Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
Using already existing words from someone more articulate in expressing something is not equal to “citing them”. If he had stated something not provable by scripture I would not have used his words. The tactic you try to employ to somehow justify “citing” someone who states something not provable by scripture is getting a little weak.
>>So why should I find his interpretation to be authoritative?<<
Have you not been listening to any of us? Do you not keep up with conversation? You “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true”.
>>I hear you, but before I can accept anything written by Barnes as being authoritative, I would need your concession that the things written by the Church Fathers would also be acceptable.<<
Quote something they said that agrees with scripture and I have no problem with it. Quote something that isn’t and I’ll reject it. Satan himself knows there is a triune God. He also twists scripture for his own purposes. I agree with him on the Triune God part but not much else. Get the picture?
>>So how would you go about proving that abortion was wrong?<<
If your lack of knowledge about scripture is that weak I would suggest some study.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations.
Psalm 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
Even asking that question of people who are Christians indicates a lack of knowledge of scripture. The sanctity of life even in the womb shouldn’t even be an issue. Even the secular courts have declared people guilty of murder for killing the unborn. It’s almost embarrassing to have to answer that question from someone who claims to be a Christian.
>>Neither is the teaching that Christ and God and the Holy spirit are of the same substance.<<<
That line used by Catholics is so lame it’s getting to be ridiculous. It’s been shown over and over again that it is contained in scripture. Even the RCC used scripture to formulate the doctrine. Bringing that up over and over again does nothing for you credibility.
>>It is a consequence of scriptural teachings. If A and B are true than C must be also.<<
The weakness of that as a base for theology should be apparent to any intelligent human being let alone anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Beliefs based on “assumed”, “could be”, it’s possible, or any other carnal knowledge and logic is weak, dangerous, and deadly.
>>You say that he is in accord with scripture and so is the bodily assumption of Mary.<<
Then quote the scriptures that prove the bodily assumption of Mary. If you claim it’s in scripture be the first to show it.
“But it is defended as if it were infallible, while as there is no infallible list of what all church fathers consist of, or of all infallible pronouncements, not everything is clear as to what is infallible.”
Actually, there is a list. And no, Perpetual Virginity is not on it. It is defended as dogma - official teachings of the church, but not as infalliable dogma, as her assumption is.
“Which assurance, as said, does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant (which source is disallowed as providing real certitude of Truth”
Nonsense, the argument rests that adelphoi is not limited to biological brothers. And nor does the Greek limit itself in that use. Perpetual Virginity is confirmed by the teachings of the early church fathers and does not contradict scripture. Tradition must fit into the bin, so to speak.
Jesus quoting from them, the apostles writing about the same events and not once has anyone proven anything in them in error. All prophecies have been fulfilled precisely as prophesied. Any earthly entity saying they are authoritative does not make it so but time has proven no errors or contradictions.
“Using already existing words from someone more articulate in expressing something is not equal to “citing them”.”
Uh, yeah. That’s exactly what a citation is.
Look I was on the other side, and I used to do exactly as you do here. Which is why the point stands that the argument is not between scripture vs tradition, but between tradition vs tradition.
“The tactic you try to employ to somehow justify “citing” someone”
On the contrary, you are attempting to cite something that is not scripture. So far, failing quite miserably to justify said citation. I am showing you on what grounds that I will accept said citation, and you are showing me exactly why I’m not going to accept anything Barnes says.
You don’t accept the Church fathers and I’m not going to accept Barnes. So don’t bother citing him again, thank you.
“who states something not provable by scripture”
Again, there is no authoritative list of books which is contained in scripture. So however you define sacred scripture is based upon tradition. You can’t even get out of the starting gates without some reference to tradition.
“Have you not been listening”
What are his credentials? What has he done to warrant his interpretation being considered authoritative?
I’m not going to even bother reading what he has to say until you answer my questions here. This is a question of authority.
“Quote something they said that agrees with scripture and I have no problem with it.”
Fine. The apocrypha is inspired and is Sacred Scripture.
“Quote something that isn’t and I’ll reject it.”
Quote anything that you happen to disagree with, and suddenly “it’s not authoritative”.
“Satan himself knows there is a triune God. He also twists scripture for his own purposes. I agree with him on the Triune God part but not much else. Get the picture?”
He also believes that he himself is the ultimate authority...
“Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations.”
But that never actually says anything about abortion! How can we be sure to apply that passage to abortion?
“Even asking that question of people who are Christians indicates a lack of knowledge of scripture.”
On the contrary. I am familiar with the arguments, and no, abortion is never explicitly referred to in Scripture. It is explicitly referred to in the Didache and completely rejected by the Church Fathers. And they spell it out that Abortion is a mortal sin.
See, you’re assuming interpretations based on your tradition, you’re bringing things in that aren’t written there.
“The sanctity of life even in the womb shouldn’t even be an issue.”
Am I arguing it is? I am arguing that scripture never directly mentions abortion. This is a problem unless you have tradition to instruct you that abortion is wrong. You can infer it from Jeremiah etc, but it is never explicitly referred, as say, homosexuality.
“It’s almost embarrassing to have to answer that question from someone who claims to be a Christian.”
Get used to it. Just because you find it ‘embarrassing’, demonstrates to me you have no idea what is going on here.
“It’s been shown over and over again that it is contained in scripture.”
It’s just not there. It is in Nicaea though...which any protestant also accepts as authoritative for they accept the first four ecumenical councils.
“Even the RCC used scripture to formulate the doctrine.”
So you concede that it was the Roman Catholic church that defined the trinity at Nicaea?
Thank you. This is a very IMPORTANT concession. That’s part of what I was after, because now the Great Apostasy gets pushed back to sometime after Chalcedon.
And also, btw, after the Vulgate and the Canon. You see the Church can’t be corrupt to be valid at Chalcedon in 420 and not valid in 380. It just doesn’t work that way.
“Bringing that up over and over again does nothing for you credibility.”
Not what I was after, sir. :) I was hoping you’d get indigent and say what I was hoping you’d say. Thanks!
“The weakness of that as a base for theology”
No weakness. Again where does scripture confirm your interpretation that Mary died? Where does that appear?
“Then quote the scriptures that prove the bodily assumption of Mary. If you claim it’s in scripture be the first to show it.”
I said that it was in accordance to, not that it is confirmed explicitly by scripture. Scripture is silent on what happened to her life after the death of Christ, and the initial days of the Church. Scripture is silent on many things.
That doesn’t mean these things didn’t happen or that the Apostles themselves did not confirm this. We know at Chalcedon, when they confirmed the teaching of her assumption as true.
Just because something is not explicitly stated in scripture does not mean that it isn’t true.
“Jesus quoting from them, the apostles writing about the same events”
So when Jesus cites Isaiah 22:10 “The gates that you open no one can close”, you are justified in asserting that the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven cannot be passed down?
The disparate attempts to in any way possible give credibility to the RCC on any subject to hopefully maintain credibility on other subjects is getting laughable.
“Wrong. People won’t answer when they see that they’re being manipulated. Or that they’re going to be labeled and pigeon-holed and judged.”
People don’t like answering direct questions because then they know they can’t hide anymore.
Look, this isn’t a difficult question. You say it’s got nothing to do about X, but are embarrassed about answering the question “well what do you actually believe about X”?
It’s the natural question isn’t it? You keep saying that “it’s my body nobody can tell me what to do about it and “I have no right to ask”.
Given that you are Ex-Catholic, yes, it is an important point. It is what the Church teaches and yes, I have the right to ask what you believe on what the church teaches.
I’ve been an open book to your questions. I’ve not hesitated to answer your questions (and you’ve had many of them). When the tables are turned, suddenly I have no right to do the same to you.
“From the church that hands out *annulments* even to those who’ve had children???”
Do you understand what an annulment is? You’re an ex-Catholic. Can you define what annulment means?
“I don’t know of any other denomination that offers church sanctioned divorce in disguise.”
That’s because it’s not ‘church sanctioned divorce’.
And BTW the Anglicans were FOUNDED on ‘church sanctioned divorce’.
“Besides, the two becoming one flesh was never predicated in Scripture on having children.”
Two becoming one flesh has to do with the union of husband and wife in marriage. Contraception impairs this union, because you are putting something between husband and wife.
“Even without children, when the marriage is consummated, the two have become one flesh. It’s more than just a physical union.”
Never argued to the contrary. But the physical union must be there and contraception impairs this union.
“Otherwise you’re saying that a marriage that doesn’t produce children means the husband and wife are not *one flesh*.”
Not what I’ve been saying at all. There is a distinction between choosing not to have children and between inability to have children.
Then why do you use Luther’s list of books if tradition is unreliable?
It’s understanding what those key are not whether or not they can be “handed down”. All Christian hold the “keys to heaven”
“It is NOT good for man to be alone.”
Not all are called to marriage.
“What’s bad is that kind of attitude towards something God Himself established and blessed, marriage. And I’ve heard it before from other religious people, and not all Catholics.”
I’m not quite sure how asserting that those who marry should be open to children is denigrating marriage.
“certainly does not understand what marriage is all about.”
So what is it about?
“God created Eve because it was not good for man to be alone. THEN He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.”
So what you are saying is that God commanded Adam and Eve to have children, and that we are to ‘fill the Earth and subdue it?”
If what you say is true, wouldn’t that confirm that if you don’t want children, don’t get married?
“And yet the Catholic church seems to treat sex as if it’s dirty”
‘Seems to’ is the key word here. No, that is not what the Church teaches on sex. What the Church actually teaches is that the procreative aspect of sex cannot be divided from the unitive aspect of sex. That means that sex is supposed to be pleasurable and productive.
“or sinful unless it’s for the express purpose of creating children.”
Which is why the Church condemns reproductive technologies that divide things the other way? Taking sex out of babymaking is wrong. Taking babymaking out of sex is also wrong.
“fulfill any one of other human needs when they have them.”
Last I checked we were to confine sexual activity to marriage. So yeah, no, we are not to ‘attend to human needs when we have them’. We are to express them in their proper arena - in marriage.
“People aren’t called TO marriage as was stated earlier.”
Ohohoho.
Yes, they are called to marriage.
“if people are called to anything, it’s singleness because it’s so difficult.”
Which is why so many choose to use contraception. Yeah, uhuh. Marriage is EASY. ;)
“It’s understanding what those key are not whether or not they can be “handed down”.”
And that’s a direct citation from Christ btw. You’re telling us you know better than he?
“All Christian hold the “keys to heaven” “
Where does scripture teach this?
Show me something I cited that is not provable by scripture.
>>Fine. The apocrypha is inspired and is Sacred Scripture.<<
So you would say that the Holy Spirit inspired errors?
Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted in 931 B.C. and 210 years later when Assyria conquered Israel in 721 B.C. Then it says in Tobit 14 that he was 112 when he died. Oops!
In Judith we find an error of who Nebuchadnezzar was King of.
Judith 1:1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh,
Nebuchadnezzar didn’t rule over the Assyrians he was King over Babylonia.
2 Kings 24:1 While Jehoiakim was king, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia invaded Judah
You may fall for the lies of the RCC but please don’t expect us to.
>> But that never actually says anything about abortion! How can we be sure to apply that passage to abortion?<<
Oh please. Do I really need to list the commands against murder, especially against innocents?
>> It’s just not there.<<
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
>>So you concede that it was the Roman Catholic church that defined the trinity at Nicaea?<<
Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.
How about you show from scripture the bodily assumption of Mary like you stated was there before I answer any more of you questions?
BenKenobi, do not badger another Freeper with questions. If he chooses not to answer, leave him alone. Reading the other Freeper's mind for not answering is also a form of "making it personal."
All, discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
It was great.
I'll end by saying practically every prayer of Paul's was that believers would understand,take hold on,comprehend,grasp what we have been FREELY GIVEN. That all of what God has given us would sink into our desperately wicked hearts,past our know it all minds and deep into our spirit to effect our transformation from the most inward part of us to that outward part that the world sees!
It's really awesome when some truth of Scripture makes its way from the head to the heart and really lands there and sinks in. That just happened with me for something I've known and believed for some 30+ years of walking with Christ. It really sunk in today in a new way and all I could do was gasp and go *Oh WOW!*.
Yeah. Sure. Go and make sense.
What are you doing on this thread anyway? ;)
smvoice
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.