speaking in tongues
-
But on a deeper level, Tim 3:16 strengthens the catholic position LOL.Originally posted by Icemoon:I've seen Protestants using Timothy 3:16 on the basis of principle. Meaning not directly mentioned, but by principle.
1) It fails to mention what is the NT scripture
2) It refers to the OT scripture.
3) The deep part:2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
In short a nice analogy for the term profitable = useful.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
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. Protestants 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, the erroneous Protestant 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.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
Water is useful for survival but is not sufficient alone. One will still need food to survive.
Scripture is useful for salvation but is not sufficient alone. One still need Apostolic Tradition.
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
2 Thess 2:15 -
Jesus is incarnation of God. He has the authority.Originally posted by Icemoon:This is the Jewish argument.
Christians think Jesus Christ can forgive all your sins, correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually Christian beliefs are not totally different from Jewish beliefs. -
U will find more similiarites with Islam and Christianity than Christianity and Judaism.Originally posted by sillyme:Jesus is incarnation of God. He has the authority.
Actually Christian beliefs are not totally different from Jewish beliefs. -
Are you taking the easy way out?Originally posted by sillyme:Jesus is incarnation of God. He has the authority.
Actually Christian beliefs are not totally different from Jewish beliefs.
Earlier you said: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. -
but different in what is biblically important.Originally posted by sillyme:Jesus is incarnation of God. He has the authority.
Actually Christian beliefs are not totally different from Jewish beliefs. -
different in the fundamentals too.Originally posted by breytonhartge:but different in what is biblically important.
For example, Jews don't accept Jesus.
Well .. this makes a whole world of differences , isn't it? -
No. Jesus is incarnation of God, of one being with the Father. Is there a conflict?Originally posted by Icemoon:Are you taking the easy way out? -
Yes I know the Jews don't accept Jesus.
-
Well .. you said He has the authority. Fair enough.Originally posted by sillyme:No. Jesus is incarnation of God, of one being with the Father. Is there a conflict?
But earlier you also said: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. -
Yes, but God is One. Christ the Son, is God.Originally posted by Icemoon:Well .. you said He has the authority. Fair enough.
But earlier you also said: -
How does this explain the contradiction in your reply?Originally posted by sillyme:Yes, but God is One. Christ the Son, is God. -
I don't see any contradiction. Care to explain?Originally posted by Icemoon:How does this explain the contradiction in your reply? -
Originally posted by sillyme:I don't see any contradiction. Care to explain?
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.Originally posted by Icemoon:
Christians think Jesus Christ can forgive all your sins, correct me if I'm wrong.Originally posted by sillyme:
How come you said Jesus (God) has the authority when earlier you said only person can forgive if sin is against a person?
Jesus is incarnation of God. He has the authority. -
Ok.
My first comment was directed at Nicholas' statement that the Church has the authority to forgive. I disagree.
I think my simplistic comment was not good enough. Let me elaborate.
I think the first part regaring sinning against the other person maybe have been confusing.
If we offended any person, naturally we should ask for the person's forgiveness. Maybe it is not what a common person call as sin, not the Christian sin, sin. Perhaps, misgiving or wrongdoing maybe a better word.
For example if I stole something from another person. Awhile later, I confessed up and return it. Only he can choose to forgive me. That kind of "sin". -
My question will be:
if that person chose not to forgive you, what can Jesus do? -
Nothing actually. He taught us to forgive so that we, ourselves, maybe be forgiven.Originally posted by Icemoon:My question will be:
if that person chose not to forgive you, what can Jesus do?
Unforgiveness itself is a bondage. If we cannot forgive, we cannot receive forgiveness. -
now you are telling that person - you don't forgive your loss hor. -
following this thread is giving me a headache!
In my opinion, this thread is no longer about any useful discussion. It's about whether the Catholic church is correct and everything else is wrong.
That being the case, I might be tempted to close this thread, because there is really no spirit of friend discussion.
Does anyone second this motion? -
I am guilty of going off topic too
I agree with CE.
I don't really like to see every thread become a discussion of Catholic church vs everyone else. Personally, it bores me.
It's really boring. And it doesn't really help anyone, at least for me, to be interested in God. -
Mind you, I have not quoted from any Catholic Church dogma.Originally posted by Chin Eng:following this thread is giving me a headache!
In my opinion, this thread is no longer about any useful discussion. It's about whether the Catholic church is correct and everything else is wrong.
I have merely quoted from Apostolic and Church Fathers and Scriptures. Or perhaps the early Christian and Apostolic Fathers position is too catholic for your liking?
And you should not feel Catholic Church is right and everyone else is wrong. Based on sola scriptura, anyone's intepretation of Scripture is correct. If u follow your doctrine well enough, both of us are right.
It doesnt seem logical to me but for you I suppose it will be alright as its your doctrine of sola scriptura.
Lastly, I have not at all criticised the protestant position of God alone can forgive sins. I am merely advancing the Catholic position that God shares His power with his Church, his Bride. Ironically its those who refuse to accept this position as ANOTHER valid (despite Scripture and Apostolic Father quotes) form of exercising the sacrament of penance, that believe they are right and the CC is wrong. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Now that you've made your point, can we move on?
Lastly, I have not at all criticised the protestant position of God alone can forgive sins. I am merely advancing the Catholic position that God shares His power with his Church, his Bride. Ironically its those who refuse to accept this position as [b]ANOTHER valid (despite Scripture and Apostolic Father quotes) form of exercising the sacrament of penance, that believe they are right and the CC is wrong. [/b] -
and close this topic.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Now that you've made your point, can we move on? -
its queer but the day i saw your notes above, i came upon an inter-varsity press bible commentary in the library of a bible college. had a quick scan, would say its not bad.Originally posted by Icemoon:He got his history wrong.
Matthew Henry was born before Wesley.
OT a bit, do you know of any good modern commentaries? Written in the last few decades.
exact title:
New Bible Commentary
21st Century Edition
D Carson/R France/A Motyer/G Wendham (eds.)
Can find it here: http://www.ivpbooks.com -
yes, inter-varsity press do have some good publications, I have a few of those 'short' ones that is on individual books type.Originally posted by klydeer:its queer but the day i saw your notes above, i came upon an inter-varsity press bible commentary in the library of a bible college. had a quick scan, would say its not bad.
exact title:
New Bible Commentary
21st Century Edition
D Carson/R France/A Motyer/G Wendham (eds.)
Can find it here: http://www.ivpbooks.com