Bible alone

theefaith · Jun 9, 2021

GracePeace said:
Where does the Book of John ever mention "amniotic fluid"? I'm drawing on what the author is providing me, you're having to import. The "connection" is self-explanatory : the author says "rivers of living water will flow from his belly refers to the Spirit" and "born of water and Spirit". I'm making the connection the author wants me to make, you have your own ideas you are importing to the text.

I don't know if this really pertains to this point--the point was that if you wanted to say "water" and "Spirit" refer to the two different births, it wouldn't work, because "the Spirit" is a "sentient Being" whereas "amniotic fluid" is not. Show me which animal on earth is amniotic fluid. Where are the infant amniotic fluids that grow to be adult amniotic fluids. Amniotic fluid isn't pregnant and doesn't give birth. It's not a being. I have repeated this argument now many times without a coherent response.

Nicodemus didn't understand "born again". Jesus simply clarifies what being born again means. No necessity is laid upon me to read "water" as "old birth" at all. You're trying to say just because two things were mentioned before that now two things have to correspond to those two things. I don't see it that way at all--and the context helps me understand why that wouldn't be the way to read it (again and again, amniotic fluid isn't a being, isn't pregnant, and doesn't give birth).

They change scripture

Born of water born again of the spirit

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(and and and)
born of both Water and the spirit
Baptism
Regeneration

then they go directly to the river and proclaim “faith alone”? No they baptize!

GracePeace · Jun 9, 2021

CadyandZoe said:
Well, one could argue that we are demonstrating "Bible alone" Yes? (smile) Okay. Thanks for the conversation.

No, by that reasoning, anyone could defend raising any topic found in the Bible, whereas this discussion is meant to center around the particular question of "Bible Alone"--not around the virtually infinite number of discussions that could be had on the topics that are found in the Book, but on whether the Book was alone enough or whether tradition was needed (the author disputes Protestantism).

theefaith · Jun 9, 2021

Example
matt 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

What power? To forgive sins or to heal?

And verse one

matt 9:1 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.

how can this be Nazareth is not on the sea?

GracePeace · Jun 9, 2021

theefaith said:
They change scripture

Born of water born again of the spirit

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(and and and)
born of both Water and the spirit
Baptism
Regeneration

then they go directly to the river and proclaim “faith alone”? No they baptize!

Now even YOU are chiming in?

Water isn't pregnant. We're not born of it. Water isn't a being. I believe it is likely that "water" refers to "the Word"--"the Words I speak are Spirit" (yet we know "the Word" is distinct from "the Spirit"--they're tightly bound together though). "The Spirit is the Truth", yet, they are two different things... "I am the life" says "The Word" (yet the Spirit is the life--"the body is dead without the spirit").

theefaith · Jun 9, 2021

GracePeace said:
Now even YOU are chiming in?

Water isn't pregnant. We're not born of it. Water isn't a being. I believe it is likely that "water" refers to "the Word"--"the Words I speak are Spirit" (yet we know "the Word" is distinct from "the Spirit"--they're tightly bound together though). "The Spirit is the Truth", yet, they are two different things... "I am the life" says "The Word" (yet the Spirit is the life--life is in the blood)

chiming in? It’s my thread! You are chiming in, and you’re welcome

GracePeace · Jun 9, 2021

theefaith said:
chiming in? It’s my thread! You are chiming in, and you’re welcome

LOL I meant "you're chiming in" on the off-topic discussion I'm trying to END so we don't mess up your thread--"you're preventing it from ending".

theefaith · Jun 9, 2021

GracePeace said:
LOL I meant "you're chiming in" on the off-topic discussion I'm trying to END so we don't mess up your thread--"you're preventing it from ending".

it’s all good

theefaith · Jun 9, 2021

I don’t care what direction it goes as long as there is a biblical basis or biblical understanding at the end of it

GracePeace · Jun 9, 2021

theefaith said:
I don’t care what direction it goes as long as there is a biblical basis or biblical understanding at the end of it

That's disorderly, I don't practice that.

Illuminator · Jun 9, 2021

GracePeace said:
No, by that reasoning, anyone could defend raising any topic found in the Bible, whereas this discussion is meant to center around the particular question of "Bible Alone"--not around the virtually infinite number of discussions that could be had on the topics that are found in the Book, but on whether the Book was alone enough or whether tradition was needed (the author disputes Protestantism).

Material vs. Formal Sufficiency of Scripture

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains:

"The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."

Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.

One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency (catholicnick.blogspot.com)

CadyandZoe · Jun 10, 2021

GracePeace said:
Where does the Book of John ever mention "amniotic fluid"? I'm drawing on what the author is providing me, you're having to import. The "connection" is self-explanatory : the author says "rivers of living water will flow from his belly refers to the Spirit" and "born of water and Spirit". I'm making the connection the author wants me to make, you have your own ideas you are importing to the text.

Yes, we both seem to agree that Jesus' use of "water" in John 7 is an analogy. "Rivers of living water" refers to the indwelling of the Spirit. We would both agree, I think, that water and spirit here in John 7 are not two things, but one thing. The first represents the second. Rivers of water represent the indwelling of the Spirit.

But here in John 3, Jesus is drawing a contrast between being "born of flesh" and being "born of spirit." Clearly, flesh is different than spirit. Being born of flesh is substantially different than being born of spirit. And his emphasis is thrown almost entirely on being "born of spirit." (See John 3:6 and John 3:8)

But verse 3:5 presents us with an interpretive challenge. Let's suppose that John intends the reader to make a connection between John 3:5 and John 7:38. In this case, Jesus might have said, "unless one is born of water, that is, born of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And if that is what Jesus meant, I'm okay with that. I have no problem with that.

On the other hand, it's possible that Jesus had two OT passages in mind, both of which speak about the outpouring of the Spirit: Isaiah 44:3-5 and Ezekiel 37:9-10. It just so happens that both Greek and Hebrew use the same word for "spirit" as they do for "wind". So let's consider that Jesus might have actually said, "unless one is born of water and wind, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Isaiah is talking about the rebirth of a nation and in that context the outpouring of the Spirit coincides with rain falling on parched earth. Ezekiel is also talking about the rebirth of the nation, wherein the Lord commands the wind and the dry bones form into bodies and the bodies are indwelt by the Spirit. It's possible, that Jesus was speaking about the rebirth of the nation: born of water and born of wind both referencing OT passages that speak about the outpouring of the Spirit. In this case, both wind and water represent the Spirit.

This interpretation is quite compelling and I am willing to give up my own interpretation in favor of that one, if that is what Jesus meant to say.

I don't know if this really pertains to this point--the point was that if you wanted to say "water" and "Spirit" refer to the two different births, it wouldn't work, because "the Spirit" is a "sentient Being" whereas "amniotic fluid" is not. Show me which animal on earth is amniotic fluid. Where are the infant amniotic fluids that grow to be adult amniotic fluids. Amniotic fluid isn't pregnant and doesn't give birth. It's not a being. I have repeated this argument now many times without a coherent response.

Okay. I'm sorry that my responses weren't coherent.

Yes, my understanding is that Jesus is speaking about two births: being "born of flesh" and being "born of spirit". And his purpose is to compare and contrast the two. But I could be wrong. If I understand your objection correctly, (correct me if I am wrong) you take issue with my interpretation because I am making a category mistake. I am willing to consider your objection. You hear me saying, "unless one is born of water (a substance) and Spirit (a sentient Being) he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And if I was saying that, then I would agree with you. This is clearly a category mistake and I would be wrong.

What I was trying to say is this, "unless one is born of water (a source of life) and spirit (another source of life) one cannot enter the kingdom of God." If I am right, Jesus is using the term "water" as a metonym, representing natural birth. Elsewhere the Bible indicates this with the phrase "born of woman." Job 14:1, Matthew 11:11 for instance.

(But I am warming up to your idea.)

But I thought your idea suffered from a category error also, which is why I was not convinced. As we noted earlier, Jesus' has employed an analogy in John chapter 7 between water (a substance) and spirit (not a substance.) So the sentence "unless a man is born of water (a substance) and spirit (not a substance) he cannot enter the kingdom of God" fails on the grounds that it forces Jesus to make a category error.

Now consider Jesus may have meant "wind" (a substance) instead of spirit (not a substance). Perhaps he meant to say, "unless one is born of water (a reference to Isaiah 44) and wind (a reference to Ezekiel 37) he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This interpretation doesn't suffer from a category error and if fits closer to John 4 and John 7.

What do you think?

Nicodemus didn't understand "born again". Jesus simply clarifies what being born again means. No necessity is laid upon me to read "water" as "old birth" at all. You're trying to say just because two things were mentioned before that now two things have to correspond to those two things. I don't see it that way at all--and the context helps me understand why that wouldn't be the way to read it (again and again, amniotic fluid isn't a being, isn't pregnant, and doesn't give birth).

I wish I could respond to this because I don't want you to think that I am ignoring your points. I'm not. But this post is long and I need to return to my job.

Thanks so very much for talking this through with me. I'm slowly coming your direction.

CadyandZoe · Jun 10, 2021

GracePeace said:
No, by that reasoning, anyone could defend raising any topic found in the Bible, whereas this discussion is meant to center around the particular question of "Bible Alone"--not around the virtually infinite number of discussions that could be had on the topics that are found in the Book, but on whether the Book was alone enough or whether tradition was needed (the author disputes Protestantism).

Okay. Point taken. But what else can be said on the subject that hasn't already been said to the OP a hundred times? Please forgive me. I got bored. When the OP raised the issue of baptism and John 3, I decided to dialog with someone like you who wishes to arrive at the truth of the matter. Thank you for that.

I apologize for taking us off topic. I will try to avoid that in the future.

To summarize my position:
My understanding of Sola Scriptura focuses on the concept of infallibility. It isn't that we prefer scripture over everything else. We would like to have other sources of infallible knowledge about God's will for mankind. But we don't. Bottom line. The Bible is our ONLY infallible source of God's will for mankind.

CadyandZoe · Jun 10, 2021

Illuminator said:
Material vs. Formal Sufficiency of Scripture

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains:

"The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."

Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.

One last important thing to note is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency (catholicnick.blogspot.com)

Paul was the master builder and he built the foundation. The RCC didn't use bricks to build on that foundation. It used wood, hay, and straw. It used the gold, silver, and precious stones to adorn buildings and religious garb.

GracePeace · Jun 10, 2021

CadyandZoe said:
Yes, we both seem to agree that Jesus' use of "water" in John 7 is an analogy. "Rivers of living water" refers to the indwelling of the Spirit. We would both agree, I think, that water and spirit here in John 7 are not two things, but one thing. The first represents the second. Rivers of water represent the indwelling of the Spirit.

But here in John 3, Jesus is drawing a contrast between being "born of flesh" and being "born of spirit." Clearly, flesh is different than spirit. Being born of flesh is substantially different than being born of spirit. And his emphasis is thrown almost entirely on being "born of spirit." (See John 3:6 and John 3:8)

But verse 3:5 presents us with an interpretive challenge. Let's suppose that John intends the reader to make a connection between John 3:5 and John 7:38. In this case, Jesus might have said, "unless one is born of water, that is, born of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And if that is what Jesus meant, I'm okay with that. I have no problem with that.

On the other hand, it's possible that Jesus had two OT passages in mind, both of which speak about the outpouring of the Spirit: Isaiah 44:3-5 and Ezekiel 37:9-10. It just so happens that both Greek and Hebrew use the same word for "spirit" as they do for "wind". So let's consider that Jesus might have actually said, "unless one is born of water and wind, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Isaiah is talking about the rebirth of a nation and in that context the outpouring of the Spirit coincides with rain falling on parched earth. Ezekiel is also talking about the rebirth of the nation, wherein the Lord commands the wind and the dry bones form into bodies and the bodies are indwelt by the Spirit. It's possible, that Jesus was speaking about the rebirth of the nation: born of water and born of wind both referencing OT passages that speak about the outpouring of the Spirit. In this case, both wind and water represent the Spirit.

This interpretation is quite compelling and I am willing to give up my own interpretation in favor of that one, if that is what Jesus meant to say.

Okay. I'm sorry that my responses weren't coherent.

Yes, my understanding is that Jesus is speaking about two births: being "born of flesh" and being "born of spirit". And his purpose is to compare and contrast the two. But I could be wrong. If I understand your objection correctly, (correct me if I am wrong) you take issue with my interpretation because I am making a category mistake. I am willing to consider your objection. You hear me saying, "unless one is born of water (a substance) and Spirit (a sentient Being) he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And if I was saying that, then I would agree with you. This is clearly a category mistake and I would be wrong.

What I was trying to say is this, "unless one is born of water (a source of life) and spirit (another source of life) one cannot enter the kingdom of God." If I am right, Jesus is using the term "water" as a metonym, representing natural birth. Elsewhere the Bible indicates this with the phrase "born of woman." Job 14:1, Matthew 11:11 for instance.

(But I am warming up to your idea.)

But I thought your idea suffered from a category error also, which is why I was not convinced. As we noted earlier, Jesus' has employed an analogy in John chapter 7 between water (a substance) and spirit (not a substance.) So the sentence "unless a man is born of water (a substance) and spirit (not a substance) he cannot enter the kingdom of God" fails on the grounds that it forces Jesus to make a category error.

Now consider Jesus may have meant "wind" (a substance) instead of spirit (not a substance). Perhaps he meant to say, "unless one is born of water (a reference to Isaiah 44) and wind (a reference to Ezekiel 37) he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This interpretation doesn't suffer from a category error and if fits closer to John 4 and John 7.

What do you think?

I wish I could respond to this because I don't want you to think that I am ignoring your points. I'm not. But this post is long and I need to return to my job.

Thanks so very much for talking this through with me. I'm slowly coming your direction.

Already told you I'm not discussing this here as it's off topic. Please create a new thread.

Illuminator · Jun 10, 2021

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text”
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura | Catholic Answers

GracePeace · Jun 10, 2021

CadyandZoe said:
Yes, we both seem to agree that Jesus' use of "water" in John 7 is an analogy. "Rivers of living water" refers to the indwelling of the Spirit. We would both agree, I think, that water and spirit here in John 7 are not two things, but one thing. The first represents the second. Rivers of water represent the indwelling of the Spirit.

But here in John 3, Jesus is drawing a contrast between being "born of flesh" and being "born of spirit." Clearly, flesh is different than spirit. Being born of flesh is substantially different than being born of spirit. And his emphasis is thrown almost entirely on being "born of spirit." (See John 3:6 and John 3:8)

But verse 3:5 presents us with an interpretive challenge. Let's suppose that John intends the reader to make a connection between John 3:5 and John 7:38. In this case, Jesus might have said, "unless one is born of water, that is, born of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And if that is what Jesus meant, I'm okay with that. I have no problem with that.

On the other hand, it's possible that Jesus had two OT passages in mind, both of which speak about the outpouring of the Spirit: Isaiah 44:3-5 and Ezekiel 37:9-10. It just so happens that both Greek and Hebrew use the same word for "spirit" as they do for "wind". So let's consider that Jesus might have actually said, "unless one is born of water and wind, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Isaiah is talking about the rebirth of a nation and in that context the outpouring of the Spirit coincides with rain falling on parched earth. Ezekiel is also talking about the rebirth of the nation, wherein the Lord commands the wind and the dry bones form into bodies and the bodies are indwelt by the Spirit. It's possible, that Jesus was speaking about the rebirth of the nation: born of water and born of wind both referencing OT passages that speak about the outpouring of the Spirit. In this case, both wind and water represent the Spirit.

This interpretation is quite compelling and I am willing to give up my own interpretation in favor of that one, if that is what Jesus meant to say.

Okay. I'm sorry that my responses weren't coherent.

Yes, my understanding is that Jesus is speaking about two births: being "born of flesh" and being "born of spirit". And his purpose is to compare and contrast the two. But I could be wrong. If I understand your objection correctly, (correct me if I am wrong) you take issue with my interpretation because I am making a category mistake. I am willing to consider your objection. You hear me saying, "unless one is born of water (a substance) and Spirit (a sentient Being) he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And if I was saying that, then I would agree with you. This is clearly a category mistake and I would be wrong.

What I was trying to say is this, "unless one is born of water (a source of life) and spirit (another source of life) one cannot enter the kingdom of God." If I am right, Jesus is using the term "water" as a metonym, representing natural birth. Elsewhere the Bible indicates this with the phrase "born of woman." Job 14:1, Matthew 11:11 for instance.

(But I am warming up to your idea.)

But I thought your idea suffered from a category error also, which is why I was not convinced. As we noted earlier, Jesus' has employed an analogy in John chapter 7 between water (a substance) and spirit (not a substance.) So the sentence "unless a man is born of water (a substance) and spirit (not a substance) he cannot enter the kingdom of God" fails on the grounds that it forces Jesus to make a category error.

Now consider Jesus may have meant "wind" (a substance) instead of spirit (not a substance). Perhaps he meant to say, "unless one is born of water (a reference to Isaiah 44) and wind (a reference to Ezekiel 37) he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This interpretation doesn't suffer from a category error and if fits closer to John 4 and John 7.

What do you think?

I wish I could respond to this because I don't want you to think that I am ignoring your points. I'm not. But this post is long and I need to return to my job.

Thanks so very much for talking this through with me. I'm slowly coming your direction.

Created a new thread for the discussion.

Illuminator · Jun 10, 2021

2 Timothy 3
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. Still taught today. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!

theefaith · Jun 10, 2021

Illuminator said:
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text”
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura | Catholic Answers

And the “man of God” is an apostle with authority from christ

Philip James · Jun 11, 2021

CadyandZoe said:
Grace be to you James. Thank you for your respectful response. The example you gave might be a helpful picture, but it isn't an example of sacramentalism. As you may already know, it is taught that a sacrament is something physical in this world whereby one gains access to the grace of God. For example, the act of Baptism is considered a sacrament because through baptism we are admitted to the faith.

I maintain that the only means to grace is the proper inwardness. The physical act of baptism does nothing. Inwardness is essential; baptism is incidental.

Do you disagree?

Hello Cady,

I apologise that it took me this long to respond..

A sacrament is a tangible (outward) sign that actually conveys the (inward) Grace that it also signifies.

St. Peter demonstrates this when, speaking of the baptismal bath he says:

This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(1Pet 3:21)

For a thorough discussion on this see:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sacraments

"In the writings of the Fathers of the Church the word was used to signify something sacred and mysterious, and where the Latins use sacramentum the Greeks use mysterion (mystery). "

Often, when speaking of the celebration of the Eucharist, one will hear it referred to as the celebration of 'the Divine mysteries'.
It is this administration of the Sacraments (mysteries) to which St. Paul refers when he says:

Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
(1Cor 4:1)

Now Jesus did not command empty ritual or powerless symbols, But rather instituted the Sacraments that operate by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of those that reject such power and practice empty symbolism, Paul says:

as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them.
(2tim 3:5)

Thank you for a pleasant and respectful discussion!

Peace be with you!

theefaith · Jun 11, 2021

Protestant colored glasses!
The Protestant scriptures

Matt 24:12 he who has “Faith Alone” is saved.

Matt 24:13 he who endures till the end shall be saved.

Matt 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, they are saved by “Faith Alone”.

Matt 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mk 16:16 he who has “Faith Alone” is saved.

Mk 16:16 he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.

John3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born by “Faith Alone” thru the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and preached “Faith Alone” 23 And John also was also preaching “Faith Alone” in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much people there: and they came, and believed.

John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made more disciples by “Faith Alone” than John.

John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be saved by “Faith Alone” and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as believe by “Faith Alone” into Jesus Christ were believed into his death?

Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rom 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by “Faith Alone” into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all believed by “Faith Alone “ into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been believed by “Faith Alone” into Christ have put on Christ.

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

1 pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even “Faith Alone” doth also now save us!

1 pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us!

Part 2

1 cor 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have “Faith Alone” so that I could remove mountains, I am saved.

1 cor 13: 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

1 cor 13:13 And now abideth “Faith Alone” this one, and the greatest is “Faith Alone”.

1 cor 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Phil 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, to have “Faith Alone”.

Phil 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Romans 13:11
And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now we are saved.

Romans 13:11
And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

Protestant colored glasses!

Bible alone

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads