ServingHim

AMEN! Thanks for your post cat...you inspire me! Blessings...

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? 1 Cor 14:33-36 I don't think this agrees with Bob's teaching of what he thinks Jesus meant ... that men and women ALIKE are called in Matt 28:18. Pauls says women should KEEP SILENT...that probably doesn't mean they shouldn't share their faith and love of Christ with others, but they are NOT to PREACH. People who ordain women are simply disobeying what the Word says!

is there ANY example of ANY woman in a teaching AUTHORITY position in scripture? If so, where is it?

where does it say man and women alike. You are adding to scripture!

Link and remarks removed as they are in violation of Worthy Boards Terms of Service

excellent question!!!

Doctrines are not essential. For instance I do not to have to have perfect flawless doctrine to know God and be loved of God. 9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. 10 If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; 11 for he who greets him shares his wicked work. 2 John 1:8-11

Is it important?

sorry, kmb...didn't realize that was you...my questions for you are too from the heart. I just get tired of people assuming that I don't know Christ because I'm catholic...well, think as you want. It really doesn't matter. I'm done here...oh, avyn jade...you too can rest. Christ knows exactly where I AM with Him...

9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. Titus 1:9 17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. Romans 16:17 6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. 1 Tim 4:6 3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 1 Tim 1:3 8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 1 Tim 1:8-11 1 But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine. Titus 2:1 so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. Titus 2:10 Apparently, called, DOCTRINE is VERY IMPORTANT in knowing TRUTH...WHERE do the Apostles speak of it only being about a 'personal relationship with Jesus Christ'? I see them speaking of SOUND DOCTRINE EVERYWHERE! I'm not sure you got that?! :x:

my heart is FULL of Christ's love, amazing grace! believe it or not, called, I DID exactly the same thing almost 7 years ago! YES He is! He alone is GOD! I know the commandments...they are IN MY NEW HEART! but Christ GAVE us an intellect...did He not? I used to know NOTHING of the faith...I didn't really even understand the Holy Spirit, the sacrifice Christ DID for me on the cross, etc. And through my asking Him into my heart...opening up my heart, realizing that I was NOTHING WITHOUT HIM, grace took over...and through grace AND the God-given intellect, I LEARNED MY FAITH... what are you talking about...you've got some nerve implying that because I have intellectully articulated my faith that His sacrifice means nothing to me. How pompous. yes I do...and you really have NO IDEA...do YOU "Take, Eat...THIS IS MY BODY" ? HOW do you EAT HIS BODY? HIS FLESH? Let's just not go through our differences...I respect that Jesus is in your heart...why do you insinuate he is not in mine. But truly, I don't care what you think of me...for Christ knows truly what is inside me, my heart, my mind, my soul! That is ALL that matters... I'll forgive your harsh judgment of me...Lord have mercy.

7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us. 2 Thess 3:7 SO, shame on Paul...he took his focus on Jesus and put it on himself and the other apostles? :x:

thank you for sharing...you know...I was searching for that deeper relationship with Christ because I too, as a protestant, did not have one...and I CHOSE to become Catholic, and my faith & my personal relationship with Christ Jesus has strengthened and deepened beyond what I could ever have imagined. So I understand where you're coming from... :il:

Well, it isnt in scripture that Mary parted the Red Sea either, yet Moses did. Do you beleive Mary did as well? where do you come up with this stuff??? Don't believe that she was assumed into heaven. One day you will know for sure one way or the other. The Assumption The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It

so are you saying then that he degraded his mother and that we're to do the same thing? Reading what I wrote..... No I dont see that in there at all. I said the Lord downplayed her elevation in status. Downplayed is not degraded. Please stop twisting my words. so how do you reconcile then the verse that Jesus 'downplays' her blessedness' WITH the command... For behold, henceforth all generations WILL CALL ME blessed; Luke 1:48

I thought that Christ Jesus came in the FULLNESS and PERFECT TIME...I can't find the scripture right now, but God KNEW that Mary would say yes...so I don't agree with you that God would have found another human being...all the evidence in scripture points to her, a virgin ... it happened at just the right moment in time, the fullness of time!

so are you saying then that he degraded his mother and that we're to do the same thing? really? Mary said YES...what if she'd said NO...then it would be contingent on whomever ACCEPTED the CALL to bear our Lord... yes, true... Not supported scripturally. amazing that it is NOT recorded in scripture, but in Tradition, it is...and ENOCH and ELIJAH WERE assumed into heaven. Do you think that the KING would do ANY LESS for HIS MOTHER??? But nonetheless, you don't have to believe it to know Christ. But it IS an amaing thought that it COULD have happened...and I believe IT DID. She was human, just like anyone else. She served the Lord, just like we do. She was given a greater role, like Abraham, David, John the Baptist. The fact remains, she was a flawed human servant of God, nothing more. She's human JUST like you and me, but SHE is the ONLY HUMAN in the history of humanity who bore God, Christ Jesus, our Lord! :il:

no, bob, but I KNOW that you disagree with me always with anything that has to do with catholic issues...so I took your asking me the 'meaning' of that verse as your implying that I know nothing and that you know everything...but I know that neither of these are true. I respect that we're on different pages...afterall, I was once like you...believing as you do...but as my heart opened to the 'possiblity' that I might not know it all, the flood gates opened, and amazing grace opened my eyes to the marvelous amazing mysteries of our faith. It's not that you're wrong and I'm right...it's just that there is so much MORE to the faith than many protestants allow themselves to see. I don't know if it's fear or what, but I do know that the Catholic church is NOT the evil entity that many of you on here claim her to be, and I'd give my own life if asked today to to deny Christ and His Church...I'd rather DIE teaching the truth than live a lie pleasing men. :il:

of course...our God is not 'a god'!

YES... For with God nothing will be impossible." Luke 1:37 Are you saying then that God IN THE FLESH existed FOR ALL TIME? Was Christ Jesus (human Christ Jesus) IN HEAVEN in his FLESH IN THE BEGINNING? I do not think that Christ Jesus was 'physically, humanly, visually' in heaven in the beginning, but I DO BELIEVE that in the BEGINNING, God the Father, the Son & The Holy Spirit were THREE IN ONE...ONE GOD, THREE PERSONS...but at the perfect time, GOD CAME DOWN and took on human flesh to save the world from it's sins. How can you explain that God became MAN?! You can't...do you know HOW the Holy Spirit 'impregnated' Mary? Can you explain it? Can you explain how Christ died and then ROSE AGAIN? MARY did not 'create' GOD...God is the creator of ALL THINGS, including HIMSELF, Christ Jesus, AND was the PREEXISTENT ONE...always existing...no beginning, no end. Can we UNDERSTAND THIS? It's a MYSTERY. Do we believe it? Yes...it's called faith!

let's see...it means that MANY can be deceived by 'empty interpretations' that one comes up with on their own... so I can play too... what does THIS mean to YOU, bob?! 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 2 Peter 3:15-17 and what about??? "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Luke 10:16 I KNOW you think I'm SO wrong, but I THINK THE SAME OF YOU...I pray you won't close this thread as well because you DISAGREE WITH ME...what would that say about you...that YOU are the ONLY ONE WHO HAS TRUTH...and that no one who differs from you is worthy of being heard. Bob, if you would only let down your guard...DO YOU DISAGREE that Mary is the Mother of GOD? DO you agree? WHy or WHY NOT? What about what I've posted...is it all worth garbage? Why or why not?

THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF SOLA SCRIPTURA by James Akin Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological," cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985). An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority. A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian. Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, "born again" believer. There are simply too many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians. Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to-an easy task considering the number of different theological issues-then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia. The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?) is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura. However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God's plan for Christian theology. In fact, it could never even have been thought to be God's plan before a certain stage in European history because, as we will see, it could have only arisen after a certain technological development which was unknown in the ancient world. Before that one development, nobody would have ever thought that sola scriptura could be the principle God intended people to use, meaning it was no accident that the Reformation occurred when it did. If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. We can therefore judge whether sola scriptura could have been God's plan for the individual Christian by asking whether the average Christian in world history could have implemented it. Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. It is in this practical area that the doctrine comes crashing down, for it has a number of presuppositions which are in no way true of the average Christian of world history, and certainly not of the average Christian of early Church history. First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean (even taking into consideration the interpretations of others) then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study (a non-thorough study being a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against the cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular. This, however, was completely impossible before invention of the printing press, for without that there could not be enough copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to use. Sola scriptura therefore presupposes the inventing of the printing press, something that did not happen for the first 1,400 years of Church history (which will be the almost three-quarters of it if the world ends any time soon). It is often noted by even Protestant historians that the Reformation could not have taken off like it did in the early 1500s if the printing press had not been invented in the mid-1400s, and this is more true than they know, because the printing press not only allowed the early Protestant to mass produce works containing their teachings about what the Bible meant, it allowed the mass production of Bible itself (as Catholics were already doing; one does realize, of course, that the Gutenberg Bible and the other versions of the Bible being produced before Protestantism were all Catholic Bibles). Without the ability to mass produce copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to interpret, the doctrine of sola scriptura could not function, since one would only have very limited access to the texts otherwise-via the Scripture readings at Mass and the costly, hand-made copies of the Bible kept on public display at the church. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the printing press. This is a key reason why the Reformation happened when it did-several decades after the invention of the printing press. It took time for the idea of the printing press to make its mark on the European mind and get people excited about the idea of easily available books. It was in this heady atmosphere, the first time in human history when dozens of ancient works were being mass produced and sold, that people suddenly got excited with the thought, "Hey! We could give copies of the Bible to everyone! Everyone could read the Scriptures for themselves!"-a thought which led very quickly into sola scriptura in the minds of those who wished to oppose historic Christian theology, as it would provide a justification for their own desire to depart from orthodoxy ("Hey, I read the Scriptures, and this is what they said to me!"). Of course, the invention of the printing press does not itself enable us to give Bibles to every Christian in the world (as all the calls for Bibles to be sent to Russia illustrate), which leads to the next practical presupposition of sola scriptura... Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can't be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian. This is the case today in the developed world; however, even today we cannot get enough Bibles into many lands due to economic and political restraints, as the fund raising appeals of Bible societies and their stories of Bible smuggling inform us. However, in the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in the what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped. The political systems, economies, logistical networks, and travel infrastructure that make the mass distribution of Bibles possible today simply did not exist for three-quarters of Church history. There was no way to get the books to the peasants, and no way the peasants could have afforded them in the first place. There just wasn't enough cash in circulation (just try giving a printer 5,000 chickens for the 1,000 Bibles he has just printed-much less keeping the chickens alive and transported from the time the peasants pay them to the time the printer gets them). Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure, to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and he can keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy. Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine (for example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?). He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine. No Protestant pastor (at least no pastors who are not in extreme anti-intellectual circles) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed! The average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes the possession-not just the existence-of adequate support materials. Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays-as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself. Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn't have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. This is something we often forget today because our diets are so rich, but for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. "Everything else," as the British historian James Burke put it, "was just something you ate with bread"-as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and as any public school dietitian can tell you, malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. That is one of the big motivating forces behind the school lunch program. If kids don't eat right, they don't study right, and they don't learn right, because they don't think clearly. The same is true of Bible students. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition. Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill, and anyone who has ever tried to teach basic, introductory logic to college students or anyone who had tried to read and grade the persuasive essays they write for philosophy tests can tell you (I'm speaking from personal experience here), that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills (a level which does not even exist today). Therefore sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history! All of this is besides the limitations we mentioned earlier-the fact that the average Christian, even the average devout Christian has no inclination whatsoever to conduct the kind of Bible study needed to become his own theologian and the fact that he is encouraged by many pressures from his own pastor and congregation (including the threat of being cast out) to fall in line and not challenge--especially publicly challenge--the party platform. CHRISTIANITY FOR THE COMMON MAN? It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a bunch of idealistic, Renaissance-era dilettantes--people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had adequate nutrition, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles! The average Christian today, even the average Christian in the developed world, does not fit that profile, and the average Christian in world history certainly did not, much less the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way. But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God's plan.