My Beefs With The Rcc

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jul 13 2004, 10:37 PM'] No of course not.  When studying Scripture the first thing to realize is you must not rip things out of context.  How this applies is since John is written so that we might believe and have eternal life, you use John first to see what is involved with believing.  If something is written for a different purpose you don't systematically rip that apart to redefine a section written for that specific purpose. [/quote]
Of course one must keep in mind the whole scope of scripture, but that is exactly what you aren't doing, for you are isolating the Gospel of John, saying that it is the starting point, when in fact it is only the living proclamation (the apostolic kerygma) of the word of God that is the starting point.

Nowhere in scripture or tradition has it been said that faith comes from reading the Bible; instead, as St. Paul stated, ". . . faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ." [Romans 10:17] It is the living proclamation of the word of God, both written and handed down in tradition, that instills God's gift of faith, and this occurs in a particularly powerful way in the Divine Liturgy. For the ancient Jews and the early Christians, it was only in the vocal proclamation of the word of God that it was truly understood to be alive, while the written word was thought of as mute. It has only been since the invention of the printing press that an individualistic religion like Protestantism was even possible. It is the recitation of the events of sacred history during the liturgy that reactualizes the saving deeds of God, enabling those participating in the act of worship to experience the foundational and salvific realities of the covenant in a living and efficacious manner today. Private reading of scripture, commendable as it is, cannot compare to this public act of divine worship.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 13 2004, 10:52 PM'] I don't think [b]Circle_Master[/b] as an anti-Catholic. [/quote]
I haven't noticed anything anti-Catholic about his remarks either.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jul 13 2004, 10:30 PM']Of course I realize that there is further clarification to be gleaned from the other Gospels and that is why we have 4 of them as well.  The point is however that John claims to have the message of eternal life within it.  Therefore I accept that and understand that what additional data may exist will not contradict what is in John and will not contain a facet of the Gospel which is not supported through John.  That's a lot of negatives, let me try again.  Therefore I accept and understand that more data about salvation exists than is in John.  Taking John in perspective however allows me to realize that what is required for salvation is completely included in John's gospel and what the other gospels do is clarify and also teach other things.  They do not add to the gospel necessary information, nor do any of the epistles.  What is necessary is contained within John.[/quote]
Nowhere does John claim that his Gospel gives an all sufficient account of the Christ event, nor does he claim that it contains everything necessary for salvation. If the Gospel of John is all sufficient, we might as well dispose of the rest of the Bible. But clearly John never makes the claim that his Gospel is all that is needed for salvation, and so we have three other Gospels and 23 other books in the New Testament, along with the Apostolic Tradition, and the Old Testament, all of these are necessary so that we may know what must be done in order to receive the gift of salvation; and of course in addition to the [i]depositum fidei[/i] we have the guidance of the Church's divinely instituted Magisterium, to insure that the word of God, contained in both scripture and tradition, is proclaimed in a pure and undiluted form throughout history.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Apotheoun

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Jul 13 2004, 08:04 PM'] <ad hominem>

According to you, when Jesus died He paid for future sins as well as past sins, that once you ask Jesus into your heart, you can commit any type of sin, even adultery and fornication and you are still saved because you are 'Once Saved Always Saved'

So why is it then that [b]AFTER[/b] Christs death, Jesus still saw it necessary to give the Apostles the power to forgive Sins at Pentecost? What Sins are they going to forgive if Jesus' death took care of it all?

Sounds to me like Christ is all merciful, and He knows that even after following Him we are going to fall. He gave us a way back to Him.

This is why in James 5:16 it clearly says: 'Confess your sins to one another.'

And 2 Cor 5:17-20 says that Jesus has ' given us the ministry of reconciliation'

And again in James 5:13-15 says that the prayers of the Priests forgives sins (prayer said after one confesses sins)

You prots like to think that the Church teachs that the Priests themselves hold power and are God like..so, so wrong. Just as God used the Apostles to do maricles, healings, baptism (which washes away sins), God also uses their successors in the same manner. God works THROUGH His representatives on earth..the Bishops and Priests to carry out His work. [/quote]
No, rather, when Christ REGENERATES you, you turn away from sin and unto God, and follow Him in faith and obedience for the rest of your life. If you turn away and remain in unbelief, you were never truly regenerate. St. Augustine makes this point abundantly clear in "De Correpcione et Gratia"

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Jul 13 2004, 07:53 PM'] This is why you are in error with Bible Alone, when the Bible says nothing of the sort. [/quote]
I disagree.

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for correction, reproof, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for [b]every good work[/b]"

Seems to point to sufficency to me.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 14 2004, 07:27 PM']I disagree.

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for correction, reproof, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for [b]every good work[/b]"

Seems to point to sufficency to me.  [/quote]
[quote]
No, rather, when Christ REGENERATES you, you turn away from sin and unto God, and follow Him in faith and obedience for the rest of your life. If you turn away and remain in unbelief, you were never truly regenerate. St. Augustine makes this point abundantly clear in "De Correpcione et Gratia"
[/quote]

you are wrong. If you sin after being baptised that doesnt mean you was never really truely baptised and a follower of Christ..that means you are HUMAN. Sin is still in the world, Even the honest man sins 7 times a day. To think you are sinless is a sin in itself. Thats pride talking, not a Christlike individual who should be humble and not worthy.

You say: "turn away and remain in unbelief.." this is a prot term inside and out. Do you guys really live on this planet? Because you are saying that if I sin, I must not beleive anymore and therefore cease to be Christian and I was never really truely 'regenerated'.

Hogwash! If Mother Teresa went to daily confession, you bet your soul that you and I should go hourly. Once a week is a good thing and to think you dont need confession is satan talking.



[quote]
I disagree.

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for correction, reproof, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work"

Seems to point to sufficency to me. 
[/quote]

No one said that Scripture shouldnt be used for this. It is God's Word and to be ignorant of Scriptures is to be ignorant of Christ.

But what you dont understand is that the Bible is not the 'end all' that you make it. If the Bible was all anyone needed then those people from the time of Christ to the 300's were in DEEP trouble. They didnt have the scriptures as we knew it until after the Council of Carthage and Rome. Before then, and even before the time of Christ, scriptures was an ORAL tradition, read only by a rabbi and the learned, not by a laymen. No one took the scrolls home and read them. Not only was it NOT allowed but almost no one knew how to read and write. So what did they do? Relied on the Church to hear scriptures..the way its suppose to be.

Where in the Bible does it tell us what books are suppose to be in the Bible? It doesnt and shouldnt..thats not what its for.

Another thing you need to remember is that the Church came before the Bible. Writings from the Apostles and other people were floating from Church to Church, they didnt have ALL the writings from ALL the Apostles.

Around the year 300AD(give or take im remembering off top of my head here) there were alot of corrupt and false writtings going around and this concerned the Pope at the time. He commisioned St Jerome, a Catholic Priest(Monk?), to gather ALL the writings that were being passed from Church to Church and compile them after determining what was inspired and what is not.

After collecting them he had over 200 writings to go through. He chose the ones that are inspired and did away with the ones that were not chosen. What were in those 200 writings?

Point being, it is the Church that has the authority to say what goes in the Bible and what does not, not the Bible. Someone had to preserve Scriptures from corruption and it was Christs Church that did it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 14 2004, 08:27 PM'] I disagree.

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for correction, reproof, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for [b]every good work[/b]"

Seems to point to sufficency to me. [/quote]
useful is not the same as only, sole or sufficient.

So its a tool.

Nowhere does it say its the only tool.

[phatcatholic]

circle master..............i dig ya bro.............if you would like to debate the Immaculate Conception w/ me, just let me know and i'll start a new thread.

glad to see you back and another thank you to you for gettin my back that one time over at the FCFC. i really appreciated that.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 12 2004, 06:05 PM']

[quote]  Cure of Ars
Did you know that Paul in Romans 3:23 is quoting Psalm 14 and in this context it is referring to those geniuses who say in their heart, “There is not God”. Unless Paul is quoting scripture out of context this is the context that he is using in Romans 3:23.  [/quote]

Since Rom 3:23 is one of the principle proof texts for original sin, do you want to say that only atheists have original sin? [/quote]

You don’t disregard the context of a scriptural text because you need a proof text for some particular doctrine. If you want a proof text for original sin a more appripriate place to go is Romans 5:12-15.

If 3:23 literally means every human has sinned then it proves too much. Jesus would have to be included as well. If you say Jesus is an exception then this opens the door for Mary as well. If there is one exception why not more?

Edited July 15, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 14 2004, 06:23 PM'] If you turn away and remain in unbelief, you were never truly regenerate. St. Augustine makes this point abundantly clear in "De Correpcione et Gratia" [/quote]
You seem to read St. Augustine differently than I.

"But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say: “I have not received”; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went to evil." (Augustine, Admonition and Grace)

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 14 2004, 06:27 PM'] "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for correction, reproof, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for [b]every good work[/b]"

Seems to point to sufficency to me. [/quote]
This verse says that Scripture is useful for bringing the man of God to completion, but not that it is alone in doing so. The proximate cause of the completion of the man of God is the correction, reproof, and training of his bishop, the succesor of the Apostles. Scripture is indeed a useful tool in his consecrated hands, but it is by no means sufficient of itself for salvation when placed in the hands of the individual believer. In much the same way I pray for my friends [B]so that they may be complete[B], having attained the most perfect state of unitive love with God, yet my prayer is by no means sufficient in and of itself to achieve this end.

[cmotherofpirl]

Hananiah that quote would be useful for the reference section

[Apotheoun]

James Akin has an excellent article on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and the sola scriptura doctrine. To read the article, click on the link below:

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/2tim316.htm"]2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Sola Scriptura [/url]

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 14 2004, 10:15 PM'] useful is not the same as only, sole or sufficient.

So its a tool.

Nowhere does it say its the only tool. [/quote]
I never meant to say that it was, I meant that it is the only infallible tool

[cmotherofpirl]

Where does it claim that?