Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

No, DHK, my Biblical basis comes from the authority that Jesus vested to the Church.

As I pointed out before, sola scriptura is your man made tradition, not mine.

I wait in vain for Scriptural proof of sola scriptura.

Ron

 

Brian,

Catholics also generally believe that Mary died before she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. Death is a result of sin, and yet Mary was without sin.

Surely you don't think that the Catholic Church doesn't have an explanation? I would hope not.

I was typing out a response that would be long and complicated, but I thought I might as well make this simple...

First off, it never said that childbirth wasn't painless. God the Father said that he would instensify the pains of child birth, meaning that previous to that, child birth would have still been painful, only not as much.

Second, I ask that you read Isaiah 66:7-14.

Lemme know how that goes! God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

Your last statement was not a logical conclusion based on the previous statements, and I wholly reject it, for it makes no sense. Now, if you don't accept Sola Scriptura, you don't believe in the Word of God.

I pray for you.

God bless,

Grant

 

Then you didn't carefully read what was posted, did you?
DHK

 

DHK, I wrote three very short sentences in reponse to you.

You chose to delete the one sentence that answered your question.

You then bore false witness against me by claiming that I could not answer your question.

I forgive you anyway, DHK.

[ December 03, 2002, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Then you didn't carefully read what was posted, did you?
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]I read it just fine. It does not in any way show without doubt that the Scirptures are our final authority. I do fully agree that all doctrine must be in agreement with Scriptures, and not contrary, which is faithfully kept in the Catholic Church. But something does not have to be explicitly stated in Scripture to be an article of Truth, and you have not proven otherwise.

God bless,

Grant

 

Why were some writings of the Apostles not recognized as Scripture?

If it was so "instanly recognized" why is there recorded history of disagreement?

This is Paul saying that his writings are authoratative, not that some other person can pick what is and what is not Scripture.

So what about the other writings of the Apostles?

But you reject this "referencing" standard when it comes to the Deutroconanicals. Why is that?

Then why does recorded history tell us different?

 

Greetings Brian:

I believe it refers to Mary...yes. But understand, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary does not come from this verse.

For sake of the discussion I will post it as I think it will shed some light. Genesis 3:16; "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain shall you bring forth children;..."

Now being a sola scripturist you must admit there has to be a measure of pain to begin with in order for something to be "multiplied" right? So the woman in Revealtion 12 having some pain at childbirth does not contradict this as you implied.

Next using your logic, would you also say that Jesus had the curse of original sin since He died?

I will throw out neither, and even if I did, it would not change the truth of either of them. My point is that if you do a careful study of Revelation 12, it would be hard to come out against the woman being Mary.

The main part of who the 'woman' is, is the part that gives birth to the son. The Son, who she does give birth to in verse 5, is the one who rules the earth, with a rod of iron. This is a clear reference to Psalm 2:9 where it says that this son will rule them with a rod of iron. In revelation 19:13-15, this phrase of ruling with a rod of iron is specifically applied to the Word of God. This is a direct reference to Jesus. Now the woman in revelation 12 is one who gives birth to Jesus and the only one in Scripture who gives birth to Jesus is Mary. A look at the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament will not find a single reference to Israel either being a woman or giving birth to the Messiah.
Whats your opionion?

[ December 03, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

Grant, You made a very good point and so I looked at the NASB version of the Genesis verse. Here it is: 16 To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will (17) bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And (18) he will rule over you."

Do you see the line, "In Pain you will bring forth children". To fit the first part of verse 16 with the second part it is more logical to say that the multiplying is saying it will be very painful. Unlike math we don't have to have pain first to multiply. The second part is totally unneeded if there was pain first. If there was pain right off the bat before the curse then you must believe that a perfect world included pain. It was a interesting thought but it doesn't hold the true test of interpretation. Woman after the curse had pain, that is directly what the second part of the verse says. If pain exsisited before that, that part would not be included. Verse 16 is saying not only will you now have pain, you will have a lot of it. Thanks for reading this, take care,

In Love and Truth,
Brian

Also, as a side note. Did Joseph rule over Mary as he was supposed to, considering her sinless state?

[ December 03, 2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

GraceSaves, and T2U,
What I have posted, and what you seem to agree with for the most part, is how the canon of Scripture was formed, and then how it was preserved for us today. If we have the Bible, as the article says we do, then it becomes our final authority. It was the final authority in the days of the Old Testament prophets. It was the final authority in the days of Christ. It was the final authority in the days of the early believers. This doctrine runs like a thread through every book of Scripture, and through all true believers throughout all generations. Only the unsaved would deny such a doctrine. I have pointed out some of these things before, but for your sakes I will do it again.

415 times in 413 verses is there an appeal to God's Word as the final authority in the phrase "Thus saith the Lord," alone. That is sola scriptura 413 times over.

2Cor.3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
--Our sufficiency is of God. We need nothing outside of God. Our sufficiency is of God.

2Cor.9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
--Again God is our sufficiency. He is able to make all things abound to every good work, for He is our sufficiency. We have all sufficiency in all things.

2Cor.9:11 Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.
--We are enriched in all things or in everything which then causes us to give thanksgiving.

John 17:17, Jesus said about His disciples, "Sanctify them through thy truth, they Word is truth."
Sanctify means to set apart from sin, and to be separated unto God. It gives the idea of spiritual maturity or completion.
Thus the work of the full holiness of the believer is done through the operation of the Word of God, not through the Word of God plus something else. It is not the Word of God plus tradition that a person is sanctified or made holy. This is a work of God. God is our sufficiency. It is God that sanctifies us. He says sanctify them through thy Word. The Word of God becomes the "sufficiency" of the believer. He needs no other. He needs nothing else to rely upon. You can have your Book of Mormon, your Oral Tradition, your Key to the Scriptures by Mary Eddy Baker, etc. The Word of God is the believer's sufficiency and always has been.

Micah 2:7 O thou that art named the house of Jacob, is the spirit of the LORD straitened? are these his doings? do not my words do good to him that walketh uprightly?
— "Do not my words do good to him that walks uprightly?" God speaks through the prophet Micah and says, "Is it not true that when you live an obedient life, it is my Word that produces good in your life?"
The Word of God is the source of the goodness of life.

1Cor.2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The teaching of God that comes to us comes by the Holy Spirit. Our sufficiency is of God. He teaches us through the Word of God. No where can it be proven that we are taught by tradition using the Catholic's own definition of tradition. Our sufficiency is of God. We have no need to be taught of anything else. Sola Scriptura is just that: that the Scriptures are all sufficient in matters of faith and pracitice.
DHK

[ December 03, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Brian,

Countless passages in the Bible, especially in things like the psalms, have endless repetition. It's not that uncommon in the Bible to have something repeated, such as in this instance, where the first sentence is in active voice, and the second in passive.

Also, if something is not there, it cannot be multiplies. Adam and Eve could not be fruitful and multiply, if, in fact, Adam and Eve weren't already there.

Also, because there was no birth before the fall, we can't say that childbirth before the fall would have had pain.

Anyway, it's illogical to think that because Mary was free from the stains of sin that she would not experience pain. If she cut herself, she would bleed, and she would be in pain. Being a human, with skin and nerve endings, bringing forth a child would thus produce pain. Jesus, the man, was sinless, and yet he SUFFERED on the cross. Humanity is not exempt from pain and death, not even Jesus.

Therefore, your argument against this isn't as good as you thought.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

Scriptures still need correct interpretation. The Magesterium is the servant of the Scriptures. Nothing in the Catholic Church is contrary to Scriptures. Your argument is futile.

God bless,

Grant

 

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

You challenged me to show you through Scriptures the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And this is your lame excuse! This is the only thing you can come up with!! It needs correct interpretation? It is not according to the magesterium.
Then please--Scripture by Scripture give the Magesterium's view of those Scriptures which I quoted to you and refute them. Tell me how they do not teach Sola Scriptura. Don't back out of thiis one so quickly. Don't hide beneath your Magesterium cloak, and "that's your interpretation excuse." Be a man for once in your life, and explain what the Scriptures mean. If you don't know then admit it.
DHK

 

Grant, I was thinking in bed last night about this. Before the fall God had said that creation was "Good". Could it have been good to God if his children could go around getting hurt all the time. What if Adam fell out of a tall tree and landed on his head. Could he have broken his neck and died? Seriously, think of that, before the "fall of mankind" Adam could not have died for there was no death. What you are arguing is that there was pain but not death. What I am saying is that "good" to God should mean more then that. Yes, I agree if Adam fell it seemed he could skin his knee but in God's good world he would not have let that happen. Have you ever seen a woman give birth? I have seen it first hand 3 times, with my own chidren, and the pain is horrible. God would have to directly intervene to keep the pain away. There is no way that a birth could be only a little painful.Do you see that God's plan would have been to intervene at childbirth and take the pain away, they same he would if Adam fell down. "Good" to God would be painless if God really is Love, especially in the "world" he created that was without Sin and the "curse".

Brian with a hard return down the line to Grant, Grant stretches to hit the ball and -------

In a Great God!!!!!
Brian

 

I did not agree with you. I asked several questions which you have ignored. How is that agreement?

A big if.

"Only the unsaved" DHK, you have a tendency to judge others as "unsaved" when they disagree with what is merely your interpretation.

"Thus saith the Lord" demonstrates authority of Scripture but it does not say that it is the "only" authority or source of revelation of God. You are reading your man made tradition into Scripture again.

"God is our sufficiency", yes, then you twist it into "Scripture is all sufficient".

Too bad for your beliefs that Scriptures themselves don't make that claim.

Ron

[ December 04, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

You challenged me to show you through Scriptures the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And this is your lame excuse! This is the only thing you can come up with!! It needs correct interpretation? It is not according to the magesterium.
Then please--Scripture by Scripture give the Magesterium's view of those Scriptures which I quoted to you and refute them. Tell me how they do not teach Sola Scriptura. Don't back out of thiis one so quickly. Don't hide beneath your Magesterium cloak, and "that's your interpretation excuse." Be a man for once in your life, and explain what the Scriptures mean. If you don't know then admit it.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

You WILL rephrase this post, or no, I will not respond. I'm not going to be bullied by you, nor will I lower myself to a bully's level. Ask in a Christian manner, or get no response.

God bless,

Grant