User Profile: by faith

by faith

Member Since: September 27, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 4:42pm

    Gay and celibate; just like unmarried heterosexuals are to remain celibate.

    Being gay is not the problem. Acting on same sex attractions is.
    Just like having a DESIER to be promiscuous is not the same as being an active whore.

    Believe it or not, sex is not the end all, be all of human existence.

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 9:54am

    I can’t deny that video.
    As a matter of fact at our last Illuminati meeting, Big Foot proposed a motion that said we go to your mom’s house, kick in the basement door and take away your computer. But then the Roswell aliens said you really don’t exist so we decided to go over to Hitler’s house and eat some fried chupacabra. The Black Pope has this great recipe he got from his days on Mars with Elvis. Jesse Ventura has pictures on his twitter page.

  • [2] December 12, 2014 at 10:31am

    You are so out of your depth when you try to match Biblical knowledge with me.

    You are so ill-equipped.

    You have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been found wanting.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:29am

    Colossians 2:20-22 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, [21] “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” [22] (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?

    1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

    1 Timothy 4:1, 6-7 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, . . . [6] If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. [7] Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness;

    Titus 1:14 instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.

    How’s that for Catholics don’t read the Bible
    Oh, wait you didn’t read it, because a hate filled coward you can’t read truths about the Catholic Church.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:27am

    John 12:43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

    1 Corinthians 2:5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

    1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.

    Galatians 1:9-12 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. [10] Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. [11] For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel.[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

    Ephesians 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

    Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:27am

    Matthew 15:9 “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men”

    Biblical Evidence for True Apostolic Tradition vs. “Traditions of Men”
    I discovered (as a set) several of the following passages in Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman’s sermon, “The Principle of Continuity Between the Jewish and Christian Churches,” from 20 November 1842 (when he was still Anglican). It is Sermon 15 in his collection, Sermons Bearing on Subjects of the Day (1843). Good, apostolic, biblical traditions in bold; false traditions of men italic.

    Matthew 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”

    Matthew 15:6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

    Matthew 15:9 “in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

    Matthew 15:13 He answered, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.”

    Matthew 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”(cf. Mk 8:33)

    Mark 7:8-9, 13 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” [9] And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! . . . [13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.”

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:26am

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 “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 Thessalonians 3:6 “Now we command you brethren, in the name our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the traditions that you received from us”
    2 Peter 2:21 “For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
    When Paul spoke of receiving and delivering such tradition, he gave no indication that they were fallible or that he questioned any of them because they came through oral transmission rather than written word. He appears to take for granted that which many Protestants have the hardest time grasping and accepting.
    The related Greek words paradidomi and paralombano are usually redered, repectively, as (traditions) “delivered” (Luke 1:1-2; Rom 6:17, 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; Pet 2:21; Jude 3) and “received” (1 Cor 11:23; 15:1-3; Gal 1:9, 12: 1 Thes 2:13)
    The bottom (biblical) line is not “tradition versus no tradition”, but rather “true, apostolic tradition versus false tradition of men.” The Bible often expressly distinguishes between the two
    Matthew 15:3 “He answered them, And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”
    Mathew 15:6 “So, for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God”

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:25am

    There is nothing in the word “sola” which implies only the Bible has a particular charism or quality; the word means the Bible stands alone, without anything else.

    Secondly, none of the Reformers taught anything like the modern interpretation of sola scriptura – what they taught was what the modern individuals call solo scriptura, and which they called sola scriptura. It is a lie to claim Luther et al taught the modern notion of sola scriptura, and not the modern solo scriptura.

    Thirdly, sola and solo scriptura are completely identical. If an authority is not authoritative, then what is the point of it? If it can be disregarded, then what weight does it carry? The answer is it carries none – which is precisely the claim of sola scriptura!

    As mentioned above, the Bible is a book and must be interpreted – and that interpretation is outside of the Bible. The modern definition of sola scriptura claims these interpretations are not infallible – which means anyone can make one, and no-one else’s has to treated with respect unless the person wishes to agree with it. That is, ultimately, precisely the same as the traditional, and correct, definition of sola scriptura.

    The Bible contains much information on Sacred Tradition:
    1 Corinthians 11:2 “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:24am

    In Matthew 28:20 Christ commands us to obey all His commands – how can we obey all His commands without going outside the Bible if not everything He taught is in the Bible?

    The Bible is full of examples of preaching being the foundation of the Christian faith – II Timothy 1:13, 2:2, I Peter 1:25, Romans 10:17, I Corinthians 15:1-2 and Mark 16:15. All of these are clear verses which show that the first proclamation of Christ was oral – it was preaching, preached by the Church and handed on as Traditions. Eventually, some of that preaching was written down and formed the Bible – but the core of the Christian faith has never been a book. It has been the word which will never pass away (Mark 13:31) – it is made very clear that that word is the word preached (I Peter 1:25).

    A Distinction Without A Difference – Solo or Sola?

    A modern phenomena is the claim among certain Protestants that sola scriptura does not mean “scripture alone”, but rather it means the Bible is the only infallible authority, but there are other authorities (such as the body of believers) which are authoritative, but not infallibly so. These individuals claim sola scriptura recognizes these other authorities, but solo scriptura does not. This is a spurious and, frankly, ridiculous argument for several reasons.

    Firstly, solo scriptura is simply bad Latin, and was never used by the Reformers. It is cod-Latin at best; the correct word is sola.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:23am

    Arguments against sola scriptura from the Bible itself

    Of course, those who believe in sola scriptura may not be impressed by any argument which uses anything other than the Bible as a source – fortunately, in addition to not supporting sola scriptura, the Bible is also dismissive of it.

    I Corinthians 11:2, II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:16 all give explicit instructions to follow Traditions which were passed on. These are clearly oral Traditions as well as those in letters or other Scriptures. A number of non-Catholics cite verses such as Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:9 and Colossians 2:8 which condemn tradition – but this refers to the man-made traditions which are detrimental to the truth of Christianity. The Bible tells us to follow the apostolic Traditions which are handed on from Jesus Christ. These Traditions are part of revelation – and some of them made their way into Sacred Scripture (as is said in Luke 1:1-4).

    It is clear from John 21:25 that the Bible does not record everything that Jesus said and did. In Acts 20:35 Paul records a saying of Christ’s not found anywhere in the Gospels – where did he get this from if he did not get it from a source outside the Bible (such as being told it by one of the apostles)? Why would he refer to this saying if he did not expect his readers to accept the fact that sayings of Christ not recorded in the Gospels can be used (the very opposite of sola scriptura)?

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:23am

    For example, the words “The cat is blue” have no meaning until someone reads them and interprets them to mean that there is an animal of a particular sort which has fur which is a particular color. But those words could be interpreted in a number of ways – the word “cat” might mean a little housecat, or possibly a much larger cat like a panther or cougar. The word “cat” could even be slang – some people call their friends and associates “cats”, for example. The word “blue” could refer to a color of fur, but could also mean something else – it might mean the cat is unhappy, for example.

    When we ask someone “What does the book say?” we do not always want them to simply quote the words to us – we want them to tell us what the words mean. That is a person’s interpretation. If we are not given a person’s interpretation, we have to provide our own – or choose someone else’s. We have no way of reading a book without an interpretation – it is just impossible.

    That interpretation is external to the book – and is external to the Bible. As Christians we can either choose to go with out own interpretation (which is wrong as is made clear in II Peter 1:20) or we can choose someone else’s. The only person who has the authority to determine what is the correct interpretation of Scripture is the Catholic Church.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:22am

    There are some teachings in the Bible which are explicit and reasonably clear – for example “Thou shalt not kill” in Deuteronomy 5:17 – but there are many verses which are much less clear. The inclusion of “water” in John 3:5 is interpreted by some Christians as a teaching on baptism, and by others as a reference to the amniotic fluid of birth.

    If sola scriptura were true, would not the whole Bible be very clear and easy to understand? Would not the Scriptures be written in plain and simple language, and in fact all be written as a form of Catechism containing many “Thou shalts” and “Thou shalt nots”.

    But this is not what we see – Saint Peter himself says that the Bible can be hard to understand in II Peter 3:16. Because different Christians have different interpretations of the Bible it cannot be self authenticating. This means that it must have an external source of authority in order to be correctly interpreted. That source of authority is the authority which wrote and assembled the Bible; she is the authoritative Catholic Church.

    Arguments against sola scriptura from simple logic and reason

    The Bible is a book – it is an inspired and holy book, but it is still a book. Books are made up of words, not meanings. A meaning only exists when an intelligent, thinking being reads the words and interprets what they might mean.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:22am

    As mentioned in the articles concerning the history of the Bible and the deuterocanonical books, the Catholic Church determined which books belonged in Sacred Scripture. Even if the Protestant does not accept this, if sola scriptura is true then the list of which books belong in the Bible is of vital importance. Without this list, the Christian could never be sure if he has all the books that contain the truth of Christianity, of indeed if he has any books which he should not have. But this list – however it was arrived at – is not part of the Bible. There is no list of inspired books in the Bible, and even if there were such a list, how could it be proven this list itself is correct? In all cases an external authority is needed to verify the Bible as accurate and inspired – that authority is the Church.

    Arguments against sola scriptura stemming from Protestant disagreements

    Not all Protesants agree with the doctrine of sola scriptura, although many do. But virtually no Protestants agree with each other on what the Bible means – this is why there are over 35,000 different denominations of Protestants, each with their own interpretation of the Bible.

    If sola scriptura is true then it must be possible to read the same passage of the Bible and always get the same conclusion concerning what the appropriate teaching is.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:21am

    However, these people cannot have had a copy of the New Testament – the last book of the New Testament was written around 100 AD. Before that date no Christian could have had a complete “Bible” as we understand it today. If the Bible is the “sole source of Christian teaching and knowledge” as sola scriptura claims, how can these people have been Christians? Peter, Paul, James, John and Andrew never saw a complete modern Bible – what they had was the Old Testament Scriptures and the preaching and Tradition of the Church.

    Arguments against sola scriptura stemming from Bible ownership

    It is a simple truth that not all Christians have a Bible – in many places in the world not everyone can read, and certainly not everyone can afford a Bible. Historically, this was certainly the case – before the advent of cheap printing Bibles were very expensive (the equivalent of $100,000 in today’s money!) and few people had them. Is it the case that these people were not Christians?

    The claim that Christianity is “the Bible and nothing but the Bible” is a very modern, privileged Western notion – based on the ease of access to the Bible, affluence and literacy. Many Protestants simply have no idea about the historical facts of Christianity and how – for centuries – the Bible simply was not read by the common man because he could not afford to buy one or because he could not read.

    Arguments against sola scriptura stemming from the Biblical

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:21am

    Another verse often cited is John 20:31 which says why that book was written – but saying why something was written is not the same as saying it is sufficient and nothing else is needed. For example, a hammer exists to help with carpentry – but a hammer is not sufficient for carpentry. The Scriptures were written “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16) and this is why we read them. But they are not sufficient, nor should they ever be thought of in that way.

    Protestants may quote a number of other verses from the Bible – pretty much any one which mentions Scripture and writing – and attempt to say that this verse defends sola scriptura. In every case the verses do not – there are literally no verses which defend sola scriptura. The Catholic apologist should look at verses very carefully, always reading the Bible as it is supposed to be read, and will then be able to determine what the verse actually means.

    Historical arguments against sola scriptura

    The history of the Bible shows, very clearly, that the Church was the organization who made the Bible and that the Church is older than the Bible. The Bible itself shows that there were Christians before a word of the New Testament was written – the whole of the book of Acts, for example, describes the early life of the Church from the Ascension of Jesus onwards. There is no doubt whatsoever that these people were Christians.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:21am

    On the face of it this verse can seem to suggest that sola scriptura is a valid argument – but it is not.

    The word used is “profitable”, not “sufficient”. It is certainly true that reading the Scriptures can lead to a man being “prepared for every good work” – but this does not mean that just the Scriptures are needed. The most that this verse says is that the Scriptures are useful and that they are possibly essential – but that is not the same thing as sufficient. This is another example of Protestant “Either / Or” theology.

    In addition, few Protestants read these verses in context – when the passage II Timothy 3:14-17 is read it is clear that Saint Paul is reminding Timothy to remember what he learned and from who he learned it, and also to stick to the Scriptures which he “knew from childhood”.

    This passage shows two things – firstly, Paul is advocating the following of Tradition. And, secondly, Paul is revealing what he means by “Scriptures” – he means the Old Testament, the Seputagint as it was known. Timothy is urged to read the Scriptures which he has known all his life – the New Testament did not exist when Timothy was a child, the only Scriptures were the Jewish Scriptures. So, if this verse shows sola scriptura it in fact shows sola Old Testament – the New Testament should be abandoned. But, if we abandoned the New Testament, we wouldn’t have this verse – so we wouldn’t need to abandon the New Testament!

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:20am

    Sola scriptura refers to the notion that the Bible alone is the sole source of authority for Christians and the sole source of Christian doctrine. It also includes, inevitably, the notion that the Bible is self-authenticating as inspired and that the doctrines obtained by the sola scriptura approach are repeatable and obvious. It is these two inevitable features, and some others, which we will concentrate on when refuting sola scriptura.

    The Bible doesn’t say it

    One of the major arguments against sola scriptura is that the Bible itself does not say anywhere in its 73 books that it is totally sufficient for Christians. If the Bible were totally sufficient then all the information regarding Christianity (including what information should be used to determine what is Christianity) should be in the Bible. But we do not find this information anywhere in the Bible – there are only one logical conclusion – the Bible is not the sole source of Christian teaching.

    “Ah, but it does!”

    Many Protestants will eagerly quote a number of Scripture passages which seem to give the impression that the Bible is the sole rule of faith – but these passages do not actually say that. The most commonly quoted is II Timothy 3:16-17; “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work”.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:20am

    As a true analyst, Dave separated the sola scriptura dogma into its constituents claims, found out its contents, examined its individual parts, and studied the structure of sola scriptura as whole. He found them defective and insufficient to expound and explain the full spectrum of Christian claims.
    Dave kills the sola scriptura zombie by selecting 100 verses from Scripture contradicting this central Protestant claim. I guess he selected 100 verses because the number “100” gives the reader a sense of exhaustive answer and completion, not because there are only 100 verses that should make all sincere Protestant Christian at least uncomfortable with the teaching. In fact, Dave is the author of another related work, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?, which is useful if you need another 401 arguments to kill the sola scriptura zombie dead.

    Sola scriptura is Latin for “scripture alone” and is a “doctrine” of many Protestant faith communities. The word “doctrine” is placed in inverted commas because it is not a formal doctrine as the Catholic Church understands or defines it; it has a number of differing interpretations and applications among the myriad Protestant denominations. Very few Protestant communities agree on precisely what the doctrine means, but there is a broad consensus of its meaning.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 10:19am

    100 Biblical Arguments against Sola Scriptura

    Sola scriptura is dead, or at least is undead, a zombie still stalking the darkened hallways of Protestantism. Many well-meaning Protestant Christians don’t see the zombie-dogma for what it is; instead, they choose to see it as a being of light. Dave Armstrong has returned to blow the old decrepit sola scriptura monsters one at a time in his latest work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura.
    Let’s recall the definition of the sola scriptura dogma – yes, it is a dogma – as understood by Norman Geisler, a recognized Protestant authority Dave quotes in his work:
    By sola scriptura orthodox Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)… (p.16)
    Geisler, and other authorities Dave quotes, further explain that other authorities exist, but that these are of secondary importance. Geisler also defends what he calls the perspicuity of Holy Writ, which means that anyone can understand the basic truths of Scripture: the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things, Geisler states. (p.17).

  • [2] December 12, 2014 at 10:18am

    Getting rid of a delusion makes us wiser than getting hold of a truth – Ludwig Borne

    Most people go through life not really getting any smarter. Why? They simply won’t do the work required.

    Pour delusional Via

123 To page: Go