Aloysius Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 alright, i got an idea. instead of just goin back and forth "God made a Church to interpret the scriptures" "No, the Holy Spirit guides us all to interpret them right" and all that jazz. i think i'm gonna try a different approach. i'm naming it "Probe Debating" Basically, someone sends out a probe, a tester to see if somethings true or false, and it is debated. errrr... im not sure this is a good idea, OH WELL! this shall be the experiment to determine whether probe debating is a good or bad thing. alright, i'll start. ill put it in quote just to seperate it from the post PROBE: Mark 16:17-18 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils. They shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them." alright, i could pray about it and arrive at the conclusion that i do not truly believe unless i am able to drink poisin and handle snakes. otherwise, this is a sign that i am an unbeliever. the only way to defend private interpretation is to prove me wrong without the use of Sacred Tradition or the teachings of a church. so, the challenge is to prove me wrong, then u get to probe me with some example about something. any takers? B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 (edited) the only way to defend private interpretation is to prove me wrong without the use of Sacred Tradition or the teachings of a church. so, the challenge is to prove me wrong, then u get to probe me with some example about something. any takers? B) PROBE: Mark 16:17-18 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils. They shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them." alright, i could pray about it and arrive at the conclusion that i do not truly believe unless i am able to drink poisin and handle snakes. otherwise, this is a sign that i am an unbeliever. Not at all. For, as it is written in the Holy Gospel according to Matthew, Matt 4:5-7 "5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[2] " 7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' " And likewise, it is written in the Gospel of Luke, Luke 4:9-13 The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; 11they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[3] " 12Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[4] " 13When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. (Me) Clearly, we are not to put the Lord our God to the test. Thus, going around drinking poison and handling snakes would, in all likelihood, get you killed - it is something Our Lord would not be willing to do, if He were not willing to jump off the Temple and put the Lord his Father to the test, neither should you be willing to drink poison or handle venomous snakes to put God to the test. I just refuted you, using a clear principle from Scripture Alone. Next question, please. (I'm liking this Protestant business already!) Edited October 24, 2003 by ICTHUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 24, 2003 Author Share Posted October 24, 2003 i didn't say i would DO it i said if i can't, doesn't that mean an unbeliever all u just told me was that i shouldn't test God by goin out and doin it, not that i shouldnt be doin it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 24, 2003 Author Share Posted October 24, 2003 also, ure not protestant... YOUR CATHOLIC!!! B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 i said if i can't, doesn't that mean an unbeliever *Assuming you mean get bitten by snakes and drink poison, and survive* If it turns out that you can't do that, then you're DEAD. Now, if you happen to be an unbeliever and you are culpable for your rejection of the Gospel, then you will go to Hell. If you are in a state of Gods Grace through Christ, you will go to heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 25, 2003 Author Share Posted October 25, 2003 :rolleyes: my Bible says that believers will be those who drink poison and survive, get bitten by snakes and survive... so therefore, it appears all that die from snake bites or from poison are culpable for rejection of the Gospel and are going to hell. <at least from my private interpretation, can u prove it wrong? B) > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Can you show me the passage, with at least 3 verses of context on either side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 25, 2003 Author Share Posted October 25, 2003 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils. They shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay their hand upon the sick: and they shall recover. 19 And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God. 20 But they going forth preached every where: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed. he that believeth not shall be condemned. and these signs follow them that believe.... so if these sigsn don't follow, we must not believe then we are condemned? mwahahaha!!! the probe cannot be defeated therefore, we need the authority of a Church to disprove it! ,,, or can u prove me wrong sola scriptura? B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 bump! yeah, according to private interpretation of the Holy Bible, all who have ever died of snake bits or poison are now in hell. and you can't prove it wrong unless you have another authoritative source... i could use the Catholic Church, the 2000 year old interpretation, but for protestants, they've already rejected that one... do they have any other authority that says ppl who die of snake bites and poison have a chance at heaven? if u don't have it on authority, sola scriptura teaches they're all goin to hell if they get killed by poison or snakes. B) u need the Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 he that believeth not shall be condemned. and these signs follow them that believe.... so if these sigsn don't follow, we must not believe then we are condemned? mwahahaha!!! the probe cannot be defeated therefore, we need the authority of a Church to disprove it! ,,, or can u prove me wrong sola scriptura? B) Yes, I can, provided you mean SolA Scriptura and not SolO Scriptura. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 :huh: do it with Sola Scriptura so i kan find out what ure talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Certainly, Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture alone is the INFALLIBLE rule of faith for the Christian. All other rules of faith are useful but subordinate. With that said, I have very little time. I'll return to this later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 all other rules of faith are useful but subordinate. now which ones are to be most useful? what if i were to cite an early Church Father's interpretation of the passage, or i were to cite some Early Church Heretic's interpretation of the passage. both would be useful but subordinate. if they both agreed with the scripture passage, say one of them interpretted it the way i am asserting and the other interpretted it the Catholic Church's way, and both agreed with Scriptura... yeah. so the Catholic Church rejects both SolA Scripura and SolO Scriptura. because with SolA Scriptura, it is too vague, any book written by any person can be believed as long as it doesn't conflict with Scripture, but which interpretation of scripture does it need to conflict with? in the Catholic position it would havta conflict with the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Scripture in order for it to be contradicting scripture. if that made sense, good. if not, leave me alone, im tired. anyway, no matter which way you look at it, Scripture cannot be the infallible rule of faith for a Christian unless there is an infallible interpretation of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now