speaking in tongues
-
Which bit?Originally posted by M©+square:This is where you and i differ.
I rest my case.
I understand the Scripture not being the sole source of faith ( the other is Apostolic Tradition) as disagreeable to your position
But the first 2 points?
Church Fathers contain no authority except as proof that Catholic Doctrines were taught by the Apostles and have existed in one form or another.
Authority lies within Apostolic Tradition and Scripture and the Church who intepretates it.
The Bible which u hold so dear is a fine example of you accepting Apostolic Tradition and Church Infallibilty. For it was with Tradition that the Church knew which books were inspired as there is no list of inspired books in Scripture. Tradition gave the Church knowledge of which books were canonical and which were not.
U generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, u also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for your salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn't know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.
The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an "inspired table of contents." Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura for Apostolic Tradition was used as AUTHORITY.
With Tradition, the Church created the Bible canon and ratified it. Is it possible for a fallible Church to give rise to an inerrant book ( all the inspired books inside)?
Hence,
1) You accept Apostolic Tradition and look beyond Scripture as a source of Authority
2) U accept that the catholic Church made an infallible decision in deciding the Bible canon. -
It will be interesting if u can quote from me in Scripture, where does it say Scripture alone is the sole source of faith?
Let me save you the trouble, it cannot be found explicitly. -
What is the reformed interpretation then?Originally posted by M©+square:You have a different way of interepreting this verse from the reformed interpretation.
Mr Pope wants to know too. -
okOriginally posted by Pope Nicholas:It will be interesting if u can quote from me in Scripture, where does it say Scripture alone is the sole source of faith?
Let me save you the trouble, it cannot be found explicitly. -
hey nicholas, my dear friend... this is serious issue. because you're interpreting in a twisted manner with God's words. Take care... for I am very sure you know what are the consequences with playing around with God's words.
-
Considering that your idea of Scripture being the sole source of faith cannot be found in Scriptures nor in history but rather a man-made doctrine in the 1500s, thats really amazing.Originally posted by MS:hey nicholas, my dear friend... this is serious issue. because you're interpreting in a twisted manner with God's words. Take care... for I am very sure you know what are the consequences with playing around with God's words.
Jesus Christ established a Church to proclaim the good news. He never intended on having the Bible be the sole infallible guide for the Christian faith. This is why the Catholic Church is one, and your Protestant denominations are 30,000. No where in the Bible will you find any writer say that the Scriptures are the sole, exclusive and infallible authority for God's word. To the contrary, the sacred writers repeatedly emphasize oral Tradition, the Church, and the authority of the Church's ecllesial hierarchy
Catholics revere the Scriptures (or should!) more than any other Christian because we want the Bible to say what it intends to say, nothing more, nothing less. The Bible is a Catholic book, written by the early Church, protected and preserved by the Church down through the years, who determined its canonicity and apostolicity. It is a inapproaite to say "we are Bible-based." Instead, we must say that the Bible is "Church-based." Sola Scriptura is like tearing off someone's arm, and then beating them with it. The Bible is an indispesnable part of God's revealed Word, but He gave the His Revelation to His Church, both orally(Tradition) and in writing (scripture) (2 Thess. 2:15).
This is why St. Paul says it is the Church, not the Scriptures, that is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15). Christ gave us the Church, his Bride, to lead us into all truth. God gave us a Church; He didn't just give us a book and tell us to figure it out on our own. God is bound by His love and justice to ensure that we would be receiving the truth, and this is the role of His Church.
Church Intepretation vs Private Intepretation.
Church Intepretation - Unity in 2000yrs
Private intepretation - 36 000 sects in a mere 4 centuries.
Who is twisting God's word i wonder.... -
The Church.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Who is twisting God's word i wonder....
Protestants just carry on the mistake.
-
Another ok to you as well....Originally posted by Icemoon:The Church.
Protestants just carry on the mistake. -
That is so islamic.Originally posted by M©+square:Another ok to you as well....
U should read quran as well. Very interesting
Jesus had the proper gospel but the Church corrupted it by adding Son of God etc etc.
Islam consider the orignal gospel as authrotivative but the translatiosn are flawed. -
Irenaeus chose the four gospels because there are four corners.Originally posted by M©+square:Another ok to you as well....
to think Protestants treat the four as the inerrant word of God.
more like the inerrant words of Irenaeus more like it. -
May i know from where did you get this idea?Originally posted by Icemoon:Irenaeus chose the four gospels because there are four corners.
to think Protestants treat the four as the inerrant word of God.
more like the inerrant words of Irenaeus more like it. -
which idea?Originally posted by M©+square:May i know from where did you get this idea? -
to think Protestants treat the four as the inerrant word of God.Originally posted by Icemoon:which idea?
The idea that Protestants treats the four Gospels as inerrant word of God. -
Originally posted by M©+square:
You mean they don't?
[b]to think Protestants treat the four as the inerrant word of God.
The idea that Protestants treats the four Gospels as inerrant word of God.[/b]
This is new!
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:You mean they don't?
This is new!
They? You know how diversed Protestants are liao you still lump them together. I assume you know, but now you talk like you you don't know nuts about Protestanism.
Wah lao. -
I think he was refering to Irenaus 4 corners in the world thingy.Originally posted by Icemoon:You mean they don't?
This is new!
Note: Irenaus chose the gospel canon WITHOUT refering to Scripture but to Apostolic Tradition. -
You are talking about pure labels?Originally posted by M©+square:
They? You know how diversed Protestants are liao you still lump them together. I assume you know, but now you talk like you you don't know nuts about Protestanism.
Wah lao.
Well, put it this way,
those who don't subscribe to inerrancy are liberals. They do not matter when we are discussing about Protestantism.
Their greatest mistake then .. is to label themselves Protestants. -
I rest my case after this story.Originally posted by Icemoon:What is the reformed interpretation then?
Mr Pope wants to know too.
For the benefit of Nic and your post. I reply on the basis on why i find that Personal interpretation is NOT totally fallible. There is power and life in the Word. Power of Transformation is unimaginable.
_
When Jacob de Shazer went as one of Jimmy Doolittle's raiders on Japan the day of April 18, 1942, he was an atheist. He was captured and imprisoned by the Japanese. He saw two of his companions shot by a firing squad. He saw another die of starvation.
During the long months he pondered the question of why the Japanese hated him and why he hated them. He began to recall some of the thing he had heard about Christianity.
Boldly he asked his jailers if they could get him a Bible. At first the laughed boisterously, as at a good joke, and grew ugly and warned him to stop making a nuisance of himself. But he kept asking.
A year and a half later - May 1944 a guard brought him a Bible, flung it at him, and said, "Three weeks you have. Three week, then I take away."
True to his word, in three weeks the guard took the Bible away, and de Shazer never saw it again. In 1948 de Shazer, his wife, and infant son were on their way back to Japan as missionaries, all because he asked for a Bible and a Japanese guard gave him one for three weeks.
- H. Fickeet -
Shady lah. Origen also got his theology from Apostolic Tradition.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I think he was refering to Irenaus 4 corners in the world thingy.
Note: Irenaus chose the gospel canon WITHOUT refering to Scripture but to Apostolic Tradition.
I don't think Irenaeus used Apostolic Tradition because there was no tradition to begin with. He started the Tradition! -
Techincally they are called Protestant liberals in response to Protestant Fundamentalist.Originally posted by Icemoon:You are talking about pure labels?
Well, put it this way,
those who don't subscribe to inerrancy are liberals. They do not matter when we are discussing about Protestantism.
Their greatest mistake then .. is to label themselves Protestants.
Can anyone show me in Scripture, where does it mention that Scripture is the sole source of Faith? -
I've seen Protestants using Timothy 3:16 on the basis of principle. Meaning not directly mentioned, but by principle.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Can anyone show me in Scripture, where does it mention that Scripture is the sole source of Faith? -
Why make things complicated?
If my sin is against a person, only that person can forgive.
If my sin is against God, only God can forgive. -
Originally posted by M©+square:
Come, let me help you (I'm following the example of vince who often adds or clarifies what I say)
I rest my case after this story.
For the benefit of Nic and your post. I reply on the basis on why i find that Personal interpretation is [b]NOT totally fallible. There is power and life in the Word. Power of Transformation is unimaginable. [/b]
http://www.doolittleraider.com/raiders/deshazer.htmDeShazer was subjected to unbelievable cruelty, including being forced to watch helplessly while one of his friends died of slow starvation. "My hatred for the enemy nearly drove me crazy," he said. "My thoughts turned toward what I had heard about Christianity changing hatred between human beings into real brotherly love. I begged my captors to get me a Bible, and when the emperor of Japan told them to treat us better, I got one."
"I begged my captors to get me a Bible, and when the emperor of Japan told them to treat us better, I got one."
The sentence that changed DeShazer's world was "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
"I realized that these people did not know anything about my Savior and that if Christ is not in a heart, it is natural to be cruel," says DeShazer.
DeShazer was liberated in August 1944 by the 442nd Regiment Combat Team when they parachuted into China. One of his liberators, Dick Hamada, joined DeShazer at the chapel service.
"They were emaciated," recalled Hamada, now 79. "The Japanese didn't even consider them prisoners of war. They were 'war criminals."
DeShazer returned to the United States where Gen. Hap Arnold promoted him to staff sergeant. "General Arnold said I became a sergeant the moment the wheels left the deck [before the raid]," DeShazer recalled.
His experiences as a prisoner of war influenced him to go to Japan as a missionary.
"When I was a prisoner, I was afraid I was going to die and I told God 'I don't want to go up there with empty hands; I want to do something for Jesus." He attended college, then seminary to prepare for his new mission as an ambassador for Christ.
Before he arrived in Japan, DeShazer wrote a tract entitled "I Was a Prisoner of Japan," that was widely distributed throughout Japan. One person who read this tract was an embittered Japanese ex-pilot, Capt. Mitsuo Fuchida, who led the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The message was completely different from anything the officer had ever heard. All of his dreams had been shattered, and he was ready to consider the claims of Christ.
In one of the strangest and most inspiring stories to come out of World War II, Fuchida, the Japanese pilot who bombed Pearl Harbor, and DeShazer, the Doolittle Raider who bombed Tokyo, became close friends. Fuchida became a Christian in 1950 and, like DeShazer, spent the rest of his life as a missionary in Asia.
When DeShazer and his wife Florence went to Japan in 1948, they found a fertile field for missionary work. "MacArthur told them [Japanese] that they ought to be Christians," DeShazer recalled. "They wanted to find out what was right. A lot of the young people committed suicide when the emperor told them he was just another human being. They had been brought up to believe the emperor was a divine person. When we told them about the Lord, they said 'We never heard anything like this before!"
Hamada recalled the first time he and DeShazer met since the rescue over half a century ago. Hamada wanted to find out what became of the men he rescued.
"My daughter got on the internet and found Jacob DeShazer of the Free Methodist Church in Salem, Oregon. I called, told Mrs. DeShazer who I was, and she shouted 'Jacob! Jacob!"
Hamada and DeShazer saw each other again after 55 years at a reunion of the Doolittle Raiders in Fresno, Calif., three weeks before the movie premiere. They had corresponded, but never expected to meet. The chapel service marked only the second time the two men have met since 1944.
While the movie "Pearl Harbor" introduces a new generation to the events that led America on a journey from defeat to victory, DeShazer's message focuses on a personal journey from hatred to love and how that experience turned him from an agent of revenge into an ambassador of reconciliation.
-
This is the Jewish argument.Originally posted by sillyme:Why make things complicated?
If my sin is against a person, only that person can forgive.
If my sin is against God, only God can forgive.
Christians think Jesus Christ can forgive all your sins, correct me if I'm wrong. -
ThanksOriginally posted by Icemoon: