apothanein kerdos Posted October 30, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2005 The Church does not "make" saints. The Church merely recognizes saints. And gives the glory to God for giving us models of faith, by His Grace, that we may imitate. The RCC does recognize that we are all called "saints". However, it holds up those holy men and women who have lead a life of submission to God, often suffering and/or dying for their faith. We are fully aware that there are innumerable "unrecognized" saints. Then you admit that the church is a gnostic organization uplifting the "spiritual" works of a person but not the other works. In essence, a person that dedicates his or her life to the poor and the church is somehow more holy or leads a life of more submission than the man who works 8 hour days and serves his family and is one of the best fathers the world has ever seen. Thus, you make the church an elistist and gnostic organization. Congrats If it followed the Bible, it could avoid this problem. Re: Mary It is your interpretation of the word "until" that is limited. If you check all the usages in Scripture it does not necessarily mean an action or state ends at that point. Prove such an absurd claim. Fact is, you're making it up. RE: Virgin Mary That's another thread But it ties in with this. The problem is Catholics want to argue against scirpture (or the sole reliance upon scripture) whilst ignoring the major problems within their own theology. The issues are tied. Re: Peter & James & the Pope Start another thread; I don't want to go off on a tangent. Not "side-stepping". It is a whole other debate. No, this is relevant to the discussion. We are discussing RCC dogma vs. the Bible. This is a key element. Her'es the problem, you're trying to put us on the defense and not letting us use any offense. That 'aint gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted October 30, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2005 Nice try, but you failed Fiosh. Instead of responding to what was actually put forth, you gave a wrong interpretation of oral tradition and likewise created a straw man. For one, oral tradition does not tell us how to live out scripture but actually dictates theology and is the only supportive element in its reasoning. It is circular because the only justification we have for oral tradition is oral tradition. It creates the theology that the Pope is the "father" of the church, that Mary is sinless, that there is purgatory, etc. Oral tradition is more than a "guideline to living", it is what establishes core theology in the Roman Catholic church. Likewise, I am not uncomfortable trusting my interpretation of scripture...I speak Greek and will soon be learning Hebrew...why shouldn't I trust my own interpretation? Well then I guess "you da man, SJ!" We shall all concede to your very own interpretation of Scripture. Wow, how arrogant is that! You think there are no Catholic, not to mention non-Catholic, scholars that speak Greek and Hebrew and will disagree with you? Look what is happening in Christian churches as they interpret for themselves. Actively homosexual bishops and clergy; approval of divorce; and what about women preachers---is that Biblical? No, we need some structure within which to interpret Scripture. That's why Jesus gave us the Church. You guys and your "straw man" lingo. Can we come up with a different term? I plainly stated that there is support in Scripture for "holding fast" to oral tradition. So far, you guys have 1, count 'em, 1 verse that you mis-use to prove sola Scriptura. It is sola Scriptura that cannot be justified. It is you who have failed to make a strong case. Your case amounts to " I believe in the Bible alone because I believe in the Bible alone". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted October 30, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2005 Wow, how arrogant is that! You think there are no Catholic scholars that speak Greek and Hebrew and will disagree with you? Oh yes, I shoudl trust a corrupt organization that has killed millions of people. Yay for oral tradition (cause it is, after all, oral tradition that allowed this)! Look what is happening in Christian churches as they interpret for themselves. Actively homosexual bishops and clergy; approval of divorce; and what about women preachers---is that Biblical? No, we need some structure within which to interpret Scripture. That's why Jesus gave us the Church. No, that is why He gave us an intellect. Look to the denominations that are allowing such things and you will find that they are void (and have been for some time) of any honest scholarship. Then again, the same is true for the Catholic church...the same church that all but denounced education for nearly 2,000 years. You guys and your "straw man" lingo. Can we come up with a different term? I plainly stated that there is support in Scripture for "holding fast" to oral tradition. So far, you guys have 1, count 'em, 1 verse that you mis-use to prove sola Scriptura. Do you even know what it means? It is you who have failed to make a strong case. Your case amounts to " I believe in the Bible alone because I believe in the Bible alone". I don't need to make a case. For one, scripture stands for itself, and secondly, you said it yourself, the Bible is the final authority. I was merely proving that oral tradition contradicts the final authority. Why do I need to make a case that the Bible is the final authority when you agreed? Pay attention if you're going to debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Fiosh, the onus is not upon us to prove Sola Scriptura. The onus is on the one who claims that the Bible is not the final authority, the final court of appeal on doctrinal matters. If sufficient cause cannot be found to justify your rant against Sola Scriptura, then Sola Scriptura is true. I would also point out, that Sola Scriptura has no bearing on whether or not churches ordain homosexuals or what not. That is not a product of adhering to Sola Scriptura. The Catholic church was recently rocked with an embarrassing scandal of child molesting priests and such, and your oh-so glorious Magesterium got busted for trying to cover it up. So much for their being men of God. Immorality in among Christians has nothing to do with how they interpret Scripture but upon a refusal to obey God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted October 30, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2005 The Church does not "make" saints. The Church merely recognizes saints. And gives the glory to God for giving us models of faith, by His Grace, that we may imitate. The RCC does recognize that we are all called "saints". However, it holds up those holy men and women who have lead a life of submission to God, often suffering and/or dying for their faith. We are fully aware that there are innumerable "unrecognized" saints. Then you admit that the church is a gnostic organization uplifting the "spiritual" works of a person but not the other works. In essence, a person that dedicates his or her life to the poor and the church is somehow more holy or leads a life of more submission than the man who works 8 hour days and serves his family and is one of the best fathers the world has ever seen. Thus, you make the church an elistist and gnostic organization. Congrats If it followed the Bible, it could avoid this problem. Nope. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a man or woman who totally submits his/her life to God and lives in union with Him, as much as that is humanly possible, is a model for us all. The RCC recognizes this, and praises God for His grace. Many saints, if not most, were simple ordinary folks. It is their total submission to the will of God that we strive to imitate. Re: Mary It is your interpretation of the word "until" that is limited. If you check all the usages in Scripture it does not necessarily mean an action or state ends at that point. Prove such an absurd claim. Fact is, you're making it up. Nope. Not making it up. I already addressed this fully in the Virgin Mary thread. heos does not make a statement about any further activity For example: I Cor 15:25 "...[Jesus] must reign until (heos) He has put all His enemies under His feet." Will He then stop reigning??? According to your limited definition, yes. RE: Virgin Mary That's another thread But it ties in with this. The problem is Catholics want to argue against scirpture (or the sole reliance upon scripture) whilst ignoring the major problems within their own theology. The issues are tied. Yes, there are many related issues. I'm only asking that for now we try to stay focused on the concepts of "sS" and "T". Re: Peter & James & the Pope Start another thread; I don't want to go off on a tangent. Not "side-stepping". It is a whole other debate. No, this is relevant to the discussion. We are discussing RCC dogma vs. the Bible. This is a key element. Again. I simply want to iron out what we already have on the table before moving on. Her'es the problem, you're trying to put us on the defense and not letting us use any offense. That 'aint gonna happen. Nope. I'm trying to explain my understanding of what I believe and why I believe it. If that puts you on the defensive, that's your choice. However, most of your offense seems to consist of building up a straw man and knocking him down. Peace, F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted October 30, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2005 Fiosh, the onus is not upon us to prove Sola Scriptura. The onus is on the one who claims that the Bible is not the final authority, the final court of appeal on doctrinal matters. If sufficient cause cannot be found to justify your rant against Sola Scriptura, then Sola Scriptura is true. I would also point out, that Sola Scriptura has no bearing on whether or not churches ordain homosexuals or what not. That is not a product of adhering to Sola Scriptura. The Catholic church was recently rocked with an embarrassing scandal of child molesting priests and such, and your oh-so glorious Magesterium got busted for trying to cover it up. So much for their being men of God. Immorality in among Christians has nothing to do with how they interpret Scripture but upon a refusal to obey God. It has everything to do with it. Yes, the RCC has been rocked with scandal and it disgusts me. We are a church of saints and sinners, and fully admit it. But it is not an approved policy of the church to molest children. However, it IS the approved policy of some churches to allow active homosexuals to lead their churches. This is in open defiance to Scripture. They interpret Scripture to say it is a practice sanctioned by the word of God; at least according to their interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted October 30, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2005 Nope. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a man or woman who totally submits his/her life to God and lives in union with Him, as much as that is humanly possible, is a model for us all. The RCC recognizes this, and praises God for His grace. Many saints, if not most, were simple ordinary folks. It is their total submission to the will of God that we strive to imitate. Then why aren't there more Saints? Why haven't they recognized more? Why is a single mother living but raising her kids in the proper biblical manner never considered for sainthood? Nope. Not making it up. I already addressed this fully in the Virgin Mary thread. heos does not make a statement about any further activity For example: I Cor 15:25 "...[Jesus] must reign until (heos) He has put all His enemies under His feet." Will He then stop reigning??? According to your limited definition, yes. *sigh* The Greek word for "until" here is archi, not heos. It is properly interpreted as "even to", thus in 1 Cor it would mean that Christ has to reign, even to the ends of His enemies. This indicates a perpetual motion whereas heos indicates a limited motion that ends at a certian action. C'mon now. Yes, there are many related issues. I'm only asking that for now we try to stay focused on the concepts of "sS" and "T". Tradition encompasses and violates scripture on these issues, thus they must be discussed. Again. I simply want to iron out what we already have on the table before moving on. Same logic as above. However, most of your offense seems to consist of building up a straw man and knocking him down. How have I made a straw man? Provide analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted October 30, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2005 Fiosh, the onus is not upon us to prove Sola Scriptura. The onus is on the one who claims that the Bible is not the final authority, the final court of appeal on doctrinal matters. If sufficient cause cannot be found to justify your rant against Sola Scriptura, then Sola Scriptura is true. I would also point out, that Sola Scriptura has no bearing on whether or not churches ordain homosexuals or what not. That is not a product of adhering to Sola Scriptura. The Catholic church was recently rocked with an embarrassing scandal of child molesting priests and such, and your oh-so glorious Magesterium got busted for trying to cover it up. So much for their being men of God. Immorality in among Christians has nothing to do with how they interpret Scripture but upon a refusal to obey God. It has everything to do with it. Yes, the RCC has been rocked with scandal and it disgusts me. We are a church of saints and sinners, and fully admit it. But it is not an approved policy of the church to molest children. However, it IS the approved policy of some churches to allow active homosexuals to lead their churches. This is in open defiance to Scripture. They interpret Scripture to say it is a practice sanctioned by the word of God; at least according to their interpretation. But that's not Sola Scriptura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Fiosh, the onus is not upon us to prove Sola Scriptura. The onus is on the one who claims that the Bible is not the final authority, the final court of appeal on doctrinal matters. If sufficient cause cannot be found to justify your rant against Sola Scriptura, then Sola Scriptura is true. I would also point out, that Sola Scriptura has no bearing on whether or not churches ordain homosexuals or what not. That is not a product of adhering to Sola Scriptura. The Catholic church was recently rocked with an embarrassing scandal of child molesting priests and such, and your oh-so glorious Magesterium got busted for trying to cover it up. So much for their being men of God. Immorality in among Christians has nothing to do with how they interpret Scripture but upon a refusal to obey God. It has everything to do with it. Yes, the RCC has been rocked with scandal and it disgusts me. We are a church of saints and sinners, and fully admit it. But it is not an approved policy of the church to molest children. However, it IS the approved policy of some churches to allow active homosexuals to lead their churches. This is in open defiance to Scripture. They interpret Scripture to say it is a practice sanctioned by the word of God; at least according to their interpretation. It is up to you to prove that the Churches who ordain homosexuals ascribe to Sola Scriptura. Just because a church is Protestant, does not mean they automatically subscribe to this doctrine. Therefore, you cannot blame ordination of homosexuals on that doctrine. Many draw on several outside sources, not all of them Christian, to help form their theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted October 30, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2005 Fiosh, the onus is not upon us to prove Sola Scriptura. The onus is on the one who claims that the Bible is not the final authority, the final court of appeal on doctrinal matters. If sufficient cause cannot be found to justify your rant against Sola Scriptura, then Sola Scriptura is true. I would also point out, that Sola Scriptura has no bearing on whether or not churches ordain homosexuals or what not. That is not a product of adhering to Sola Scriptura. The Catholic church was recently rocked with an embarrassing scandal of child molesting priests and such, and your oh-so glorious Magesterium got busted for trying to cover it up. So much for their being men of God. Immorality in among Christians has nothing to do with how they interpret Scripture but upon a refusal to obey God. It has everything to do with it. Yes, the RCC has been rocked with scandal and it disgusts me. We are a church of saints and sinners, and fully admit it. But it is not an approved policy of the church to molest children. However, it IS the approved policy of some churches to allow active homosexuals to lead their churches. This is in open defiance to Scripture. They interpret Scripture to say it is a practice sanctioned by the word of God; at least according to their interpretation. But that's not Sola Scriptura It stems from leaving interpretation of Scripture to the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts