22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[BreadOfLife]

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Acts 17:10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

And yet, NEITHER of these passages suggests that Scripture is our SOLE Authority.

EPIC FAIL . . .

 

[covenantee]

Besides being stupid and racist against Italians - your post offers us a window into the mind of a true mental midget . . .

Don't you love the Mafia? They're genuine Catholics, who have been part of your church for many years.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And yet, NEITHER of these passages suggests that Scripture is our SOLE Authority.

EPIC FAIL . . .

I'm sorry, where did I state that? You continue to make a fool of yourself with every post you make. You foolishly made an assumption about my post even though I only posted scripture without any commentary. Are you paranoid? There's something VERY OFF about you and I think you need professional help.

Clearly, God is our authority and we get our understanding of His authority from scripture. Do you agree that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" or not? Do you think we should be like the Bereans and take what others say and study scripture for ourselves to see if it is true or not? If you answer yes to both of these questions, then what is your problem?

My only intention in posting them was because they contain things that we should all understand and take to heart, which is why I did not address it to anyone specifically. I didn't add commentary to the passages I posted because they are very straightforward and self-explanatory. Naturally, that escaped you.

 

[Illuminator]

I'm sorry, where did I state that? You continue to make a fool of yourself with every post you make. You foolishly made an assumption about my post even though I only posted scripture without any commentary. Are you paranoid? There's something VERY OFF about you and I think you need professional help.

Clearly, God is our authority and we get our understanding of His authority from scripture. Do you agree that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" or not? Do you think we should be like the Bereans and take what others say and study scripture for ourselves to see if it is true or not? If you answer yes to both of these questions, then what is your problem?

My only intention in posting them was because they contain things that we should all understand and take to heart, which is why I did not address it to anyone specifically. I didn't add commentary to the passages I posted because they are very straightforward and self-explanatory. Naturally, that escaped you.

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:

1. Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2. Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3. 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. Never changed; still taught today. (CCC115-116) 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!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Don't you love the Mafia? They're genuine Catholics, who have been part of your church for many years.

Another idiotic post from yet another idiot . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm sorry, where did I state that? You continue to make a fool of yourself with every post you make. You foolishly made an assumption about my post even though I only posted scripture without any commentary. Are you paranoid? There's something VERY OFF about you and I think you need professional help.

Clearly, God is our authority and we get our understanding of His authority from scripture. Do you agree that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" or not? Do you think we should be like the Bereans and take what others say and study scripture for ourselves to see if it is true or not? If you answer yes to both of these questions, then what is your problem?

My only intention in posting them was because they contain things that we should all understand and take to heart, which is why I did not address it to anyone specifically. I didn't add commentary to the passages I posted because they are very straightforward and self-explanatory. Naturally, that escaped you.

WOW.
Paranoid, much??

Your post was a pretty obvious response to my comments about Sola Scriptura. In posts 8429 and 8540. I simply set you straight.

Now – if you have nothing more, we'll leave it at that . . .

 

[PinSeeker]

Sorry – it’s a historical FACT.

It's not. Historical things tend to get painted all sorts of weird colors depending on the source. We can go around and around on this, and have; I propose we stop.

Calvin’s TULIP doctrines and Luther’s Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were NEVER taught in the historical Church.

You've clearly misunderstood or ignored (or both) most everything I've said about the solas, and I'll add TULIP to that. You're not alone in that... It's all based firmly in Scripture. Many disagree for various reasons, one of which is misconception and/or mischaracterization of the concepts contained in those concepts, and you (and others) fall into that camp. The trouble is, when those concepts are explained, some still cling to those misconceptions/mischaracterizations... for various reasons. I'll leave it at that.

I have – because although I vehemently disagree with you on some things – it hasn’t descended into an angry insult-feat like so many of these debates do.

I would encourage you to reexamine your own statement here, especially the part about vehement disagreement.

It’s gotten a little heated at times...

A little... But there has been no heat from me, BreadOfLife.

...it has remained pretty civil.

Hmmm... well... Granted, I don't remember you calling any of my posts "idiotic" or me an "idiot"... like you just did covenantee... ...but...

I don’t think I’ve taken any of it “personally”.

Hmmm... well...

And it has great significance beyond just taking it personally...

I just won’t permit certain things to flu under my radar without rebuttal . . .

Sometimes, it's better to...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[covenantee]

Another idiotic post from yet another idiot . . .

Don't you love the Mafia? They're genuine Catholics, who have been part of your church for many years.

Can you prove me wrong?

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's not. Historical things tend to get painted all sorts of weird colors depending on the source. We can go around and around on this, and have; I propose we stop.

You've clearly misunderstood or ignored (or both) most everything I've said about the solas, and I'll add TULIP to that. You're not alone in that... It's all based firmly in Scripture. Many disagree for various reasons, one of which is misconception and/or mischaracterization of the concepts contained in those concepts, and you (and others) fall into that camp. The trouble is, when those concepts are explained, some still cling to those misconceptions/mischaracterizations... for various reasons. I'll leave it at that.

Looks like we'll never come to agreement here . . .

I would encourage you to reexamine your own statement here, especially the part about vehement disagreement.

Why??
Being "vehement" in a response had nothing to do with instults or even anger..

Hmmm... well... Granted, I don't remember you calling any of my posts "idiotic" or me an "idiot"... like you just did covenantee... ...but...

He deserved it - your posts don't.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Don't you love the Mafia? They're genuine Catholics, who have been part of your church for many years.

Can you prove me wrong?

Sure.
What's a "genuine" Catholic?

 

[covenantee]

Sure.
What's a "genuine" Catholic?

Oh, sorry.

If you of all people don't know what a genuine Catholic is, then obviously there's no such thing as a genuine Catholic.

My mistake.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, sorry.

If you of all people don't know what a genuine Catholic is, then obviously there's no such thing as a genuine Catholic.

My mistake.

Ummmmm, you're the one who brought it up, Einstein,
Sooo - what is YOUR definition of a "genuine Catholic"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

WOW.
Paranoid, much??

You are clearly the paranoid one. You made all kinds of assumption even though I didn't even say anything. All I did was post two scripture passages without comment. You are clearly the paranoid one here. Why didn't you ask me why I posted them first before making assumptions?

Your post was a pretty obvious response to my comments about Sola Scriptura. In posts 8429 and 8540. I simply set you straight.

Now – if you have nothing more, we'll leave it at that . . .

I'm not going to leave it at that when you try to speak for me. Don't act like you can read my mind. I am not making the same point that you were arguing against. All I'm saying is that scripture does exactly what Paul said, which was this:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Do you agree with what Paul wrote here? If so, then what is your problem with my post? I am not trying to say anything more or less than what Paul said here. It's your PARANOIA that is making you think otherwise. You were arguing with PinSeeker. I do not agree with everything he believes. I'm not a Calvinist. So, don't act like my beliefs are exactly the same as his. You are arguing against the idea that no other source besides scripture is useful or helpful to us, but that isn't what I believe. But, in terms of what we need to live a fruitful life as servants of Christ, scripture has everything we need. Is there something wrong with believing that? Is that not what Paul indicated?

 

[Illuminator]

I'm sorry, where did I state that? You continue to make a fool of yourself with every post you make. You foolishly made an assumption about my post even though I only posted scripture without any commentary. Are you paranoid? There's something VERY OFF about you and I think you need professional help.

Clearly, God is our authority and we get our understanding of His authority from scripture.

The Bible doesn't teach that ANYWHERE.

Do you agree that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" or not?

Never changed; still taught today. (CCC115-116) 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!!!

Do you think we should be like the Bereans and take what others say and study scripture for ourselves to see if it is true or not? If you answer yes to both of these questions, then what is your problem?

The Bereans were GREEK Pharisees, and were using the GREEK Septuigant that included the GREEK Deuterocanonicals AS SCRIPTURE 200 years before Christ.
Acts 17:11-12 – here we see the verse “they searched the Scriptures.” This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God’s word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean’s use of sola Scriptura.
Acts 17:11-12 – Also, the Bereans, being more “noble” or “fair minded,” meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

My only intention in posting them was because they contain things that we should all understand and take to heart, which is why I did not address it to anyone specifically. I didn't add commentary to the passages I posted because they are very straightforward and self-explanatory. Naturally, that escaped you.

2 Tim. 3:16 – this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. You unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 – further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, your reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 – also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 – Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 – further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 – steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because “teleioi”and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 – good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 – prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
Matt. 28:20 – “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 – Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 – Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 – Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 – these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 – this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 – this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..”
How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? You can try to claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation) which makes no sense.

SCRIPTURE ALONE ("SOLA SCRIPTURA") - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”1.2 II. “All Scripture is Inspired”- 2 Tim. 3:16-171.3 III. Other Passages used to Support “Sola Scriptura”2 Tradition / Church Fathers2.1 I. Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition2.2 II. Scripture is not...

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are clearly the paranoid one. You made all kinds of assumption even though I didn't even say anything. All I did was post two scripture passages without comment. You are clearly the paranoid one here. Why didn't you ask me why I posted them first before making assumptions?

Because you are as predictable as you are boring . . .

I'm not going to leave it at that when you try to speak for me. Don't act like you can read my mind. I am not making the same point that you were arguing against. All I'm saying is that scripture does exactly what Paul said, which was this:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Do you agree with what Paul wrote here? If so, then what is your problem with my post? I am not trying to say anything more or less than what Paul said here. It's your PARANOIA that is making you think otherwise. You were arguing with PinSeeker. I do not agree with everything he believes. I'm not a Calvinist. So, don't act like my beliefs are exactly the same as his. You are arguing against the idea that no other source besides scripture is useful or helpful to us, but that isn't what I believe. But, in terms of what we need to live a fruitful life as servants of Christ, scripture has everything we need. Is there something wrong with believing that? Is that not what Paul indicated?

Because you have intruded on every single discussion I’ve had with other people on this thread - just for the sake of arguing. It's like you're obsessed with me.
Your post was simply par-for-the-course.

Like I said – you’re predictable . . .

 

[covenantee]

Ummmmm, you're the one who brought it up, Einstein,
Sooo - what is YOUR definition of a "genuine Catholic"?

I have no definition of a genuine Catholic, because I no longer believe that such exists.

Obviously you don't either, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me for the definition.

That leaves only one conclusion.

All Catholics are fake Catholics.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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:

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

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first.

Are you trying to suggest that just because Paul mentioned scripture last in that sequence then that means scripture itself is not as important as the ones who taught it? If not, then what in the world is your point here? Do you believe what he said in verses 16 and 17, which only applies to scripture itself, is true or not? You're always trying to turn simple things into something convoluted.

Let me just ask you this. Do you believe that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"? If yes, then you agree with the point I'm making and you saying all these other things is a waste of time.

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. Never changed; still taught today. (CCC115-116) 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!!!

Does your understanding of sound teaching include getting insight directly from the Holy Spirit? I don't see anything there about that. If not, then I would suggest that you read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because you are as predictable as you are boring . . .

I couldn't care less if you find me to be boring, but I don't believe that is the case. Do you know what I would do if I found someone to be boring? Not talk to them. Ignore them. Yet, here you are talking to me. So, I think you are lying by saying you think I'm boring. Your reactions to me suggest that you think otherwise.

Because you have intruded on every single discussion I’ve had with other people on this thread - just for the sake of arguing.

LOL. You are the one who intruded on the discussions regarding the actual topic of this thread in the first place. But, go ahead and be a hypocrite if you insist.

It's like you're obsessed with me.

Not at all. If you don't want me to talk to you at all, just say so. I can easily oblige without a problem.

Your post was simply par-for-the-course.

Like I said – you’re predictable . . .

And, yet, you can't say anything to refute what I said. You are paranoid and that resulted in you assuming I was saying something that I was not saying. That means you need professional help just as all paranoid schizophrenics do. Understand, Bozo?

 

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker: "You've clearly misunderstood or ignored (or both) most everything I've said about the solas, and I'll add TULIP to that. You're not alone in that... It's all based firmly in Scripture. Many disagree for various reasons, one of which is misconception and/or mischaracterization of the concepts contained in those concepts, and you (and others) fall into that camp. The trouble is, when those concepts are explained, some still cling to those misconceptions/mischaracterizations... for various reasons. I'll leave it at that." Looks like we'll never come to agreement here . . .

Clearly not; this clinging to misconceptions and mischaracterizations is my point.

I have to say, it's... rather curious... that I've explained very clearly what the concepts ~ correctly understood ~ of sola Scripture and sola Fide are, and I have supported both concepts with several passages from Scripture (and we could take a walk through the tulips if you like.... But I have yet to receive any response other than: "Neither Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide are in the Bible!" Well no one has ever claimed that, but the concepts of both are certainly and clearly supported by Scripture, as I demonstrated. If you disagree ~ which obviously you do ~ then let's talk about the Scriptures I used in my explanation rather than just saying "it's not there."

Being "vehement" in a response had nothing to do with instults or even anger..

Not always, but being vehement (showing strong feeling, being forceful, passionate, or intense) about anything can take many different forms.

He deserved it - your posts don't.

Well, thank you, but no one deserves that.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I couldn't care less if you find me to be boring, but I don't believe that is the case. Do you know what I would do if I found someone to be boring? Not talk to them. Ignore them. Yet, here you are talking to me. So, I think you are lying by saying you think I'm boring. Your reactions to me suggest that you think otherwise.

Ummm – YOU’VE been chasing ME – not the other way around.

I publicly expose your nonsense for everybody who reads these post

LOL. You are the one who intruded on the discussions regarding the actual topic of this thread in the first place. But, go ahead and be a hypocrite if you insist.

Jumping into a thread - and obsessively shadowing a poster’s conversations are TWO different things, Einstein.

Not at all. If you don't want me to talk to you at all, just say so. I can easily oblige without a problem.

You’ve told me on at least TWO occasions that I’m not worth talking to anymore and that you were going to end the discussion.

But – like an alcoholic who can’t control himself – you keep comin’ back

And, yet, you can't say anything to refute what I said. You are paranoid and that resulted in you assuming I was saying something that I was not saying. That means you need professional help just as all paranoid schizophrenics do. Understand, Bozo?

Temper, temper . . .

I proved you wrong - no need to soil yourself.