Even if I did, you would turn it around.
How can I turn around a verse that does not exist? I would think that a principle as important as that would be somewhere in scripture, but it isn't. It's not even inferred, suggested, or hinted at. It's your doctrine, not mine. Let me break it down for you using simple logic that anyone can understand:
If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes.” That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in North America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.
Another example: “All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.
"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.” This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”
You are in a logically invalid position here as is most of Protestantism.
1 Tim 3:16 doesn't specify this concept. "All scripture is inspired..." does not mean "only scripture is inspired."
I recognize a permanently deluded RC when I encounter one.
yup, nothing like "Christian" dialogue.
The commonality of most forums like this, is that the Bible is the gage of God's will, and the final authority of our understanding.
OHHH!!! Is THAT why everyone agrees with each other!!! :lol:
Not everything that we are taught by the Holy Spirit may be IN the Bible but the truth of that teaching IS.
Not everything that we are taught by the Holy Spirit may be IN the Bible but the truth of that teaching IS.
Agreed. When Catholics call this call this Sacred Tradition, they are falsely accused of adding to the Bible, but when you say it, it means the Holy Spirit infallibly teaches "ME".
The Bible will NEVER contradict what the Holy Spirit teaches us and vice-versa.
I agree that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but you haven't defined who "us" is. What you really mean is, "the Holy Spirit teaches ME". You are an authority unto yourself.
A few words on that whole "perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture" thing: it is a classic case of stapling on a purely human idea to the Tradition and elevating it to the level of equality with the word of God. It works like this: the enthusiast for the doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripture" reasons "God always does what is best. Having a Bible that is perspicuous is best. Therefore, God has done that."
You can always find some sort of biblical justification for your pet idea. Didn’t Paul thank God that he spoke in tongues more than anybody (1 Cor 14:18)? Doesn’t Scripture say of the righteous man that whatever he does prospers (Psalm 1:3)? Doesn’t it say that the command of the Lord is clear (Psalm 19:9)? QED! And with sufficient will power or ego, you can trumpet your pet idea as the Revealed Will of God Almighty, denouncing anybody who questions your pet theory, not as somebody who questions your pet theory, but as an enemy of God who "rails away" at God Almighty, while "The child of God knows better." It's a very cozy way to congratulate yourself.
The thing is, the perspicuity of Scripture is one of those ideas, like Marxism, that is the result of theory run amuck and removed entirely from the laboratory of real life. Basically, it’s a creation myth that was fadged up in order to get rid of the need for the Catholic Magisterium. The reasoning was archetypally fallacious. It went like this: God always does what is best. Communicating his revelation in the form of a book of pellucid clarity is best. Therefore, that’s what he must have done. Otherwise, you condemn the Bible to the dreadful prospect of being interpreted by the Church and, worse still, by a Magisterium that sometimes directly contradicts what I am quite certain it must mean.
Since the whole project of the Reformation consisted of insisting that wherever the Church’s Magisterium taught things not believed by A Man and His Bible, the Church was wrong, maintaining that creation myth was absolutely essential.
The problem is, doing that requires the believer in the perspicuity of Scripture to resolutely shut his eyes to the constant blandishments and encroachments of reality, reason, common sense, experience, and the very testimony of Scripture itself.
To this is often made the reply that “We walk by faith, not by sight.” True enough, but faith never contradicts reason, whereas the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture achieves this feat on a daily basis.
Make no mistake: Christianity has room for doctrines that can't be empirically verified. The doctrine of the Trinity is a classic example. We believe it because God revealed it to us through Christ and his Holy Church. There's no scientific demonstration of it. Neither is there scientific disproof of it. It's not open to empirical investigation. You either trust God and his Church on this or you don't. All arguments against it can be refuted by reason. But it can't be proven by reason alone.
The problem with keeping an OPEN mind is that it ends up getting filled with all kinds of garbage.Ephesians 4:11-16 (NIV)[/color]This only confirms to me that you recognize metaphorical text when you want to and discard it in order to promote your RCC doctrine.
Ephesians 4 says nothing about committing intellectual suicide. It affirms that the Church is hierarchical. You use this verse to suggest I am deceitful and scheming to give yourself religious credibility when you have no answer to my questions. I am not promoting CC doctrine, I am defending and explaining what has been asked of me. If I wanted to promote any doctrine, I would open new threads with accurate titles of the topic. If I am promoting beyond defending and explaining (where CC doctrines are being attacked or misrepresented), then report me.
I recognize literal text when it appears, and Jesus always explains his metaphorical devices. I have used common sense and scripture to distinguish literal from metaphorical. I am not twisting scripture to support a man made system.
Again the practice of eisegesis. Jesus always spoke to the public in parables/metaphors. Luke 8:10 (NIV)John 6:25-59 is Jesus teaching publicly in the synagogue in Capernaum, so it obviously could not be literal teaching or what He said in Luke 8 would be a lie. Again you mislead about the disciples, because in John 6:60 (NIV) it shows MANY of His disciples could NOT accept it. Thus, they did NOT understand. They DID think He was being literal. John 6:64-66 (NIV) explains this and shows who actually left and who stayed.Again you mislead. The Greek word IS
genēma, which is a neutre noun and connotes
product, fruit, harvest. The entymology of this word is
gennaō, a verb which connotes;
1) of men who fathered children
a) to be born
b ) to be begotten
1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaph.
a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
b ) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work
I said it
can mean His Blood. I didn't say it had to. Scroll up. I underlined it for a reason. This proves you can only see what you want it to read.
Obviously for any person using sound exegesis, this is used in a metaphorical sense, NOT a literal one.You admonish people to use the quote tool and yet you do NOT. I never said anything about meat sacrificed to idols. I said;FYI, Acts 15:28-29 (NIV) specifically shows what the leadership had prayerfully decided on this issue, based on the HOLY SPIRIT leading them. Cannibalism (eating flesh) is also spoken against and is something Jesus would NOT advocate.
Can mean does not mean "must mean". Of course it is used in a metaphorical sense. I never said it didn't.
Paul writes a whole chapter about this subject of food sacrificed to idols. 1 Cor 8:13 (NIV) , is his summation. Again you mislead in your practice of eisegesis. Your habit of continually ADDING to God's word is extremely dishonest, to say the least.You have been properly instructed.
The bread and wine before consecration is bread and wine. No Apostle used used food sacrificed to idols for the Toda sacrice. . You are not making any sense. Actually, the apostate Jews told the pagan Romans the Christians were eating human flesh, which was appauling the Romans and anyone else with half a brain. Why do you think the pagan Romans were executing Christians? They were a political threat to Ceasar??? What was so special about the Bread of the Presence? Can't you get You tube on your computer? (post 191) It explains the Bread of the Presence of the Old Testament. Don't you believe the Old Testament?
gotquestions.gorg is so biased it's ridiculous. It's hate speech. PERIOD.
Acts 15:28-29 has nothing to do with the Eucharist. It was a letter to the Gentiles to obstain from a list of foods because it was upsetting the Jewish Christians. Acts 15:24 The Gentile Christains had no problem eating food sacrificed to idols (that they probably purchased from the pagans) because they were thanking God for it. To Gentiles, strangling birds was the normal means of slaughtering them. It still is in some countries. The Christian Jews were totally appauled by the Christian Gentiles. The matter had to be settled. Eating of
any un-kosher meat was a temporary measure for those cities mentioned. Acts 15:23 It was a local ruling, not a universal one. This ruling was later rescinded when the Jews matured, (but you won't find that in the Bible). If not, the ban would still be applied and I would miss out on my favorite steak.
Lastly, James 15:27 gives equal authority by "word of mouth" .as the letter.
Stan, please shorten your posts. I try to give the best possible answer and I can bulldoze as well as you can, so lets try to make them shorter. I get really sore sitting here for so long.