76987978583544545352010-01-28T15:41:32.360-05:002010-01-28T15:41:32.360-05:00Ben,
Most of what you wrote had nothing to do with...Ben,<br />Most of what you wrote had nothing to do with the issues.<br /><br />The url connection to p. 298 of Luther's works does not give enough context for me to be able to understand it. It basically only shows "page 298". <br /><br />I wasted a lot of time trying to find that stuff.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71769118546789406382010-01-28T15:38:15.734-05:002010-01-28T15:38:15.734-05:00Maroun wrote:
The funny thing with people like you...Maroun wrote:<br />The funny thing with people like you ken,is that you think that you are infallible...<br /><br /><i> I do not. Why do you make such a ridiculous charge?<br /></i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28264057349014750182010-01-28T15:29:05.574-05:002010-01-28T15:29:05.574-05:00There you go again, Ken, inserting "trust&quo...There you go again, Ken, inserting "trust" into the New Testament where it isn't mentioned.<br /><br /><i> Adomnan, I did not insert the word into the text, but it is the main meaning of pisteuw with the phrase "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" - believing into (eis) or in (ev, or with various dative forms) are indeed trusting in the person and work of Christ Himself.<br /><br />It is much deeper that just "assent to revealed truth" - that is what the demons do in James 2:19. you have "demon-faith" which is mere intellectual assent to some facts. If so, your faith is bankrupt; and it is not Biblical faith at all.<br /><br />Dave even demolished your idea in his posts on trust.<br /><br />You ignored the whole argument and it is clear in the context of John 6 that Jesus is talking about "coming to Him", "believing in Him", "hungering for Him", "thirsting for Him", "beholding Him", "being drawn by the Father" and "the Spirit giving life"<br /><br />The Spirit gave life for the Disciples to see beyond the literal words and realize that it is not cannibalism as those that left thought.<br /><br />Peter said, "you have the words of eternal life"<br /><br /></i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59706483753472683392010-01-28T14:49:39.600-05:002010-01-28T14:49:39.600-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-67456235763001092492010-01-28T14:15:16.072-05:002010-01-28T14:15:16.072-05:00Ken: So, when He says “you must eat My flesh and d...Ken: So, when He says “you must eat My flesh and drink my blood” He is talking about trusting in Him as the incarnation of God and trusting in His work on the cross to save them from sins – “I give for the life of the world” (v. 51)<br /><br />Adomnan: There you go again, Ken, inserting "trust" into the New Testament where it isn't mentioned. Christian belief, as I pointed out before, is chiefly a matter of assent to what God has revealed, not "trust." If there is an element of trust in NT faith, it is quite ancillary. The closest thing to what you call trust is what the writers of the NT call "hope," not faith. <br /><br />Besides, Protestant trust is not biblical at all. It is what the Council of Trent called "the vain confidence of the heretics," the sin of presumption, which actually deprives people of true tust and hope in God, by fooling them into thinking that we don't have to rely on God daily and pray to Him for persevering grace. <br /><br />But leaving aside your gratuitous insertion of "trust" into a passage where it doesn't occur, your interpretation of Christ's words are odd and repellent. Where has "eating my body and drinking my blood" ever meant "trust" in any analogy ever? No one would use such bizarre and offputting language to say something as simple as "trust me." Would a father say to his child, for example, "eat my body and drink my blood," if he just wanted to say "trust me"? Your interpretation would turn Jesus into a kook or trickster who spoke in ugly and absurd riddles. <br /><br />This is no "analogy." The only way that Jesus words can make sense is if they describe a reality, a mysterious reality, but a substantial reality. That's why some of Christ's disciples found His assertion "a hard saying." If it were understood as "symbolic" and referring to trust, Christ's saying would be inept, but not hard to accept (aside from its ineptitude). <br /><br />In any event, you interpret Jesus's words one way; we Catholics interpret them in another. We're at least as entitled to our interpretation as you are to yours. Your arguments for a symbolic interpretation are hardly persuasive. So give it up and move on to something else. This terrain has been covered innumerable times, all to no avail.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44853301710442151832010-01-28T13:19:30.784-05:002010-01-28T13:19:30.784-05:00Ken said , the church fathers were not infallible....Ken said , the church fathers were not infallible.Well and do you think you are?<br />Show us plz which of the church fathers denied the real presence?or which one of them didnt speak aboyt morality or obedience otherwise that person wont inherit God`s kingdom.<br />The funny thing with people like you ken,is that you think that you are infallible...<br />Listen to me,and i hope that this is the last time i will ever tell you anything,because i have noticed that it`s useless,because you never even answer any of the questions...<br />Do you think that what sola scriptura has caused among the christians,and i specifically mean the divisions and confusions,is something correct?For once in your life try not just to open your eyes but also to see...<br />God is against divisions in the church,and your sola scriptura causes just that,divisions and confusion,and your sola fides is not anything new,it is a heresy from the first century called antinomianism,and if the church is not infallible,then your bible also could be fallible.<br />And if the church is not infallible,then no one ever could correct another,and again the result is confusion and division,because each person will be convinced with what he or she thinks is right.<br />So Ken,stop avoiding these subjects,and plz demonstrate to everyone in here that i am wrong,plz just answer these subjects.<br />GBUMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-64041918450865260822010-01-28T11:02:23.303-05:002010-01-28T11:02:23.303-05:00I do not intent to take the discussion away from D...I do not intent to take the discussion away from Dave's blog, but here is a link to my essay on John 6 that explains how St. John immerses his reader into the Catholic understanding of reality, and how ALL of John 6 points to the real presence of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist... something that does not happen in Protestant communion. http://www.stanwilliams.com/catholic/John6.html<br /> <br /><i> It honestly seems to be reading things that come centuries later back into the text - historical theology and the development of the transubstantiation doctrine of 800 -1215 AD (Radbertus – Aquinas) back into John 6.</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-80561982359678986092010-01-28T10:58:34.302-05:002010-01-28T10:58:34.302-05:00Stan Williams wrote (I had to cut it because of th...Stan Williams wrote (I had to cut it because of the space limitation set by the Blogger)<br /><br />". . . is exampled by St. John in a couple of key stories in the first half of John 6, as precursors to the most significant part of John 6, the last half, where Christ says more than a dozen times that his body is real food, and the first protesters left him for this commingling of the physical and spiritual was too much to embrace, especially as it seemed to conflict with Jewish rules about eating food saturated with blood. (John 6:66). <br /><br /><i> “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” John 6:55 This is the same idea as when Jesus said, “I am the true vine” in John 15:1 and “I am the door” in John 10:9 and “I am the light of the world” in John 8:12. He is saying, just like He did to the woman at the well, “I have living water”; and “he who drinks physical water will thirst again” (John 4); He is saying He is the true spiritual source for eternal life and relationship with God. The people were coming to Him because they were being fed physically– John 6:1-28. Jesus then says, “this is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” It is the work of God in your heart that you believe in Christ; you are dead in your sins. The Spirit of God must come in you and regenerate you and give you life so that you are able to believe in Christ. “The Spirit gives life” (John 6:63) = the Holy Spirit is the only one who can cause new birth on the inside ( John 3:3-8) so that you trust Christ to save you from your sins. Jesus is saying He is true bread that came out of heaven, not temporary like the physical bread of the Manna in the wilderness. He is talking about His incarnation, not the Lord’s Supper. ( John 6:31-58) In that context, Jesus says<br />“he who comes to Me” (v. 35)<br />“he who believes in Me” (v. 35)<br />“all that the Father gives to Me” (v. 37)<br />“everyone who beholds the Son” (v. 40) <br />Being “drawn by the Father” (v. 44; 65)<br /><br />So, when He says “you must eat My flesh and drink my blood” He is talking about trusting in Him as the incarnation of God and trusting in His work on the cross to save them from sins – “I give for the life of the world” (v. 51)<br /><br />Those who were not awakened and drawn by the Father and the work of the Spirit (v. 44, 63, 65) were still dead in the sins (Ephesians 2:1-3) and could not see and could only hear the physical words of Jesus, which they thought was literal Canabalism. (v. 52, 60-61) <br /><br />But Jesus never says that this is about the future Lord’s Supper; rather He says, “What then if you see the Son of May ascending to where He was before” (v. 62) – meaning the ascension after the cross and resurrection – showing that He will be in bodily form in heaven and not on earth – will you still trust Me then? “It is the Spirit who gives life” – the Holy Spirit causes regeneration so that a dead sinner can be made alive and then trust Christ – “Where else shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” ( John 6:63-71) “But there are some of you who don’t believe” (v. 64) <br /><br />V. 66 – “As a result of this . . . “ means that they left because they were not drawn by the Father (v. 44) and they did not have the Spirit (v. 63), nor life (v. 53, 63) and the Father had not granted them to come to Jesus (v. 65) “For this reason” (v. 65) The reason they could not accept nor see the meaning of Jesus’ words was because God did not draw them and change them on the inside.<br /><br />Peter and the other disciples understood that it was about eternal life and the Spirit and the words of eternal life; that Jesus was the source; and it was about believing and knowing that Jesus is the Holy One of God. (v. 68-69) He doesn’t say, “we understand you to mean the future Lord’s Supper/Eucharist that will eventually be defined in 1215 AD as an actual changing of substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus [even though Jesus is in heaven (v. 62)] at that time.</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82961202346690420482010-01-28T10:54:54.049-05:002010-01-28T10:54:54.049-05:00(Where reality expands beyond the 3D-0T of the sen...(Where reality expands beyond the 3D-0T of the sensory creation, e.g. eternity). The best example of this is God (a spirit) becoming man (a physical being) in the person (both spiritual and physical) of Jesus Christ. <br /><br /><i> Yes, we believe that; that does not prove the transubstantiation idea; in fact, the one unique incarnation of Christ entering into flesh and time and history actually speaks against the transubstantiation doctrine, because the body of Christ cannot be manifested thousands of times over again all over the world. It is almost like millions of other incarnations.</i><br /><br />We too are made in his image, this commingling of spiritual and physical. <br /><br /><i> Yes, that is clear from Genesis 1-2; we have spirits/souls; but it in no way proves the RCC transubstantiation idea.</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28896905160194114172010-01-28T10:53:23.809-05:002010-01-28T10:53:23.809-05:00Stan Williams wrote:
The discussion above seems t...Stan Williams wrote:<br /><br />The discussion above seems to have gotten off the track from the original discussion about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Let me weigh in with a few comments. As a convert to Catholicism after 50 years as an Evangelical and Bible teacher myself, one of the attractions of Catholicism is its Biblical understanding of how Christianity must necessarily embrace both the spiritual realm and the physical realm. (My undergraduate degree is in physics and my latter graduate work in part dealt with natural law in communications. Thus, I've been intrigued by the connections between science and theology -- and how they BOTH attempt to articulate and communicate God's Will and Word.) <br /><br />To exclude one is to reject part of reality and creation. <br /><br /><i> To imply that Protestants exclude the physical realm, only because we reject the transubstantiation doctrine of the Lord’s Supper [and other physical emphasis of the RCC – sacerdotal ex opera operato words; and the power of visiting graves, saints, rubbing, looking at, kissing relics to give grace; etc. This implication of using creation and the incarnation and image of God in man; is not a fair treatment of the Protestant position. We fully believe in the goodness of creation (earth, water, our bodies, sex, food, sleep, work, etc.) and that God created it.<br /><br />These are the aspects of RCC that are the most repelling, genuflecting before the consecrated host in the Mass/Eucharist; the emphasis on things about Mary that are not in the Bible (PVM, IC - 1854, BA-1950, Advocate, co-mediator, co-Redemptrix) and statues and bowing down and talking to/ praying to icons and statues; because they seem to violate the first 2 commands of the Ten Commandments and John 4:23-24.</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-31715791820657558482010-01-28T09:48:52.780-05:002010-01-28T09:48:52.780-05:00Hey Ken,why do you quote saint Augustine,but then ...Hey Ken,why do you quote saint Augustine,but then refuse what saint Augustine himself considered as scripture.<br /><br /><i> Because he can be right about one principle or truth on Psalm 145; and then wrong (or inconsistent) about another issue or principle. <br /><br />The early church writers/fathers were not infallible.<br /><br />Augustine admitted he did not know Hebrew and did not even like Greek. Jerome was superior on the languages and showed the Hebrew evidence behind the doubts about the Apocrypha books.<br /><br />The Provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage were local to that area and did not bind all the churches everywhere. <br /><br />Jerome:<br />"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."<br /><br />http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.x.html<br />(In the Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 393 AD)]<br /> <br />Athanasius (on the OT, did not include Esther, did include Baruch; but considered Macabees, Tobit, and Judith and Wisdom as "ecclesiatical books for good reading, but not canonical), Origen, Melito of Sardis - agreed more closely with the Protestant canon. <br /><br />Gregory bishop of Rome ( 601) said that Maccabees was not canonical, Cardinal Cajatan, all agreed with Jerome's scholarly work on the Hebrew and the Apocrypha books.<br /><br />Cardinal Cajetan ( Papal legate and Luther's opponent in 1520-1521:<br /><br />"For the words as well as of councils and of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome." (Cajetan, Commentary on All the Historical Books of the Old Testament; cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge University Press, 1849), p. 48."<br /></i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37601849842016815802010-01-27T20:15:53.174-05:002010-01-27T20:15:53.174-05:00The discussion above seems to have gotten off the ...The discussion above seems to have gotten off the track from the original discussion about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Let me weigh in with a few comments. As a convert to Catholicism after 50 years as an Evangelical and Bible teacher myself, one of the attractions of Catholicism is its Biblical understanding of how Christianity must necessarily embrace both the spiritual realm and the physical realm. (My undergraduate degree is in physics and my latter graduate work in part dealt with natural law in communications. Thus, I've been intrigued by the connections between science and theology -- and how they BOTH attempt to articulate and communicate God's Will and Word.) To exclude one is to reject part of reality and creation. (Where reality expands beyond the 3D-0T of the sensory creation, e.g. eternity). The best example of this is God (a spirit) becoming man (a physical being) in the person (both spiritual and physical) of Jesus Christ. We too are made in his image, this commingling of spiritual and physical. Thus, everything in Christianity must mirror the existence of Christ, as we are called to be like him, et al. Thus the sacraments of the RCC (and Orthodox) fulfill this aspect of reality and marry, fuse, imbue the physical and spiritual. This understanding of reality being BOTH physical and spiritual (and probably a few other things we don't understand) is exampled by St. John in a couple of key stories in the first half of John 6, as precursors to the most significant part of John 6, the last half, where Christ says more than a dozen times that his body is real food, and the first protesters left him for this commingling of the physical and spiritual was too much to embrace, especially as it seemed to conflict with Jewish rules about eating food saturated with blood. (John 6:66). I do not intent to take the discussion away from Dave's blog, but here is a link to my essay on John 6 that explains how St. John immerses his reader into the Catholic understanding of reality, and how ALL of John 6 points to the real presence of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist... something that does not happen in Protestant communion. http://www.stanwilliams.com/catholic/John6.htmlStan Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084603289444240062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-66503983693786341162010-01-27T18:18:04.357-05:002010-01-27T18:18:04.357-05:00It's usually true, yep; though the unbeliever ...It's usually true, yep; though the unbeliever will always insist on argument rather than preaching.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36505754360086911872010-01-27T17:49:31.802-05:002010-01-27T17:49:31.802-05:00Hey Dave,
found a quote I am pretty sure you will ...Hey Dave,<br />found a quote I am pretty sure you will like:<br /><br />"Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it."<br />- Karl BarthFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16523310763945821733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84999467223819684202010-01-27T10:37:19.072-05:002010-01-27T10:37:19.072-05:00You're right Dave, there's a time for agre...You're right Dave, there's a time for agreeing and a time for disagreeing. A time for everything under the sun, as it were.John Salmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09267280368859553938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32558141357223267072010-01-26T13:43:16.835-05:002010-01-26T13:43:16.835-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46656973804273645842010-01-26T06:27:27.479-05:002010-01-26T06:27:27.479-05:00Hi Ken again . to prove to you what i have just to...Hi Ken again . to prove to you what i have just told you,i am going to quote some verses from Eph 4:11-14 , <br />11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; 14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.<br />Does verse 14 ring any bells to you?arent you aware yet , that sola scriptura which according to you is the truth the cause of verse 14????<br />think about it plzMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-55640170449538251262010-01-26T06:13:22.067-05:002010-01-26T06:13:22.067-05:00Ken said . If it is not biblical, it is not aposto...Ken said . If it is not biblical, it is not apostolic. We know what the apostles taught because they wrote it down. Everything necessary for us for knowing God and salvation and life and godliness ( 2 Peter 1:3) was written down in the Scriptures.<br /><br />As Augustine says --<br /><br />Augustine (about A.D. 354-430) commenting on Psalm 145:13:<br /><br />The Lord is faithful in all his words, and holy in all his deeds. We might well have believed him if he had chosen only to speak to us, but he wanted us to have his scriptures to hold onto; it is like promising something to a friend and saying to him, “Don’t rely on word of mouth; I’ll put it in writing for you.” It was necessary for God’s written guarantee to endure as each generation comes and goes, as the centuries roll by and mortals give way to their successors. God’s own handwriting would be there for all the passers-by to read, so that they would keep the way of his promise.<br /><br />- Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 121-150, Exposition of Psalm 144.17 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2004), pp. 393-394.<br /><br />Hey Ken,why do you quote saint Augustine,but then refuse what saint Augustine himself considered as scripture.In fact in his "De Doctrinâ Christianâ" he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage.<br /><br />So Ken,why do you refuse to accept the books which saint Augustine and the church considered as canonical,and then pretend to be in agreement with him?<br />Do you accet 1 and 2 Maccabees as he did?do you accept Tobit as he did,or judith or Esther or Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch?if not,then why do you quote him?<br />Is it not funny,how some people quote only the parts and things which they like and agree with,but then ignore and never mention from the same source the things which they dont like or accept?<br />So Ken,again,veru humbly , i ask you to stop insisting on falsehood,i mean saint Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit appointed some to be teachers.So if as you protestants claim that each and every believer could and should read the bible and the Holy Spirit will explain the scriptures to him or her,then why did the Holy Spirit appoint some to be teachers?<br />And if each and everyone of us could read and understand the truth with the help of the Spirit,then why do all the protestants disagree among themselves just about everything?Marounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70096462479392572502010-01-25T23:41:54.586-05:002010-01-25T23:41:54.586-05:00Protestants stress the "personal relationship...Protestants stress the "personal relationship" aspect of faith, but this is by no means unknown in Catholicism. See my paper:<br /><br /><i>"Personal Relationship With Jesus": Completely Foreign Notion to Catholics?</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/06/personal-relationship-with-jesus.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.com