Questions and answers with Jeremiah2911 and others

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Thinkingstuff, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the last thread I try to answer cogently questions you have towards the Catholic church. Unfortinately, Biblicist hijacked the thread and is currently pontificating his opinions. I suspect he will do that with this thread but I suggest we and anyone else who wants an honest discussion about these topics just ignore him. I don't mind agreeing to disagree what I do mind is subversion of topic into another or simply having the conversation hijacked so someone out of context can pontificating their ideas regardless of the current topic. I will ask DHK to close the other thread.
     
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    Alright! What then is the topic of this thread? Is it wrong for anyone to respond to statements posted on this thread by you or others? Are there some statements you or others post that should not be subjects of a post? All my posts were in response to specific statements that were taken from your posts.

    What are the rules for responding to things said by you and others on this thread??????
     
  3. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have a specific question you want answered? (I'm breaking my own rule!!!!!) But only to give you the benefit of the doubt that you will try to converse with out redirection or pointificating some point is not in the context of the discussion. Ask your question.
     
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    Are you saying that all other posters are limited to merely asking questions??? Are we to submit to you as the teacher and if we, God forbid, make assertions in response to your statements rather than ask questions we get scolded or kicked off?

    I mean really, you talk about control, I think this takes the cake!
     
  5. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    No you can bring up points too. Just if we are talking about Baptism why bring up eschatology? Let the point be about your view of baptism or scriptures that you think support it. And let the conversation naturally flow. If you want to bring up eschatology then say that you are going off topic. But at least there is cohesion. And btw the thread was started to answer questions a specific poster had but the other thread was closed. So if I am to answer questions I though there could be a venue for it.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    My PM will explain what is the problem of perception from my view point in regard to your thinking about jumping from topic to topic.

    However, it is true that the title of your thread refers to question and answers with Jeremiah. However, I did not realize it was a private discussion that excluded others. If that is the case, then I will bow out and leave it to you two discuss your differences.
     
  7. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    It wasn't private. but you certainly should have stayed on topic. What do you want to discuss?
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    I did stay on the topic for each quotation I took from your posts. The problem is perception. You merged into one thing (justification) a variety of things that the Bible distinguishes (new birth, sanctification, etc.). In order to respond to your statements I had to distguish between things you merged into one. Hence, you charge me with jumping from justification to new birth to sanctification to glorificaiton, etc. You are simply looking at your post from how you perceived it not how I perceived it.

    However, Let's begin with a representative sampling from the CCC concerning sacraments and specifically as a "sign" that God uses to instrumentally convey what is signified and see if we can agree on four statements:

    1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC

    1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC

    774 .....The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit speads grace of Christ.....

    775 "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament, a sign and instument

    1084 ...The sacraments are perceptable signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficasiously the grace that they signify

    1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

    1997 .....by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ.....




    Regardless of how you or Rome may justify the above statements, is it correct that these representative statements clearly and explicitly teach that a scrament is:

    1. A visible sign (symbol)? - CCC 1084

    2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified? - CCC 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

    3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received "in" and "by" the sacrament of baptism? - CCC 1992

    4. That justifying faith is inseparable from baptism which is the "sacrament of faith" and "entry into the life of faith"? - CCC 1236
     
    #8 The Biblicist, Nov 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2011
  9. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not true. You mixed up that bag. Not I. I had a specific answer and your pre-concieved notion about something that had not been stated.

    Again you begin with a false notion and frame the argument. Before any other quote from the Catachism you must first understand how the Catholic church views the terms sign and symbol. Else you're just starting from a wrong premise and building a case with no substance. That is the danger of framing the argument to only include your inherent answers. If the premise is wrong to begin with the whole thing falls apart. Again I don't like being lead by the nose. So, please don't attempt it. Just ask your question because until I can express how I understand something I won't accept yours. Finally, since your whole build up started with a faulty foundational premise your question regarding it is in appopriate. So, before jumping to conclusion what does the Catholic Church thing about signs and symbols? Its pretty exhaustive but in regard to any thing regarding them even the sacraments we must start off by what we mean.

    Thus we can move on to the consept
    Much different then you supposed. See your premise begins wrong. With this in mind Luther comes close to the Catholic perspective about the sacrament in light of this from his "The Large Catechism, VIII, 4"
    and to conclude
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    False, but let's go on!

    I presented NO ARGUMENTS and asked you to present NO JUSTIFICATIONS. I simply quoted representative statements that repeatedly state the same thing over and over. I could have quote many many more that state the very exact same thing.

    I simply asked you to confirm or deny that the four conclusions matched what was explicitly stated in the representative CCC quotations.

    This is not a matter of context or meaning, but a matter of proper terminology or expression of words.

    For example, when the CCC says there are "seven" sacraments and I make the assertion that the CCC says there is "seven sacraments" all one needs to do is confirm or deny that my conclusion represents what is said?

    So when The CCC says a sacrament is a "sign" and I respond that the CCC says a sacrament is a sign, no definition/explanation/argument needs to be made to confirm or deny that my assertion is correct concerning what the CCC explicitly states.

    This simple introduction does require a genuis to answer what is clearly a matter of observation not interpretation!!!!!! You are wanting to lay down a foundation of defense even before we can agree what are the words that will need defining or defending!!!!!!!
     
    #10 The Biblicist, Nov 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2011
  11. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh here we go again. Let me quote you.
    First of all you want me to agree with you that a sign is how you defined it above and more simply and simply as
    Which I cannot agree with you and showed you the Catholic Perspective of how the term sign is viewed. Quite a long quotation which I hope you read. Even the term symbol is misapplied and thus when you read those statements without the proper view of sign and symbol you misapply what they mean. So I tried to clarify it for you. But of course you are not interested because you go on to say
    to which I would have to say no because of how you defined sign and then how those verses would apply to the aspect. I even quoted Luther to give you a sense on how this sign under the sacraments apply but then you go on to say
    it absolutely is. The foundation which you base the quotes one is off its like some believes that Jesus is a reincarnation of Buddah and tries to apply scripture in that context. You come accross the same issue. So, unless you want me to ignore you read how sign is viewed and we can talk about how it applies to the sacraments as I started to show you with Luther's quote.
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC

    1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC

    774 .....The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit speads grace of Christ.....

    775 "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament, a sign and instument

    1084 ...The sacraments are perceptable signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficasiously the grace that they signify

    1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

    1997 .....by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ.....




    Regardless of how you or Rome may justify the above statements, can you confirm or deny the following expressions are in keeping with what the above quotations explicitly say about sacraments as a sign:

    1. A perceptable sign? - CCC 1084

    2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified? - CCC 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

    3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received "by" and "in" the sacrament of baptism? - CCC 1992

    4. That justifying faith is inseparable from baptism which is the "sacrament of faith" and "entry into the life of faith"? - CCC 1236

    If you disagree, please quote the appropriate CCC statement referenced and point out where in that quotation I have misrepresented the wording.
     
    #12 The Biblicist, Nov 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2011
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    I am simply trying to establish that Rome uses the term "sign" in connection to what they perceive as divine ordinances (sacraments). I am not trying to establish what they mean by it.

    What difference does it really make how Rome attempts to fill in its own meaning of the term "sign" unless it agrees with the Biblical use of the term "sign" in connection with divine ordinances???? It is not Rome's use and meaning that is important but the Biblical's use and meaning. Rome's meaning does not dictate the meaning and usage by the Bible but rather the Bible dictates whether Rome's meaning in connection with ordinances is Biblical or unBiblical.
     
  14. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    In order to understand what someone means you must understand how they think about certain words. The next thing is people assign words to mean all sorts of things dependent on the context of the use of words. This must be understood as well. Finally, the bible is not a dictionary. You heartedly believe in the Trinity but that term is not used in scriptures. You don't automatically place this word as disreputable. But understand the intent and meaning. Which is key in any understainding.
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    The fact is that Rome uses the term "sign" in connection with the sacraments does it not? What it may mean by it is another issue but first let's be clear that it has chosen to use that term to describe the sacraments.

    Second, the Bible uses the term "sign" in relationship with divine ordinances does it not? What it may mean by it is another issue but first let's be clear that Biblical writers have chosen to use the term "sign" to describe divine ordinances.

    After we have established that, then let's define what Rome means by "sign" in connection with what it calls "sacraments" versus what the Biblical writers mean by "sign" in connection with divine ordinances.

    I refuse to follow any logic that allows Rome or Baptists to redefine a Biblical term by their own SYSTEM of definitions. We may look at how Rome or Baptists define such a term according to their SYSTEM of doctrine but it is the Biblical use that approves or condemns of what Rome or Baptists define it not vice versa!
     
  16. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all why to you call it Rome when its at the Vatican. Why don't you assign Vatican uses the term sign. But like substance there is a specific meaning that isn't connotated with the modern meaning of that word. To imply such will lead to natural misunderstanding.

    indeed they do however term "ordenance" is no more a scriptural word than Sacrament. For instance I noted when ordenance is translated into english (from Mishpat) it actually means judgement. This is not the meaning Protestants assign to ordinances. thus anything said by you about ordinances will be misleading if I hold Mishpat means judgement. However, to qualify what it is talking about the catholic church defines signs for your benefit and I quoted them for you.

    As I've shown you would first have to demonstrate first the connection and then the meaning the original authors had in mind.

    That is fine. However, you are missing out on a simple point. The Catholic Church uses techincal terms to properly define what it is saying. These have been done over a millennia and thus the original meaning of the term must be revisited for proper understanding. Sometimes modern english does no justice to the translated word.
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    The ROMAN Catholic Church is often referred to as "Rome" since Rome is where its headquaters are located. However, if that offends you and you want me to refer to the ROMAN Catholic Church as the "Vatican" I will do so.

    Look, I don't want to divert us on a rabbit trail. I used the term "ordinance" because my version of the Scriptures use it and because I do not believe in "sacraments" as the proper term to define either baptism or the Lord's Supper. However, I will not go down that rabbit trail at this point, perhaps later when we get into definitions. Now I am only concerned about terms and I used a Biblical term "ordinance" and "sign" and I used a Vatican term "sign" in connection with the Vatican term "sacraments." Case closed.

    I feel your missing the entire point. You must establish first what terms are being used BEFORE you can establish what they mean by those terms. I am simply establishing the terms being used by the Vatican and we seemingly cannot even agree they use the term "sign" in connection with the term "sacrament".


    The point I believe you are missing is that first we are establishing that the Vatican is using the SAME term "sign" in connection with justification and external actions as the Bible uses in connection with justification (Rom. 4:11) with external actions. Once that is admitted, then, it must be shown that the Vatican's definition of "sign" in that connection is different or the same as the Bible's definition of "sign" in that connection.

    A. Point one - establish the Vatican and Bible are using the same term "sign" in connection with justification and external acts.

    B. Point two - establish the Vatican's use and meaning in that connection is the same or different than the Biblical use and meaning in that same connection.

    I am simply trying to logically follow A to B not B to A.
     
  18. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    No need. Though, because of my many years as a protestant (though I would never have claimed that title for myself) its always used as a slur bringing up Conotations of the Whore of Babylon etc... But a lot has happened in history and Rome certainly has gone through changes itself. Roman Catholic really means Western Catholic of which itself is made up of 23 rites which only one is called Roman. That's why I pointed it out to begin with. Most rites use regional languages and primarily it is Greek, though Arminian, and Coptic are also used. The one Roman rite of all 23 rites uses Latin as a base.

    Ok. Define what you mean by Ordinance. I will attempt to clarify for you what we mean by Sacrament. 1)
    2)
    Where as signs are understood as 3)
    therefore with the foundation laid the sacraments are where God communes with man singularily and in community in scriptures we see that 4)
    by which God communicates his grace to us.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,183
    Likes Received:
    207
    This is too broad! Let us stick to the area where our contention really lies. That definitive area is the use and meaning of the term "sign" in its connection with justification.
     
  20. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've attempted to explain it to you. I don't think we have minds that can meet for this discussion then.
     

Share This Page

Loading...