See No Evil Hear No Evil Christians

[Protestant]

When undertaking a serious study of Church history one will soon come face to face with the non-PC nature of the so-called ‘heretics.’

Not only did they see and hear the evil perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, they exposed it.

By so doing, they placed themselves in harm’s way, which often resulted in loss of all they owned, loss of personal freedom and loss of life.

Though they were true Bible-believing Christians, they were slandered and labeled ‘heretics’ by the very ones exposed as the corrupt, wicked, anti-Christians who claimed to be the ‘true Church.’

These so-called ‘heretics’ included the Donatists, Paulicians, Cathari, Albigenses, Waldenses, Pre-Reformation Protestants such as Jerome of Prague, Huss, Wickliffe and the Lollards, in addition to the obvious Protestors: Luther, Calvin and all other Protestant Reformers and Puritans, as well as numerous orthodox Baptists.

Depending on one’s spiritual state hearing the truth may not be welcomed.

Depending on one’s spiritual state it may be viewed as evil.

Jesus, who spoke only truth, was not welcomed by the religious elite.

His unrelenting exposure of their hypocrisy, self-righteousness, God-hating traditions and doctrines infuriated them to the point of murder.

Today, in freedom loving America, murder is seldom the method used to silence Christian truth.

Instead, claiming the Politically Correct high ground in the name of the universal ‘love’ of God for all people is the preferred method to censor inconvenient, damning truth.

Sanctimonious piety is the state of much of Christianity today.

Turning the other cheek when persecuted has morphed into turning a blind eye to obvious evil committed in the name of Christ.

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

The Roman Catholic ‘Vicar of Christ’ holding the Roman Catholic god called ‘Jesus Christ,’ whom he has just created.

Is this a minor question of no eternal consequence or a major blasphemy which unconditionally damns?

Official Roman Catholic Church teaching:

“The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as ‘Bible Christians’ insist.”

“In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.”

“Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament…….for we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father, when introducing him into the world, says; And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the Magi falling down, adored; who, in fine, as the Scripture testifies, was adored by the apostles in Galilee.”

“CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”

“CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.”

“CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema."

 

[utilyan]

Presuming everyone in the catholic church is completely evil it has no bearing the validity on the church.

Matthew 23
1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Jesus could have said to these same people he claim the devil was their father, look they are a devil's false religion. (Btw you won't find how the chair of Moses works in the bible its a standalone tradition Jesus Christ submits to.)


As far as the Eucharist it is Jesus Christ. Your about to pick a fight with the biggest gorilla in the monkey house. You haven't called it trash have you?



Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).




Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).



Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).



Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).






Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).



MARTIN LUTHER

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[Protestant]

[QUOTE="utilyan, post: 2212736, member: 1274]
As far as the Eucharist it is Jesus Christ. [/QUOTE]

You prove my point.

 

[utilyan]

[QUOTE="utilyan, post: 2212736, member: 1274]
As far as the Eucharist it is Jesus Christ.

You prove my point.[/QUOTE]


Jesus said that.

Or are you quoting me?

 

[Internet Theologian]

Presuming everyone in the catholic church is completely evil it has no bearing the validity on the church.

Matthew 23
1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Jesus could have said to these same people he claim the devil was their father, look they are a devil's false religion. (Btw you won't find how the chair of Moses works in the bible its a standalone tradition Jesus Christ submits to.)


As far as the Eucharist it is Jesus Christ. Your about to pick a fight with the biggest gorilla in the monkey house. You haven't called it trash have you?



Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).




Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).



Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).



Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).






Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).



MARTIN LUTHER

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

Error is still error no matter how many repeat it. The test of truth is not in which theologian or church father said it, nor in how many times they say it. It, truth, is from the proper application and exegesis of the Scriptures. The above opinions of men are not examples of this. 2 Timothy 2:15.

 

[utilyan]

Error is still error no matter how many repeat it. The test of truth is not in which theologian or church father said it, nor in how many times they say it. It, truth, is from the proper application and exegesis of the Scriptures. The above opinions of men are not examples of this. 2 Timothy 2:15.

Exegesis of what Scripture? the Muslim QUARAN? The BOOK OF MORMON?
And these scriptures flat out say the rule is "proper application and exegesis of scripture"

Unlike our bible which never claims itself solely sufficient.

These theologians and church fathers put the 66 books in your hands that's why you have 4 gospels rather then twenty of them.


You can't just make up a rule.

 

[Protestant]

The Mouse Who Ate God

In the bizarre, unhinged world of Catholicism, once the priest consecrates the wafer the infinite, omnipotent, all-wise, holy Creator of the Heavens and Earth is now that wafer.

Should that consecrated wafer fall into the hands of a crafty, cunning mouse whose veracious appetite cannot easily be quenched, the unimaginable will happen: that mouse will eat God.

Is there any doubt our Lord has purposely sent strong delusion to Roman Catholics that they would actually believe such vain profane pagan poppycock?

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[utilyan]

The Mouse Who Ate God

In the bizarre, unhinged world of Catholicism, once the priest consecrates the wafer the infinite, omnipotent, all-wise, holy Creator of the Heavens and Earth is now that wafer.

Should that consecrated wafer fall into the hands of a crafty, cunning mouse whose veracious appetite cannot easily be quenched, the unimaginable will happen: that mouse will eat God.

Is there any doubt our Lord has purposely sent strong delusion to Roman Catholics that they would actually believe such vain profane pagan poppycock?

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Jesus Christ said it was his body and blood. The #1 reason many of his disciples left him.

Early church fathers even Even Martin Luther who developed your theology believed it.

More importantly the bible documents the command of Jesus to "DO THIS".

A tradition Jesus started and self-authorized.

There are multiple forms and mediums of communication. All with varying degrees of reliability. No where does it say ink and paper is superior to other forms.


Jesus Christ chose bread, wine and people as his choice method of passing on his teaching.


He chose a humble method that even blind and illiterate could understand, But since it doesn't meet your "higher" standard of ink, paper and the English language, you kicked it aside as inferior.




The Bereans didn't have scripture tell them scripture is correct, that was a tradition.

The Apostles did not have a King James fall out the sky to figure out why they do communion.


Your line of logic suggest this:

 

[Protestant]

Have you never heard The Legend of Wonder Bread?

 

[Darrell C]

Jesus said that.

Here is what Jesus said:



John 6:51

King James Version (KJV)

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


John 6:55

King James Version (KJV)

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



Luke 22:17-20

King James Version (KJV)

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


Nothing but the death of Christ provides eternal life. We memorialize His death in Communion. When we are saved it is a finished work, and need not be repeated, only remembered.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Jesus Christ said it was his body and blood. The #1 reason many of his disciples left him.

You are mixing two different occasions to create this concept. In John 6 the Lord makes it clear that it is His death which gives men life. When He represents His death prior to the Cross at the Last Supper, consider that your own logic would demand that the elements utilized in that supper would have given them eternal life when they ate of those elements.

Do you see a problem with that?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Exegesis of what Scripture? the Muslim QUARAN? The BOOK OF MORMON?
And these scriptures flat out say the rule is "proper application and exegesis of scripture"

Unlike our bible which never claims itself solely sufficient.

These theologians and church fathers put the 66 books in your hands that's why you have 4 gospels rather then twenty of them.


You can't just make up a rule.

While it is true Scripture may not directly speak to all issues, all issues can be correlated to the teachings we do have. For example, I briefly looked at the debate concerning the abortion pill, which seemed to imply that it prevented conception.

Does Scripture speak to that? Not directly, but we have enough to know that one needing or utilizing such a pill is in sin, which makes moot trying to defend the pill as acceptable because Scripture is silent on it. Or, that Christian leaders can come to a conclusion that contraception of any form is acceptable to the Lord...who has made His will in regards to fornication quite clear.

Love the cartoon, by the way.

Now what issue would you, Utilyan, raise that you would suggest Scripture is silent on, and that God has left men to decide upon it on their own?


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As far as the Eucharist it is Jesus Christ. Your about to pick a fight with the biggest gorilla in the monkey house.

It might be worth mentioning that Transubstantiation only became official dogma of the Church of Rome at the 4th Lateran Council of 1215. Before that there had been no unity on the subject. Google up 'Radbertus & Ratramnus' if you want to see some of the controversy. The word Transubstantiation was actually invented by a fellow called Hildebert of Tours (d. 1134).

 

[utilyan]

Now what issue would you, Utilyan, raise that you would suggest Scripture is silent on, and that God has left men to decide upon it on their own?


God bless.

Easy. What collection of books is the bible?

There is no inspired holy table of contents.

You have to traditionally accept the authority of who ever hands you a bible and assures you its the genuine one.



For example suppose I hand you a Chinese bible. Right off the bat scripture alone fails unless you know Chinese. Then you require an authority in the Chinese language to teach you the words, grammar, figures of speech ect..


Scripture itself says scripture alone is dangerous. Containing things hard to understand, without proper guidance it easily falls out of balance.

2 Peter 3
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.



Who gives the pass and fail of who is unlearned or unstable? If you have a disqualified teacher then you yourself are disqualified.

If Martin Luther and John Calvin said well they learned this understanding from the bishop of Timbuktu , Then we have a valid game going on.

But they were both just bad Catholics.


They could have made anything up and it would be better then their claim. Like some angel prophesied and revealed to them the true meanings. Or the teaching was secretly handed down.

Maybe John the Apostle told him?
John 21
20Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”


John the Apostle is still alive, He said you folks got it all wrong.Laugh

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Easy.

Perhaps, but you didn't answer Darrell's question. You just shot off on a pathetic little diatribe.
You are the perfect illustration of the Three Stages of Incompetence.
First, ignorance; then bluster, and finally insult.

 

[Darrell C]

Easy. What collection of books is the bible?

We can first start with the Canon Christ refers to:


Luke 24:44-45

King James Version (KJV)

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Then, we look at a statement you post to question the veracity of Scripture:


2 Peter 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.


So now we have in our Canon The Hebrew Scriptures, and all of Paul's Epistles.

That leaves the Gospels, the writings of John, Peter, and James.

Could you tell men which of these the Catholic Church denies as inspired Scripture?

Which do you deny as inspired, Utilyan?

There is no inspired holy table of contents.

According to Scripture there is.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You have to traditionally accept the authority of who ever hands you a bible and assures you its the genuine one.

Actually I don't. The Transmission Process is not only well documented, and the most scrutinized subject known to man (both believing and unbelieving alike), but has the affirmation of our Lord Jesus Christ as well.

You do believe Christ was Authoritative in His view of Scripture...don't you?

For example suppose I hand you a Chinese bible. Right off the bat scripture alone fails unless you know Chinese. Then you require an authority in the Chinese language to teach you the words, grammar, figures of speech ect..

In part I agree, however, the thought that one has to be a grammatical genius to understand the Word of God is ludicrous.

You want to tell me the extent of the education of Peter, for example? I can see him now, mending the net, mulling over that which is pluperfect.

Here is a little advice for you, in that regard, Utilyan: the reason God gave His Word to Man is so that man might understand His will. We create a caricature of Holy God when we imply He gave His Word in terms He never meant all men to understand.

Secondly, your example imposes something that is not realistic, because the translation itself must remain true to the original languages, whereas your example has the original language as the language needed to be learned. So we wouldn't learn Chinese to understand your translation, we would still need to know the meaning of the words in the original language. If the translation fails to translate, then the translation fails, not the Word of God. And the figures of speech? Same thing. Even if Chinese figurative language corresponded to the original figurative language, unless it presents that which it translates, again...it fails, and is therefore no more a translation, but a paraphrase.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Scripture itself says scripture alone is dangerous. Containing things hard to understand, without proper guidance it easily falls out of balance.

2 Peter 3
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Scripture does not say "Scripture alone is dangerous," you are very much in error to say that, and I can guarantee you that not one Catholic Scholar would agree with you. He would chastise you for embarrassing Catholics, likely.

Now here you present a great example. You say this statement means "Scripture alone is dangerous." You said that, it is plain for all to see. Now I will give you my understanding of what Peter is saying, and I will put it back into a fuller context, where the statement is seen in better clarity:


2 Peter 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.



1. God is patient;

2. Peter exhorts the reader/hearer to keep that in mind;

3. Peter reminds them Paul has written to them about this;

4. Peter tells them that Paul's understanding of this issue comes from God;

5. Peter states that wisdom is seen in all of Paul's Epistles;

6. Peter states Paul speaks of Eschatological issues in his Epistles;

7. Peter makes it clear these issues are difficult to understand (difficult, not impossible);

8. Peter states those who are ignorant and unstable wrest these issues;

9. Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture;

10. Peter states they will be destroyed because they do this (and here you need to understand that what Peter is saying is that the opposite is achieved, that is, when Scripture is understood rather than wrested...it is not unto destruction);

11. Peter says "Forewarned is forearmed," or, "Since you know this in advance...don't forget!";

12. Peter states forgetting can impact a steadfast faith;

13. Peter advises sound understanding of the Scriptures;

14. Peter warns them not to let the wicked (designated wicked solely from a perspective of Doctrine) lead them astray.


So could you show me where you see "Scripture alone is dangerous?"

And I will just point out that it is steadfastness they fall from, not salvation.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Who gives the pass and fail of who is unlearned or unstable? If you have a disqualified teacher then you yourself are disqualified.

On the contrary, we have the example given throughout the entire Bible: if a teaching does not correspond to the revealed will of God...it is to be rejected.

Would you find someone like the fellow teaching that a spaceship is going to lass by and "catch up" the true believers stable and teaching a Biblical Doctrine? That we can read Scripture and conclude that we need to help in that process by committing suicide?

If so, why? If not, why?

We are told this here:


1 John 4

King James Version (KJV)

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.


And I will say, I think you are arguing something not even Catholics would agree with. I have no doubts that sincere Catholic Scholars understand this very basic principle as it is expressed throughout the entirety of Scripture. While they have adopted Oral Tradition, they do not exclusively practice Oral Tradition apart from Scripture itself. That is not what the debate entails.

The debate centers on inclusion on the part of Catholics, and the exclusion of those who adhere to Sola Scriptura to men creating doctrine which they see as in contradiction to what has already been revealed.

Indulgences, for example, not sure how anyone cannot see that remission of sins cannot be bought. Now if you can give me a reason why that kind of Practice can be seen to be acceptable by the Bible Student, then perhaps you might be on your way to convincing me that Scripture is not the Sole Authority in regards to Doctrine and Practice.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If Martin Luther and John Calvin said well they learned this understanding from the bishop of Timbuktu , Then we have a valid game going on.

No, actually we don't. Because while they may have gleaned understanding with the help of another believer, we understand that all spiritual truths are revealed only by God...not men.

That is why, on the Forums, we see the same debates over and over. Not one person on here can impart spiritual truth to another member, only God can enlighten the minds of those here. That doesn't mean we cannot be used in that process, but, except God change the heart, all we see are intellectual agreements in regards to Doctrine.

And even the natural man can come to intellectually agree with something. For example, I can agree that the Muslim demand of faith unto death is a godly attitude on an intellectual plane, but that's where it stops. Just because they have adopted a concept from Scripture doesn't authorize them to add to the Scripture and give it their own slant.

But they were both just bad Catholics.

You think you are a better Catholic than Martin Luther? lol

Isn't that a little "blasphemous" of you? You are not respecting the Priesthood, my friend.

They could have made anything up and it would be better then their claim. Like some angel prophesied and revealed to them the true meanings. Or the teaching was secretly handed down.

Neither said that happened, so you present a false argument. Why speculate, why not look at the facts. It is because Martin Luther was a Catholic that I have a problem with him. I do not accept his all of his views, and I have a bit of a problem with someone who took issue with how Indulgences were being executed.

His Catholicism remained with him while he protested. Read the 95 Theses, and see how many things you can agree with.

I dare you.

I double dog dare you.




Continued...