Results 81 - 100 of 101
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132449 | ||
BROTHERS, 2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, My answer is that as a bible-college trained evangelical the deeper I got into the Bible the more problems I had in holding evangelicalism's system of bible interpretation. I used to make jokes about 'these are the verses in pale grey.' (say 2 Thess 2:15). I got fairly cheesed off with arguments that said, if you go to the 'original greek' this really says the opposite: black is white. The 'can you, can't you lose your salvation' issue subsumed by the sola fide position drove me mad. I hated the strained 'explanations' of difficult verses offered by my colleagues. I might be accused of many things but naivity isn't one of them. To be honest I lost faith that the Bible was coherent and threw it all in! All I can testify is that as a Catholic I now read the Bible with great peace and and found that read properly it is entirely coherent read in its plain sense. I find the interpretation of the early Church Fathers fits Scripture like a glove, viz. something that never happened for me with evangelical theology. I've come to a place where I'm satisfied with my study of the Bible rather than falling to bits. This is just a testimony and I don't mean to insult anyone but it is a truthful testimony. I can go through a hundred verses with an evangelical which I used to find untenable and they will deny the obvious meaning of the text in every case, like I cite 'the church of the living God, is 'the pillar and support of the truth' I'm wrong. If I cite the plain words of James 2:24 'not by faith alone' I'm told of course faith alone is taught here. If I say 'believe and be baptised and you will be saved' I told the be be baptised bit is superfluous. If I cite 2 Thess 2:15 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us' I'm told I'm mistaken and the verse is clearly validating Sola scriptura. If I cite that Paul (1 Cor 9:8) said that he must discipline his body lest 'after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified' the reply is Paul confirming that you can't lose your salvation. In my Christian walk I've wrestled with many issues and changed sides and back but here everyone just seems utterly certain their view is correct Ultimately I just can't accept that the conservative evangelical wing of Protestantism is handling scripture properly at all. None of this is meant to sound rude but while evangelical beliefs are meant to be extracted from the Bible yet I find often they have been imposed on the Bible. Is this not even a possibility, a typical human weakness? Your comment 'If a Church father is in agreement with Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with Scripture' in practice doesn't allow for a radical ideology critique. If you think 'your pre-existing interpretation of Scripture' and 'Scripture' and one and the same thing then Church Father's won't get a look-in if your pastor, denomination, tradition, etc. has pontificated of the true meaning of Scripture. Thus, it is common to see critiques of Catholicism such as: Catholic doctrine vs the Bible (like the Bible is more than words on a page until its read by a living man). Why is the booklet never called 'Catholic interpretation versus Evangelical interpretation in the light of Scripture? It's always assumed how you interpret is 'Scripture' though many Catholic doctries are far more literal. To Him be the Glory Dalcent |
||||||
82 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132450 | ||
BROTHERS, 2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, My answer is that as a bible-college trained evangelical the deeper I got into the Bible the more problems I had in holding evangelicalism's system of bible interpretation. I used to make jokes about 'these are the verses in pale grey.' (say 2 Thess 2:15). I got fairly cheesed off with arguments that said, if you go to the 'original greek' this really says the opposite: black is white. The 'can you, can't you lose your salvation' issue subsumed by the sola fide position drove me mad. I hated the strained 'explanations' of difficult verses offered by my colleagues. I might be accused of many things but naivity isn't one of them. To be honest I lost faith that the Bible was coherent and threw it all in! All I can testify is that as a Catholic I now read the Bible with great peace and and found that read properly it is entirely coherent read in its plain sense. I find the interpretation of the early Church Fathers fits Scripture like a glove, viz. something that never happened for me with evangelical theology. I've come to a place where I'm satisfied with my study of the Bible rather than falling to bits. This is just a testimony and I don't mean to insult anyone but it is a truthful testimony. I can go through a hundred verses with an evangelical which I used to find untenable and they will deny the obvious meaning of the text in every case, like I cite 'the church of the living God, is 'the pillar and support of the truth' I'm wrong. If I cite the plain words of James 2:24 'not by faith alone' I'm told of course faith alone is taught here. If I say 'believe and be baptised and you will be saved' I told the be be baptised bit is superfluous. If I cite 2 Thess 2:15 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us' I'm told I'm mistaken and the verse is clearly validating Sola scriptura. If I cite that Paul (1 Cor 9:8) said that he must discipline his body lest 'after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified' the reply is Paul confirming that you can't lose your salvation. In my Christian walk I've wrestled with many issues and changed sides and back but here everyone just seems utterly certain their view is correct Ultimately I just can't accept that the conservative evangelical wing of Protestantism is handling scripture properly at all. None of this is meant to sound rude but while evangelical beliefs are meant to be extracted from the Bible yet I find often they have been imposed on the Bible. Is this not even a possibility, a typical human weakness? Your comment 'If a Church father is in agreement with Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with Scripture' in practice doesn't allow for a radical ideology critique. If you think 'your pre-existing interpretation of Scripture' and 'Scripture' and one and the same thing then Church Father's won't get a look-in if your pastor, denomination, tradition, etc. has pontificated of the true meaning of Scripture. Thus, it is common to see critiques of Catholicism such as: Catholic doctrine vs the Bible (like the Bible is more than words on a page until its read by a living man). Why is the booklet never called 'Catholic interpretation versus Evangelical interpretation in the light of Scripture? It's always assumed how you interpret is 'Scripture' though many Catholic doctries are far more literal. To Him be the Glory Dalcent |
||||||
83 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132453 | ||
Dear Tim, I'm only writing this to make a point but how do you defend against the charge that what you are saying is: If a Church father is in agreement with [my interpretation of] Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with [my interpretation of] Scripture. Scripture must always be filtered through a man's understanding before it has any meaning at all. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
84 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132457 | ||
Sorry Tim, I missed it. I do think that postings lack some of the crucial nuances of conversation I didn't mean to post twice, my computer hung up. |
||||||
85 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132461 | ||
Dear BradK, I suppose I do believe Catholic theology has more truth in it than other denominations. I certainly held the view, at the time, that when I was evangelical I had more of the truth. I believe most people think that their denomination has the best theology. I think this is normal. What has surprised me with these postings is I expected people would be challenged by the scriptures I presented, but everyone seems blind to any point I would make. I have seen and engaged in arguments in the past between evangelicals and JW's, evangelicals and the Word-faith movement, Pentecostals and Baptists etc and no light is ever generated: only heat. I call it ping pong with bible verses. What we can conclude from this I don't know, but as a Catholic at least I have a Church to appeal to as arbitrar. Anyway, around the turn of the seventh century Pope Gregory sent Augustine of Cantebury with the gospel of Christ to England, to the Anglo-Saxon race (not Baptist missionaries or Pentecostal missionaries) and I hold to the faith once delivered 'at least to my forefathers.' I know it is a different story for you Americans. For the record I have far more in common with conservative Protestants (like George W.) than with progressive liberal Catholics (like Kerry) who might as well be aliens. I don't so much have a chip on my shoulder against Protestants (actually conservative evangelicals); rather I have a lot of common ground to dispute with them! Best Wishes Dalcent |
||||||
86 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132463 | ||
Thanks Colin, I am not sure what I believe about purgatory. If it even exists! Ultimately I am a man with very Eastern Orthodox theology in a Catholic setting. Of course, the Eastern Church Fathers were part of the Catholic Church before the great schism. I'm certainly not a person who claims to know everything nor would I say I've formed my 'mature theology'. Regards Steve |
||||||
87 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132514 | ||
Greetings, Actually I meant arbitrator but you are right to point out my mistake. There is a problem with you contrasting: 'human interpretation rather than Divine' It is that this implies your interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit is divine. Whereas the Church's interpretation, which looks as much to the Holy Spirit for illumination, is human interpretation. This bias towards individualistic Holy Spirit guidance is unjustified. There are 28,000 Protestant denominations and they are often theologically in disunity. Clearly there are problems in Sola scriptura interpretations (compare Zwingli's and Luther's) to suggest an individual Christian is not always in practice led into all truth. The Bible calls the the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) Also it states first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation (2 Pet 1:20). To conclude, I believe that the Holy Spirits guidance in leading the Church is best seen in the great councils of the Church starting with Acts 15's Council of Jerusalem and continuing through the definition of the Trinity (Nicea 325) and Christ's humanity and divinity(Chalcedon 451). The Church's first council, viz. the Council of Jerusalem shows the leaders of the church (James historically the first Bishop of Jerusalem, the apostles, etc.) arbitrating on what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church. Acts 15:28 'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...' was the conclusion of the council. This is the Bible way, not individualism which leads to divisions. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
88 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132525 | ||
Hi there, Your statement is quite near to what I believe the Bible means when it asserts: 'that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.' I would prefer to say: ‘That no interpretation is correct that contradicts, [opposes, denies] how the Church reads Scripture, appealing to the patristic consensus of the hundreds of years of writings by the Church Fathers, whose contemporaneous Council’s given us the great confessions of faith, the classical statements of Christology and the biblical canon.’ The biblical canon is a list you possess because of an authoritative decision of the Church. The list of New Testament books cannot be found within inspired Scripture. It is Church tradition. I would claim that you are unwittingly putting some of the Church’s biblical interpretation at the centre of your belief system. That is, whatever you discover in scripture about the Trinity or the dual natures of Christ united in one person, you will never dare oppose the Church’s conclusions formed at Nicea 325 and Chalecdon 451. The Catholic interpretation is cast in stone. We saw the shambles when one group tried reinterpreting the Trinity in their own light, the heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism (the return of Sabellianism). Going back to the Council of Jerusalem, (Acts15:22) it is written 'Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church...' There is nothing about individual interpretation here. Furthermore, as a non-American, I really think this extreme individualistic interpretation popular with American evangelicalism has more to do with the individualistic charter your country is founded on than anything else. We share this to some extent in Europe with the same emphasis on the great 'I' since our so-called Enlightenment. Christianity is not meant to simply be a spiritualised form of the private individual 'I', with an emphasis on ‘my’ bible-reading, ‘my’ holiness, ‘my’ interpretation, etc. It was the Fall that shattered the human unity and brought individualism. Thankfully, the Good Shepherd brings back to the fold the whole of humanity fragmented by the Fall. As one early Christian wrote "Adam himself is therefore now spread out over the whole face of the earth. Originally one , he has fallen, and, breaking up as it were, he has filled the whole earth with the pieces." The Catholic Church joins and binds together its members in a bond of unity. There is nothing authentic about all those individual and opposed interpretations by ‘Bible-Christians’. It is rather 'that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.' (John 17:12). Or as the Holman CSB puts it (v.23): I in them and You are in Me. May they be made completely one…' This nonsense about the Christian as a man alone, his own pope pontificating on his personal interpretations of Scripture, while claiming to possess divine truth comes not from the apostolic faith. Christianity is not meant to be a multitude of individuals, as numerous as sands of the seashore. Regards Dalcent, expect a few typos this was written at speed! |
||||||
89 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132533 | ||
'When the church departed from Scriptural truth, such individuals HAD to part from such teachings' is completely false. What about reforming, mending and healing from within. You would do this in a marriage wouldn't you? Never walk away! The bankruptcy of Martin Luther's position can be seen in his German Bible translation adding "alone" to the word faith in Romans 3:28. The phrase "faith alone" appears nowhere in the Bible except James 2:24. Would you TRUST a man who infamously mistranslated his Bible. A man who wrote a book called 'On the Jews and their Lies (1542), and who drowned Anabaptists because they 'wanted to be baptised full immersion as adults.' The Church opposed corrupted Protestant versions of the Bible only, i.e. like the above. If you want to read about history in 'comic-land' then that's your business. If you decide to get 'deep in history' as Newman wrote you just might 'cease to be Protestant.' At least you will be informed. There are loads of history books by non-Catholics on the true history of Christianity. I would recommended reading the ultimate collection on Church history by Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran later Orthodox) starting with The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (The Christian Tradition : a History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol 1). There are 5 volumes covering 2,000 years of Christian history. The distinguished academic and historian Jack Chick has a catalogue that you could send off for too(only joking). Calling the Catholic Church the Popish church is kindergarden. Luther's legacy is tragic. The national Churches in Europe hold about 2 percent of their populations. The Catholic nations have huge proportions of their people strong in faith and crowding the Churches every Sunday. The Cathedrals of the historic Protestant denominations in Europe are nearly empty: museum pieces. Catholicism has chronic vigour. Lutherism didn't. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
90 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132534 | ||
If you want to talk martyrs maybe you should read about the 350 who were martyred for the Catholic faith, near to where I write. http://www.tyburnconvent.org.uk/martyrs/martyrs_main.html |
||||||
91 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132536 | ||
Guys, These are prayers or short cries for mercy to God, of which I am well aware. They are not presented as what a Christian is to do to enter the Christian convenant which is always baptism, see Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; Compare Acts 22:7-16, Paul speaking of how he was saved: ...and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' "And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.' "But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus. "A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very time I looked up at him. "And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. 'For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.' I am at a loss to understand how anyone would think these short prayers are biblical examples of the born-again prayers found in evangelical pamphlets or anything to do with becoming Christian. |
||||||
92 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132541 | ||
I don't believe the selling of indulgences proves the Catholic Church needed to be abandoned. Corruption occurs in every Church. It was wrong: it isn't denied; the selling of indulgences is extinct. Luther drowned Anabaptists and that is history too. I'm fairly sure that all would benefit by reading Church history. There is a lot to be learned from 313AD - 1517AD. The pre-Nicene period is a goldmine too. One hefty book by practically any decent historian will broaden minds. I visited an evangelical bookshop this year, I found thousands of lightweight books by Christians, many academic books on Greek, concordances etc. but nothing on Church history. I found the label but there was nothing; this really is ignorance. Dalcent |
||||||
93 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132545 | ||
New Creature, What is your theory as to why Protestantism is so fragmented? And who is the head of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12)? Look how Calvinists and Arminianists tear into each other doctrines. Why do, say half of, these Christians not possess the correct biblical interpretation, viz. they don't get led into Truth. Perhaps the theory you espouse contains some truth but isn't quite the full picture. When you study scripture how much of your comprehension is coloured by your pastor's fallible preaching. Why do evangelicals always offer convolted explanations as to why Catholics are wrong to interpret the Bible literally. Example: Where the Bible says "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." They deny both sides of the sentence: claiming obviously Jesus is being metaphorical about his blood being true/real flesh and then assert he doesn't mean you will have no life in you either. And, we are called unscriptural! Best Regards Why is the Bride of Christ getting the small "c"? It should have a capital like Bible, Scripture, Israel etc? Scriptures does teach the Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth, not the Bible. '...the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.' Dalcent |
||||||
94 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132546 | ||
Thanks for this. I must admit I do most of my study from books as I get eye strain reading from the screen. However this is a very comprehensive collection! Dalcent |
||||||
95 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132557 | ||
You raise many good points. Note that there are many prominent non-Catholic Christian who are sometimes in our national/local news getting jailed, invstigated etc. and the list includes Baptists. The Catholic stuff has died down a bit here but is never going away either. It seems to be a tragic human weakness. I know that if a man says he is a born-again Christian it means he usually is. Whereas people will say they are Catholic if it is only in their family background. Clearly , there are not a billion practicing, believing Catholics in the world. Nevertheless today's Catholic Churches are full to overflowing and the biggest Christian bookshop I have ever been is Catholic and they seem to be selling shelf loads of Scripture. I don't really now how much Bible reading is been done. I have discovered the theology of Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the most biblical. My advice is don't ever accept far-fetched explanations from Study Bibles, Christians etc. for difficult verses. Don't accept housegroup 'Greek scholars' dismissing difficult verses: if you go to the original Greek black is white and down is up. Best Wishes |
||||||
96 | Why isn't the Sinner's Prayer a WORK | James 5:16 | Dalcent | 134592 | ||
Dear Tim, I appreciate your attempt to answer the question. However, I remain unconvinced that asking for something is not an action. Moreover, getting in a baptismal tank and the ministers giving a trinitarian blessing while you confess Christ hardly constitutes working for your salvation, relying on your own righteousness, not believing in the sufficiency of the atonement, etc. Many Protestants believe in baptismal regeneration. Typically the expressed beliefs about baptism on this site are evangelical: a branch of Protestantism. In my book name calling involves calling people names. Stupid, etc. (which you are obviously not) Accusing someone of translating the bible according to their denominational stance, and the like is not name calling. Best Wishes Dalcent |
||||||
97 | WHO pays the wage? | 1 John 1:9 | Dalcent | 134702 | ||
Where I stand on the matter of salvation by works? In half a verse? ...faith working (ENERGEO) through love. (NASB) ....faith activated and energized and expressed and WORKING through love. (AMP) NOT by faith alone, we only find that once in the Bible: James 2:24 (ESV) You see that a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone. I don't care what the central tenet of the Reformation was, it's no Holy Cow to me. I prefer the Biblical texts to medieval backsliders. Dalcent |
||||||
98 | WHO pays the wage? | 1 John 1:9 | Dalcent | 134740 | ||
To quote my Catholic study Bible: Works done by our own strength without the grace of God and without faith in him are vain. This is the Catholic teaching on faith AND works. A Catholic would never separate faith AND works in explaining justification, hence the rejection of 'faith alone'. We would never say like Luther we could commit adultery 100 times and it not affect our justification. Faith without works in dead. God bless Dalcent |
||||||
99 | WHO pays the wage? | 1 John 1:9 | Dalcent | 134755 | ||
Mommabps, I am at a loss to understand why you would put this theory of yours above the clearer teaching of scripture. What do you want 1200 scriptures contradicting your hypothesis? 2Ti 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, Jam 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? Heb 10:38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him." Jam 1:26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 1Pe 1:17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, Jam 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you HOLD FAST to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in VAIN. Jam 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 2Pe 2:21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2Pe 2:22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire." 1Jo 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life--to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. Jam 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Jam 5:19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, Jam 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. 1Pe 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 2Co 13:2 I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them-- Gal 6:9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. What is the point of continuing; you have a Bible you've read all this already I presume. How about dropping jargon like 'performance Christianity' and read the Word, in its plain sense , not pretending each verse I quoted means the opposite because what you bring to the Bible demands it. Dalcent |
||||||
100 | WHO pays the wage? | 1 John 1:9 | Dalcent | 134762 | ||
Certainly, Luther never condoned such behaviour. But he did use it to explain justification. A Catholic would never explain justification this way. Nevertheless, Catholics and Lutherans agreed a Joint Statement on Justification in 1997. http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/jddj.htm It is a myth that Catholics teach salvation by works. Always was! Dalcent |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |