Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

[Grace&Truth]

Let take this either/or construct a little further:

God is either one person or three persons – he can’t be both.

Jesus was either fully God or fully man – he cannot be both.

God CAN have it both ways - look at the scripture that I provided.

This is not correct. God is not one person He is Three persons in One we call this the GodHead. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit who are One God in three persons.

Much of what you are claiming in the above is not even in scripture and is itself derived by Protestant theologians based upon THEIR interpretation of scripture. And you wish to exclude what the Catholic Church has been writing about during apostolic times and thereafter?

‡ Peace ‡[/QUOTE]

Well what I believe the Scriptures are teaching are just as plasible as the CF writings, neither is inspired so then you have the soul liberty to believe what you want, just don't claim that you are Believing in the "Inspired Word of God" because you are clearly not you are trusting in other man's teaching what they believe the "Inspired Word of God" is teaching (and maybe they have even put their own spin in there somewhere). Again, How do we know? Are they here to question them? Well I for one will read Scriptures for myself, and compare Scripture with Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret its.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Jesus was either fully God or fully man – he cannot be both.
[/COLOR]
God CAN have it both ways - look at the scripture that I provided. [/COLOR]

Yes He can, the Bible teaches both He was the God-Man, unlike Salvation which is "By grace through faith and not by works"

Much of what you are claiming in the above is not even in scripture and is itself derived by Protestant theologians based upon THEIR interpretation of scripture. And you wish to exclude what the Catholic Church has been writing about during apostolic times and thereafter?

‡ Peace ‡[/QUOTE]

Oh and I am not a Protestant either! And I am not avoiding the verses above, they have already been delt with by others so there is no need to rehash them and I have to go for now.

Have a nice day!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Let take this either/or construct a little further:

God is either one person or three persons – he can’t be both.

Jesus was either fully God or fully man – he cannot be both.

God CAN have it both ways - look at the scripture that I provided.

This is not correct. God is not one person He is Three persons in One we call this the GodHead. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit who are One God in three persons.

Of course its not correct - I am simply demonstrating the false dicotomy of the either/or argument that YOU were using.

Much of what you are claiming in the above is not even in scripture and is itself derived by Protestant theologians based upon THEIR interpretation of scripture. And you wish to exclude what the Catholic Church has been writing about during apostolic times and thereafter?

‡ Peace ‡

Well what I believe the Scriptures are teaching are just as plasible as the CF writings, neither is inspired so then you have the soul liberty to believe what you want, just don't claim that you are Believing in the "Inspired Word of God" because you are clearly not you are trusting in other man's teaching what they believe the "Inspired Word of God" is teaching (and maybe they have even put their own spin in there somewhere). Again, How do we know? Are they here to question them? Well I for one will read Scriptures for myself, and compare Scripture with Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret its.

So you say. How about addressing the scriptures that I provided. Not once did I cite the Church Fathers in that post. You demand scripture and that's just what I gave you.

Peace!

 

[lori4dogs]

It really does not matter how many people or religions that we can quote that agree with what we believe, what matters is "Does the Word of God teach it."

My point is that often positions held by the Roman Catholic Church are attributed only to the RCC on this board, even though they are shared by other Christian denominations such as Anglican, Lutheran, Methodists, Orthodox, etc.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

That is because you hold to the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Well, the Bible says it is "The Inspired Word of God" I have not found any verses that say anything else is. So what are we left with?

"The Inspired Word of God" does NOT equal...sola Scriptura...

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The CF writings are not Inspired by God, and can only be interpreted in light of the Word of God as any other writings or teaching is or should be. Keep in mind that the RCC does just the opposite, they interpret the Word of God by what the CF and their tradition teach, this is wrong as the Word of God in many places tells us that their were already false teachers, false teachings, false apostles. This means that every writing outside of the Scriptures have to be examined in light of Scripture not the other way around. We know Scripture is True we don't know beyond that what is or what isn't.

As for your points about Baptism, the thief on the cross proves that Baptism does not save. So try to reasoning it away, make up a false pie in the sky reasoning but their is not one verse in the whole of Scriptures that teach such a thing. Either Baptism saves or it does not you can't have it both ways. The Scriptures teach when one truly Believes (trusts) Jesus finished work for his salvation, that person is saved. When they are also baptized immediately thereafter they are still saved but then also baptized. If one Believes and does not have time or opportunity to be baptized they are still saved. Baptism is a picture of Salvation, a public testimony of that which has already taken place in the heart (life) of that person. That is why those in the gospels were immediately Baptized, it was a testimony to the unbelievers (the unbelieving Jews) that they had believed. That is why John said, "Repent and be baptized, and why with some he told them to show fruit onto Repentance which means they were to have a change of heart or belief to show that they had Repented. John knew that they had not Repented therefore he would not Baptize them, "WHY, if it would have saved them?" Because it would not! Only Repentance which means to turn from trusting (or believing) anything else could save them, and turning and trusting that only Jesus could save them.

Why not a both/and? Rather than Either/Or with regard to baptism. Often throughout the bible God has done things beyond the generally accepted view of the act. Why would Jesus see it necissary to be baptised if it does nothing? Yet why can't he not require it on a special occassion? Also Mechelzedek was not a covenant person or King yet Abraham payed tithes to him and he's referenced in Hebrews and thus we assume he was "saved". Though he wasn't Jewish. God saved this man outside the covenant. Why can't God have a general rule and then exceptions to the rule. Yet it is all through Jesus christ. After all we see this stuff played out time and again.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It really does not matter how many people or religions that we can quote that agree with what we believe, what matters is "Does the Word of God teach it."

Doesn't the word of God teach "Repent and be baptized"?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A few points for the sake of clarity.

Romans 10 Shows salvation happening before baptism - at the moment that we believe and confess our belief.

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that [b]if you confess[/b] with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, [b]you will be saved; [/b]
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and [b]with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/b]



And in 1Peter 3 we see the saving aspect of baptism is NOT the holy touch of sacramental water to the skin - but RATHER the "appeal to God for a clean conscience".

However in this case "saved" means - "Justified by Faith", forgiven of sin and accepted by God - does not mean that at that moment you leave this earth and go to Heaven. So in a free-will universe that means that later - after being saved - one could experience the Matt 18 scenario of "forgiveness revoked".

But what is even more clear - is that infants "have no desire" to be baptized - and yet even the RCC says they are saved.

in Christ,

Bob

You took that passage out of context. Paul was describing that he wished the Jews would be saved but they misunderstood christ roles thus in context of the passage we see him comparing the means and causes of faith Rather than a soley soteriological method.

5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

Paul is contrasting and comparing. In other words this isn't necissarily a synopsis of salvation but a part of it to compare to the way the isrealites are thinking. Context.

 

[DHK]

Well what I believe the Scriptures are teaching are just as plasible as the CF writings, neither is inspired

As far as I am concerned there is no basis of discussion on this board when one does not consider the Scriptures inspired. A denial of Word of God leaves one without a foundation or anything in common to work with. We might as well have the Koran for the basis of our discussion. Perhaps it will be inspired rather than the Bible for Grace&Truth. Her/his position is entirely untenable for any Christian.

 

[lori4dogs]

It really does not matter how many people or religions that we can quote that agree with what we believe, what matters is "Does the Word of God teach it."

But then you say that the word of God is not inspired. I'm confused. Did you misstate something?

 

[Grace&Truth]

As far as I am concerned there is no basis of discussion on this board when one does not consider the Scriptures inspired. A denial of Word of God leaves one without a foundation or anything in common to work with. We might as well have the Koran for the basis of our discussion. Perhaps it will be inspired rather than the Bible for Grace&Truth. Her/his position is entirely untenable for any Christian.

I think I said that sentence wrong. I believe that Only the Scriptures are Inspired I don't think what I may teach or write would be Inspired. No man's teaching is any more inspired then any other and whatever truth man teaches would only be the truth of the Already Inspired Word of God. I hope this clarifies this better.:thumbsup:

 

[lori4dogs]

I think I said that sentence wrong. I believe that Only the Scriptures are Inspired I don't think what I may teach or write would be Inspired. No man's teaching is any more inspired then any other and whatever truth man teaches would only be the truth of the Already Inspired Word of God. I hope this clarifies this better.:thumbsup:

OK, we can put the Rack away. :laugh:

 

[DHK]

I think I said that sentence wrong. I believe that Only the Scriptures are Inspired I don't think what I may teach or write would be Inspired. No man's teaching is any more inspired then any other and whatever truth man teaches would only be the truth of the Already Inspired Word of God. I hope this clarifies this better.:thumbsup:

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[quantumfaith]

The CF writings are not Inspired by God, and can only be interpreted in light of the Word of God as any other writings or teaching is or should be. Keep in mind that the RCC does just the opposite, they interpret the Word of God by what the CF and their tradition teach, this is wrong as the Word of God in many places tells us that their were already false teachers, false teachings, false apostles. This means that every writing outside of the Scriptures have to be examined in light of Scripture not the other way around. We know Scripture is True we don't know beyond that what is or what isn't.


Do you mean by this that there exists no truth (fact) other than what scripture records? No mathematical truth, no physical science truth etc.?

 

[Grace&Truth]

"The Inspired Word of God" does NOT equal...sola Scriptura...

In XC
-

That is the only thing that God has said is Inspired by Him so that would equal Scripture alone is God's Inspired Word. What other conclusion could there be?

 

[Grace&Truth]

The CF writings are not Inspired by God, and can only be interpreted in light of the Word of God as any other writings or teaching is or should be. Keep in mind that the RCC does just the opposite, they interpret the Word of God by what the CF and their tradition teach, this is wrong as the Word of God in many places tells us that their were already false teachers, false teachings, false apostles. This means that every writing outside of the Scriptures have to be examined in light of Scripture not the other way around. We know Scripture is True we don't know beyond that what is or what isn't.


Do you mean by this that there exists no truth (fact) other than what scripture records? No mathematical truth, no physical science truth etc.?

No, But God gives us all that we need for faith and practice in His Word. All Spiritual Truth (that man needs) is in God's Inspired Word for us. However, where God records Science, History etc. in His Word it is True.

 

[Grace&Truth]

OK, we can put the Rack away. :laugh:

Thank You! :applause:

 

[BobRyan]

The CF writings are not Inspired by God, and can only be interpreted in light of the Word of God as any other writings or teaching is or should be. Keep in mind that the RCC does just the opposite, they interpret the Word of God by what the CF and their tradition teach, this is wrong as the Word of God in many places tells us that their were already false teachers, false teachings, false apostles. This means that every writing outside of the Scriptures have to be examined in light of Scripture not the other way around. We know Scripture is True we don't know beyond that what is or what isn't.

Do you mean by this that there exists no truth (fact) other than what scripture records? No mathematical truth, no physical science truth etc.?

You are missing the argument from GT - the quote above does NOT say "No statement outside of scripture is true" - yet you have revised it in your question "as if" that is what you heard - no matter what was written in the text above.

One may yield NaCl as a precipitant without "violating scripture" as it turns out. Thus the sola scriptura principle remains untouched by such facts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
A few points for the sake of clarity.

Romans 10 Shows salvation happening before baptism - at the moment that we believe and confess our belief.

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that [b]if you confess[/b] with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, [b]you will be saved; [/b]
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and [b]with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/b]



And in 1Peter 3 we see the saving aspect of baptism is NOT the holy touch of sacramental water to the skin - but RATHER the "appeal to God for a clean conscience".

However in this case "saved" means - "Justified by Faith", forgiven of sin and accepted by God - does not mean that at that moment you leave this earth and go to Heaven. So in a free-will universe that means that later - after being saved - one could experience the Matt 18 scenario of "forgiveness revoked".

But what is even more clear - is that infants "have no desire" to be baptized - and yet even the RCC says they are saved.

You took that passage out of context. Paul was describing that he wished the Jews would be saved but they misunderstood christ roles thus in context of the passage we see him comparing the means and causes of faith Rather than a soley soteriological method. Paul is contrasting and comparing. In other words this isn't necissarily a synopsis of salvation but a part of it to compare to the way the isrealites are thinking. Context.

You did not make your case. The text of Romans 10 is very clear in what "results in salvation" it does not matter WHO follows those steps (Jew or Gentile) -- it is not as if there is one means of salvation for Jews and another for Gentiles - so that Romans 10 only applies to unsaved Jews and the steps THEY must go through to become saved.

Your point does not appear to be supported in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Further, the apostolic succession is clear – especially when looking at Augustine for validation.

Peace!

On the contrary - apostolic succession is dead given the RCC's own admitted history of multiple papal lines all with successors all active at the SAME time and all defrocked by Emperor Sigismund - who declared his OWN council of Cardinals to supercede all existing Papal lines. At that time EVERY Papal line was declared to be "antichrist" by its rival popes!

(And that is if we ignore the fact that the NT provides no such thing as "apostolic succession")

in Christ,

Bob