Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Pope's a dope!

Love the internal consistency here. Classic.

Be that as it may it’s sure lucky you’re not judgmental of the religion of others. I mean THOSE people are HORRIBLE, ya know?

You've been skipping Sunday School again, it would appear.

Romans 10:9 New King James Version (NKJV)
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

That’s a quote from the Apostle Paul; not a Gene-approved authority.

Besides, only Gene can call upon Scripture to support his arguments. Anyone else who does so is an “egoist”.

So let it be written; so let it be done. Gene hath spoken.

Its psychotic to think the writers of the Bible could have put untruths in the Bible since they were mere mortals and then believe the pope is scripturally infallable while he is also a mere mortal.

So, the Lord whispers to him but didnt whisper to Matthew, Mark, John, or the other story tellers who wrote the Bible.

We are born of the flesh. A baby cares not if you are tired or sleeping or whatever. When baby wants something it wants its way and right now, mr.

It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that scripture is authoritative & true.

Unlike historic Protestants who believe the Church derives its authority from the Bible, RC teaches the opposite, that the Bible derives it’s authority from the Church, and that therefore the Church has the authority to interpret it.

I could be wrong and NH can correct me, but that’s my understanding.

To shed further light on this from a different point of view I’d suggest that a major difference between Roman Catholic & Historic Protestant philosophy is one of pre-modernism vs modernism, respectively. When you get into the radical Protestants like Curdog and many others (pretty much all of American Evangelicalism) you’re into post-modernism.

Just a thought I’ve had as I’ve pondered various approaches to religion... I could be wrong and am happy to entertain where that might be...

If the RCC teaches that scripture is authoritative and true, then why didn't they follow it? The Bible says that if a brother has fallen away, bring him back with prayer and understanding. The RCC tore his arms off on the rack. The Bible says that the Jews are STILL God's chosen people, in spite of their disbelief. God will deal with them. The RCC burned them at the stake. The Bible says to search the scriptures for truth. For centuries, the RCC killed any one found with a Bible. One of the first Bible translators, William Tyndale, was strangled and burned at the stake for trying to bring the Bible to the people.
I could go on.

Like the killing of Baptist missionarys in South America near a hundred years ago?

I am not RC but if you’d like to list things Christians have done that contradict our religion it seems intellectually dishonest to leave out the sins of Protestants.

Pray for repentance and faithfulness on all our parts; I live in a glass house so try to tread lightly.

The wars between Catholics and the Church of England were long and bloody. Neither side could hardly be called Christian. Between them, they broke every rule in the Bible many times over.

Also keep in mind that the Church of England wasn't founded for Christian reasons. Henry IIIV was essentially at war with the pope. He wanted an annulment from his wife and the pope wouldn't give him one. So, Henry started his own church for the purpose of violating God's laws. The church was created in sin from the very start.

No disagreement there at all.

Semantics aside, all doctrine is rooted in the Bible. Of course the Church interprets it, anyone who reads it interprets it, else it may as well be a random jumble of words, no? Part of being Catholic is working together so we arrive at the same, correct interpetation, all of us together. Not this in one church and that in the church down the road. Both can't be right. I think a lot of trouble comes from this sola scriptura notion. That runs you up against John 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." So things external to the Bible, like tradition must be considered.

Now the Catholic view is that the Bible must be internally consistent, it can't mean one thing here and the opposite there. The Bible must be interpreted in a manner to be consistent. Further, since everything Jesus taught and did are not in the Bible, interpretation must also be consistent with other validated sources such as tradition.

That does not mean some other source can overrule the Bible. It's that if a passage can be read to mean this, that, or the other, which one conforms to the rest of the Bible and validated external sources.

As I understand it (and I haven't dwelt on it) this does not violate the original meaning of sola scriptura. Extrinsic evidence does not change the scripture but enhance our understanding of what scripture is really trying to say.

I don’t understand how that passage relates to Sola Scriptura. Could you elaborate?

Historic Protestants hold to the internal consistency of scripture as well.

There is an understanding we in my circles call biblicism wherein Sola Scriptura is practiced as “me and my Bible” which is not the historic meaning of the doctrine but you can see where it gets you from guys like curdog & others here. It’s post modern a priori assumptions being forced onto whatever pieces of the Bible the reader has deemed authoritative. Completely and utterly subjective and unaccountable to anyone or anything which, when applied to God’s revelation about Himself, can tend to be pretty idolatrous.

Anyway thanks for the continuing conversation here I appreciate hearing the way you see this stuff.

The last killing in South America was about 50 years ago. A young missionary was killed by natives on an island off the coast of India just last year.

Sure, it's what the concept has been taken to mean. Look at this thread, a good part of the posts effectively say if it's not in the Bible it don't mean squat. I think John is advising us to be open to teachings not in the Bible. Use all the resources open to you. Of course with all caution, cannot be discordant with the Bible. Compound that with the Bible means what I think it should mean and any other thoughts on the subject are just send-you-to-hell wrong and you get a confusing mess.

Seems to me we see things much the same way.

I like this, makes me think. Sometimes about stuff I hadn't thought about for 40 years.

So was the Roman Catholic Church as it was preempted by Constantine in the 300's. Roman holy days were used for many of the Christian holy days we celebrate today.

I believe that God created the Bible with easily enough information to know Him and His ways, what He expects from us and who we are to be, and to be saved. But I also believe He also put content in that would cause some to become fixated on that which was not important but dangerous and easily twisted. He expects us not only to be discerning as we gain knowledge, but also seek out things He had hidden to both His glory and ours.

And celebrating a holy day on day "n" has what to do with salvation?
For as much as some protestants complain about legalism, complaining about the date of a celebration is about as legalistic as you can get. Perhaps we shouldn't be cooking on Sundays either.

In what, the Word or a puffed up dopey turd?