It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[Jun2u]

Who are you talking to in this post?

Mary

Typical woman (curious Mary) haha, but if you must know, it is with Mjr

 

[Jun2u]

I guess if you only want to PARTIALLY quote scripture then you are right. However, if we fully quote scripture, you are wrong: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1Peter3:21)

1Corinthians 11:24-30 confirms the Real Presence.

Some are saved by Grace alone. Others by faith and grace. Everyone has grace, not all have faith. The FACT is that some of those that have faith do not do the good works so your theory that "good works follow" is not a viable theory. Faith DOES NOT equal GOOD WORKS. Scripture even tells us that.

You don't know Clement of Rome? You should learn your Christian history. The men of the early Church debated if Clements writings should be included in our current bible; that's how important he was to early Christianity. You really don't know him? Or are you kidding me? Do you know any of the Apostolic or Early Church Fathers?

I don't know what you mean by "end of testing" and suggesting that I learned more today than what I bargained for? The only thing I learned is that you like to partially quote scripture to fit your personal belief and you don't know who Clement of Rome was. I don't see a test so your statement makes no sense.

Also, John 6 has more to say about the Real Presence than Corinthians. For you to reference Corinthians is, once again, only partially quoting scripture and shows your lack of knowledge about scripture.

IHS....Mary

Is that your whole argument that I quote scripture partially? I have given you ample scripture references that speaks about baptism. If 1 Peter 3:21 is isolated from rest of scriptures yes we might come to a conclusion that water baptism saves, but 1 Peter 3:21 must be read in light of the whole Bible. Hence we learned that the word baptism means to wash. Thus we read in Titus 3:5 the washing away of sins is done by regeneration, and only God can perform that. Water baptism is a work that man performs, and is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9, plus water baptism is a shadow.

I think you should put your biases and what you’ve learned concerning the communion table aside for the moment, and concentrate on 1 Corinthians 11:24-30, and ask self why is there an ominous warning in verse 29 and what does it mean “to examine himself” stipulated in verse 28?” These two questions are legit and could have a bearing on how you might perceive 1 Corinthians 11:24-30.

Regarding Clement of Rome I kid you not. I’ve never heard of him till you mentioned who he was. Anything or anyone NOT written in Bible I will dismiss. My salvation does not depend on anyone’s work outside of scriptures even if their work might seem holy, for their best work is still tainted by sin and their work specifically is not inspired!

Look at Enoch? We know he is a child of God and he prophesied (Jude 1:14-15) during his day and supposedly also wrote a book. What he prophesied became part of the Bible because God must have given Jude the information and he wrote about it. If Enoch wrote a book it was not inspired, therefore, it was not included in the Bible.

No, I do not quote scriptures partially. Once again, I’ve given you spiritual truths which was taught to me by the Holy Spirit.

BTW did you know there are three elements that make up the study of the Word of God (Bible)?

1 History – historical parable, meaning the literal stories of the Bible have spiritual/heavenly applications.
2 Moral – meaning the law of God.
3 Spiritual – meaning scriptures must be read with spiritual discernment.

The most important element is Number 3. If we don’t apply this method in our studies our understanding of scriptures will become difficult specially those scriptures which are hard to understand.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Marymog]

Typical woman (curious Mary) haha, but if you must know, it is with Mjr

I am so embarrassed. I have Mjr blocked (again) so I didn't see who you were responding to.

Your generalization of me (typical woman) is what the typical man does.

All in jest and love....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Is that your whole argument that I quote scripture partially? I have given you ample scripture references that speaks about baptism. If 1 Peter 3:21 is isolated from rest of scriptures yes we might come to a conclusion that water baptism saves, but 1 Peter 3:21 must be read in light of the whole Bible. Hence we learned that the word baptism means to wash. Thus we read in Titus 3:5 the washing away of sins is done by regeneration, and only God can perform that. Water baptism is a work that man performs, and is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9, plus water baptism is a shadow.

I think you should put your biases and what you’ve learned concerning the communion table aside for the moment, and concentrate on 1 Corinthians 11:24-30, and ask self why is there an ominous warning in verse 29 and what does it mean “to examine himself” stipulated in verse 28?” These two questions are legit and could have a bearing on how you might perceive 1 Corinthians 11:24-30.

Regarding Clement of Rome I kid you not. I’ve never heard of him till you mentioned who he was. Anything or anyone NOT written in Bible I will dismiss. My salvation does not depend on anyone’s work outside of scriptures even if their work might seem holy, for their best work is still tainted by sin and their work specifically is not inspired!

Look at Enoch? We know he is a child of God and he prophesied (Jude 1:14-15) during his day and supposedly also wrote a book. What he prophesied became part of the Bible because God must have given Jude the information and he wrote about it. If Enoch wrote a book it was not inspired, therefore, it was not included in the Bible.

No, I do not quote scriptures partially. Once again, I’ve given you spiritual truths which was taught to me by the Holy Spirit.

BTW did you know there are three elements that make up the study of the Word of God (Bible)?

1 History – historical parable, meaning the literal stories of the Bible have spiritual/heavenly applications.
2 Moral – meaning the law of God.
3 Spiritual – meaning scriptures must be read with spiritual discernment.

The most important element is Number 3. If we don’t apply this method in our studies our understanding of scriptures will become difficult specially those scriptures which are hard to understand.

To God Be The Glory

MIGHT come to the conclusion that water baptism saves? That's the best response you've got? Seriously? Scripture says it saves but you say it MIGHT come to that conclusion? Fascinating.

Hmmmm.....I have a bias about communion but you don't? Are you being serious?

I bet you agree with your own writings. Don't you? But Clement of Rome's writings are not dependable? Weird how all of the beliefs you have articulated are beliefs that have formed SINCE the reformation. You read the Bible and just happen to agree with the reformers, or the people who reformed the reformers or the people who reformed the people who reformed them. Clement of Rome, who walked and talked with the Apostle Peter is not dependable? But you seem to agree with the reformers a lot. Weird. You even trust what you write over what Clement wrote. That is simply fascinating to me.

Thank you for your time.

IHS....Mary

 

[Jun2u]

MIGHT come to the conclusion that water baptism saves? That's the best response you've got? Seriously? Scripture says it saves but you say it MIGHT come to that conclusion? Fascinating.

Hmmmm.....I have a bias about communion but you don't? Are you being serious?

I bet you agree with your own writings. Don't you? But Clement of Rome's writings are not dependable? Weird how all of the beliefs you have articulated are beliefs that have formed SINCE the reformation. You read the Bible and just happen to agree with the reformers, or the people who reformed the reformers or the people who reformed the people who reformed them. Clement of Rome, who walked and talked with the Apostle Peter is not dependable? But you seem to agree with the reformers a lot. Weird. You even trust what you write over what Clement wrote. That is simply fascinating to me.

Thank you for your time.

IHS....Mary

The term “eight souls were saved by water” does not mean “saved by baptism” rather it means eight people were saved by the “flood” as everybody else in the world perished.

The term “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now saves us” does not mean we can now be saved by water. And Peter makes this very clear as he continues to clarify that water can only wash away the dirt off of the skin.

The “like figure as unto baptism” is liken to a “shadow” of a real substance. For instance, a tree has a shadow, take away that shadow the tree will still be there because it has substance. Peter is speaking of like manner, in that, water baptism is a shadow to the real baptism of regeneration. On one hand, man performs water baptism (which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9), on the other hand, God performs the baptism of regeneration which saves. One is a fake the other is real. You are familiar with types and figures, and shadows and substances in scriptures, correct?

You’re right, our discussions are over.

To God Be The Glory

 

[mjrhealth]

You’re right, our discussions are over.

To God Be The Glory

You cannot have discussion with people who have idols in there hearts.

 

[Marymog]

The term “eight souls were saved by water” does not mean “saved by baptism” rather it means eight people were saved by the “flood” as everybody else in the world perished.

The term “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now saves us” does not mean we can now be saved by water. And Peter makes this very clear as he continues to clarify that water can only wash away the dirt off of the skin.

The “like figure as unto baptism” is liken to a “shadow” of a real substance. For instance, a tree has a shadow, take away that shadow the tree will still be there because it has substance. Peter is speaking of like manner, in that, water baptism is a shadow to the real baptism of regeneration. On one hand, man performs water baptism (which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9), on the other hand, God performs the baptism of regeneration which saves. One is a fake the other is real. You are familiar with types and figures, and shadows and substances in scriptures, correct?

You’re right, our discussions are over.

To God Be The Glory

My dear, dear Jun2u,

You didn't answer any of my questions. Why?

How can I be right about our discussion being over when I never said our discussion was over?

You ask a question and then tell me our discussion is over. I guess that means I am allowed one more response. The answer to your question is yes.

Peter makes it clear baptism is NOT like the removel of dirt from the body. Stop twisting scripture. Scripture warns against it.

It sounds like you want the discussion to be over? But you are making it look like I am ending it. If you want it to be over, I respect your wishes.

However it would be nice if you answered my questions.

IHS....Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoL,

Your view of Wikipedia is not convincing to me. I'm presently writing a curriculum for religious instruction in secular high schools, so I emailed leading evangelical theologian and apologist, Dr Norman Geisler, for an outline of the apologetic model he uses.

What did he do? He referred me to his article on Wikipedia: 'Outline of Geisler's apologetic system'.

Geisler has written 4 vols of Systematic Theology, several vols on apologetics, and he dares to give me an outline of his theological views on defending the faith through an article on Wikipedia. He obviously knows the vision of Wikipedia can be used to promote his views.

Could it be that you are the one out of step with some of the theological work that represents sound theology that is being promoted on Wikipedia?

Oz

I stand by that statement because wikipedia is NOT a primary source.

Always go to the primary source. This is a blunder that many people make when attempting to explain what the Catholic Church teaches - instead of going directly to the Catechism.

 

[Helen]

@BreadOfLife ....Nice to see you here again.

 

[bbyrd009]

@BreadOfLife ....Nice to see you here again.

@BreadOfLife , tried to tag you like yesterday and couldn't hmm! So, ya!

 

[Helen]

@BreadOfLife , tried to tag you like yesterday and couldn't hmm! So, ya!

What is a 'tag' ?

 

[bbyrd009]

What is a 'tag' ?

@"ByGrace" , that is a tag

 

[OzSpen]

I stand by that statement because wikipedia is NOT a primary source.

Always go to the primary source. This is a blunder that many people make when attempting to explain what the Catholic Church teaches - instead of going directly to the Catechism.

The Catechism is a secondary document. The primary document is the Bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Catechism is a secondary document. The primary document is the Bible.

The catechism is a PRIMARY source for what the Church teaches.

When you want to learn what the Church teaches - you don't go to wikipedia - you go to the Catechism.
Everything that is written in the Catechism is backed up by Scripture - unlike wikipedia . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Always go to the primary source.

And that is ,

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Everything else is secondary.

 

[twinc]

And that is ,

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Everything else is secondary.

this is the great mistake and error that is made again and again - this is not addressed to us - twinc

 

[OzSpen]

The catechism is a PRIMARY source for what the Church teaches.

When you want to learn what the Church teaches - you don't go to wikipedia - you go to the Catechism.
Everything that is written in the Catechism is backed up by Scripture - unlike wikipedia . . .

BOL

Thank you for confirming that the Roman Catholic Catechism is a secondary document. Don't you understand the chronology? If it's backed up by Scripture, Scripture precedes the Catechism, thus making the Catechism a secondary document.

Here is a linked version (each line is linked to the catechism) of the Content of the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church'.

Let's check one emphasis in the RC Catechism to discover if it is backed by Scripture.

The RCC relies on a combination of Tradition and Scripture for its transmission of the message of God. In fact, the Catechism (see below) states: 'the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."'.

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44​

Let's check what Scripture says about the authority of both Scripture and Tradition and whether 'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other' (#80 above):

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 (2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV).​

So, we know from Scripture that it is Scripture that 'is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness'.

Please show me from Scripture that we need Scripture + Tradition and that the RC Church 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'.

I look forward to your demonstration from Scripture that Scripture + Tradition are necessary for spiritual authority for the church.

Oz

 

[twinc]

You cannot have discussion with people who have idols in there hearts.

you mean like mouldy old dough instead of manna from heaven or two pieces of deadwood as totem poles instead of a crucifix - twinc

 

[amadeus]

this is the great mistake and error that is made again and again - this is not addressed to us - twinc

And the reason you know this twinc is because...???

 

[twinc]

The term “eight souls were saved by water” does not mean “saved by baptism” rather it means eight people were saved by the “flood” as everybody else in the world perished.

The term “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now saves us” does not mean we can now be saved by water. And Peter makes this very clear as he continues to clarify that water can only wash away the dirt off of the skin.

The “like figure as unto baptism” is liken to a “shadow” of a real substance. For instance, a tree has a shadow, take away that shadow the tree will still be there because it has substance. Peter is speaking of like manner, in that, water baptism is a shadow to the real baptism of regeneration. On one hand, man performs water baptism (which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9), on the other hand, God performs the baptism of regeneration which saves. One is a fake the other is real. You are familiar with types and figures, and shadows and substances in scriptures, correct?

You’re right, our discussions are over.

To God Be The Glory

The term “eight souls were saved by water” does not mean “saved by baptism” rather it means eight people were saved by the “flood” as everybody else in the world perished.

The term “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now saves us” does not mean we can now be saved by water. And Peter makes this very clear as he continues to clarify that water can only wash away the dirt off of the skin.

The “like figure as unto baptism” is liken to a “shadow” of a real substance. For instance, a tree has a shadow, take away that shadow the tree will still be there because it has substance. Peter is speaking of like manner, in that, water baptism is a shadow to the real baptism of regeneration. On one hand, man performs water baptism (which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9), on the other hand, God performs the baptism of regeneration which saves. One is a fake the other is real. You are familiar with types and figures, and shadows and substances in scriptures, correct?

You’re right, our discussions are over.

To God Be The Glory

lets not rely on human interpretation but lets just see what Jesus taught not just in words but also by example as at Matt 3 :17 = baptism opens heaven to us as heirs and beloved sons of God - imho - twinc