1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Holy Father visits Spain

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Carson Weber, May 4, 2003.

  1. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    I said...

    You said...

    We now have the completed word of God

    Again, we now have the completed word of God.

    And we now have the completed word of God. they didnt as that was being written. The last apostle has died, and the scriptures are now complete.

    How do we know its you guys? How do we know its not the Jehovahs Witnesses? They say that they are the "teaching office of the church" through their literature.

    How do we know its not the Mormons? They say that they are the "teaching office of the church"?

    The fact is, there is no "teaching office" of any church. There are people in the body who are gifted to teach, but we are warned to NEVER heed anyone blindly, but always understand that the word of God, and the Holy Spirit, are our only "teacher", and everything that human teachers teach should be checked by the word of God.

    Just like the Jehovahs Witnesses say about their "teaching office", the Watchtoweer publication.

    I said...

    You said...

    But you must always bow to the "teaching majesterium" of your groups teachings...just like the JW's to theirs.

    You just said so in explaining your churches teaching majesterium.

    I said...

    And you said...

    " target="_blank">http://www.catholic-convert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=writings/sola.html"[/QUOTE]

    I havent read it yet, but I probably will. It wont be anything I havent read before. I'll let you know when I do.

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"However, when He, the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you...(all christians, of course)...into all truth"[/quote]And you said...

    Of course not. I made my comments clear by seperating them and not italicising them.(the italics didnt translate in your quote there)

    That truth applies to any christian alive. I have been experiencing it for 21 years now.

    God bless,

    Mike

    [ May 20, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: D28guy ]
     
  2. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oppps!! But how do you know which of their writings are Scripture and which are not?

    They forgot to include a table of contents.

    Ron
     
  3. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    "We now have the completed word of God."

    I agree, but I don't agree that it is all explicitly written. So when did that actually begin and what scripture verse do you use to say it is all written? When John died did they immediately have to start distibuting Bibles and reject everything that they had learned orally immediately. Did they immediately bind all the books together so that a man could be complete, needing all scripture to be complete, as you say 2 Tim 3:16 says? Where does scripture say that when John dies 2 Thes 2:15 and the other verses Ron reffed are no longer valid and you can ignore them? Why wasn't it at that moment taken out since it is no longer true? How can a part of God's word become false?
    Also, if it is as you say, do you claim that 2 Tim 3:16 is saying that scripture is the sole rule of faith as so often is quoted among Protestants today as being "thee text" that supports this doctrine. If so, then why is Paul telling Timothy scripture alone while he is telling the thessalonians scripture + oral tradition? Odd, isn't it. And he even seems to be contradicting himself with timothy if that interprutation is true if you read 2 Tim 2:2.

    2 Timothy 2:2
    The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

    Further, unless you claim that the book of revalations is what John was talking about in 3 John, :

    3 John 1:13-14
    I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink;
    but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face.


    Seems to me that these things didn't get written down. Now this is one of the later writings in the Bible so why didn't John say, "but go to Matthew's gosple and you will get them from that".

    The book of Rev. seems to be a vision apart from John's normal teaching so I doudt that is what he was talking about here.

    Too many questions, not many answers unless you believe that oral tradition is carried on in the Church which is the pillar and support of the truth. :confused:

    [ May 20, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]
     
  4. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm talking about having the "apostolic" authority continueing century after century.

    And that's what I'm talking about too, Mike. You see, the Bible doesn't record what happened after the first century. So, when looking at the Bible, we have to recognize that it only records the events that occurred in that time. In that time, we see an Apostolic office being left empty and then being replaced by another. The next question is whether this continued, and we know that it did through that little thing we call history. Really, go back and read a history of the early Church. You'll find apostolic succession everywhere. It's biblically based and it's a historical event. The Biblical basis is Matthias replacing Judas Iscariot, and the historical events are seen throughout early Church history.

    Here's a quick example for ya:

    ""Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'" (Hegesippus, Memoirs, in Eusebius' Ecclesiatical History 4:22; A.D. 180)

    I appreciate your efforts, but all of that...although interesting...is 100% irrelavent, and is to be completly ignored.

    For you, it is 100% irrelevant and is to be completely ignored. Why? Because if you were to consider this historical evidence, you would recognize that you're wrong and that your denial of apostolic succession leaves you in your comfort zone. What if you were to acknowledge that each apostle ordained bishops to succeed him in his ministry? That would be a rough scenario for a non-denominational like yourself. To recognize a human authority would mean that you would have to change. And, we don't like change, do we?

    I'm not going to go through point by point on these

    In other words, you're not going to go through point-by-point and explain away the clear import of Scripture. You're not going to jump through hoops in showing that the text doesn't say what it says. You're going, instead, to completely ignore what God's Word says.

    You act like Scripture really isn't your authority, Mike. At least, that's my perception.

    Jesus Christ died for all of our sins, past present and future, repented of and un-repented of, willful and accidental. His sacrifice was 100% effectual and 100% complete.

    Yes, it is 100% effectual and complete. But, you're leaving out one little key point, and that is that there is a huge difference between objective and subjective redemption. While Jesus' one-time act of objective redemption merits infinitely our salvation, the actual application of that salvation must occur through subjective redemption.

    And, the subjective application of the redemption requires us being holy and having sin rooted out of our lives by the grace merited by Christ.

    Our salvation is completly secure

    And, as I've shown you, this is a falsity - that is, not what the Bible teaches, Mike.

    To believe that you can indicates that you are trusting in your ability to "stay good enough", and that is called a gospel of works, a "false gospel"...one that God curses..in Galaciens

    No, actually Mike, it is the grace of Jesus Christ that roots sin out of my life. It isn't I, but grace. When I trust in myself to save myself, I can't become holy. I can only be holy by trusting in Jesus Christ, whose Spirit makes me holy. That's the Gospel, brother.

    I am using "faith alone" in regard to the explicit exclusion of works from what is necesary for our justification.

    In other words, charity isn't a part of your Gospel? In other words, it doesn't matter if your faith expresses itself in love? You can have an intellectual faith apart from the volitional (of the will) aspect and still be saved? Your Gospel seems to be Gnostic: "What I know saves me".


    Wow. You personally, have the ability to know and recall the thoughts and intents and convictions of the hearts of every chritian who lived for 1600 years?

    No, I do not. I do have at my fingertips the recorded interpretations of this verse throughout the centuries. And, no Christian has left us evidence that John 3:5 was interpreted as speaking of anything other than baptism.

    I can say that the testimony of Gods word indicts the CC of adding man made traditions to His truth, rendering it a completly distorted, contradictory mess.

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of even the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine, Mike. Take that for what it's worth. [​IMG]

    We now have the completed word of God

    Where does the Bible say that the verses commanding us to hold fast to Tradition no longer apply? Or, is this a tradition of men that you're using to nullify the Word of God?

    Because, Mike, that's what I see you doing. You're nullifying these verses out of hand.

    How do we know its you guys? How do we know its not the Jehovahs Witnesses?

    Because the Catholic Church can be traced back to the apostles historically.

    " At first the Christians were terribly persecuted, but gradually they spread the Christ’s radian spirit and teachings until they united many races, classes, and religious beliefs into a brotherhood which extended from Persia to the Atlantic Ocean. Later, this brotherhood spread to American, and Christianity became the prevailing religion of the Western Hemisphere. It has now ben taught in all countries.For nearly a thousand years the Christians remained practically one great community. Then the Greek Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics." (The World Book Encyclopedia ©1940, Page 1413 Volume 3)

    How do we know its not the Mormons? They say that they are the "teaching office of the church"?

    Because the Mormons teach that Christianity was restored in 1823 and thereafter through Joseph Smith. They teach that the early Church went apostate.

    I havent read it yet, but I probably will. It wont be anything I havent read before. I'll let you know when I do.

    Please do. I highly encourage you.
     
  5. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    Carson, The Greek church makes the same claim that the Roman church does regarding Apostolic continuance. Is the Greek church correct?

    The Jerusalem Christian church also makes the same claim!
    Is it correct?

    The Baptist church makes the same claim, it the Baptist church Correct?

    The Methodist Church makes the same claim, is it Correct?
     
  6. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yelsew, which historical Church is gathered around the successor to St. Peter, who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven? (Mt 16:16-19)?
     
  7. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    From my reply to Wputnam on another topic.
     
  8. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    From Scripture we see that Jesus gave the Keys to Peter.

    Scripture does not tell us that the Keys are the Scriptures.

    Scripture does not tell us that Peter gave the Keys to the other Apostles or Paul.

    Your explanation is lacking in basis.

    Perhaps you should back your personal interpretation up with a little Scripture that addresses my points.


    BTW, the Gutenburg Bible contained the Books that the Prostestants "trimmed" out of Scripture.
     
  9. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Ron,

    What I know or think is irrelavent. What matters is what Almighty God knows. After all, it is His scriptures.

    Surely you cant be so out of touch that you believe the "table of contents" page is part of scripture, can you?

    Surely not.(I hope)

    Peace,

    Mike
     
  10. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    thesselonians,

    I said...

    You said...

    If it is the authoritative, unchanging standard of truth God has given us, then it is written down.

    There is much more than just one. There are hundreds.

    "All scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, thouroughly equipped for every good work."

    Thats just one. The truth is abundantly proclaimed from the scriptures. Clear enough that all who know the scriptures are accountable, if they choose to ignore God, and substitute mans traditions for Gods word, because of their "itching ears", and desire to "heap up for themselves teachers.".

    I cant recall exactly when the last of Gods books was written. I believe most agree it was within 100 years, or close after that. Even then, it took a while for them to be bound together. All of that means nothing to you or I. We live now, not then.

    I dont know about you, but I dont ignore any of Gods word.

    Ask God for wisdom on that, and He will help you understand. But you must have an open mind, and be willing to admit you might be wrong. Obviously, God wants those passages of scripture included in His word.

    This truth is thundered from the whole of scripture, not just that very excellent verse.

    Its not odd at all. Thats just the way God wanted His scriptures to read, and they do not contradict each other at all.

    Because God didnt want that statement to be in His word.

    Millions certainly do believe that falsehood...and the result of that erronious view is evident for the whole christian world to see. The only ones who dont see it are the ones closest to it. The ones in it.


    God bless,

    Mike
     
  11. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Carson,

    I have read history books. What I see is the church now known as the "Catholic" church starting, almost from the beginning, but more so in the early 300's, adding falsehood to Gods truth. And thats not surprising. The scriptures are clear that even as God was writing His scriptures, false and heretical teachers were already coming in. So, of course, in the very early church its not surprising that we see false teaching. God told us all about it.

    Some of it from pagan customs. Some of it just stuff that they dreamed up on their own. Adding, and adding and adding, more in the 5th, 6th and 7th, centuries, more and more unbiblical traditions, more and more and more all through what is rightly called the "Dark Ages" of bloodshed, the massacre of millions,(including christians) and adulterous and wicked "popes" murdering other "Popes" in their lust for power.

    The history books speak volumes regarding this monolithic hiearchial monstrosity of death and domination, adding heresy upon heresy, and idolatry on top of idolatry.

    Yes, the history books are exceedingly enlightening. I would think that Catholics would do everything in their power to try and talk people out of reading church history books, rather than referring people to them.

    Sadly,

    Mike
     
  12. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    There seems to be an abundance of error here regarding the fact that we go to the scriptures alone as our unchanging standard of truth.

    Here is an article that is very good, included at the bottom is the link...

    Demonstrating sola scriptura from the Bible is not very difficult. Jesus used the Bible to counter the arguments of Satan. Scripture was quoted, not tradition (Matthew 4:1-10 and Luke 4:1-12). The same can be said about His debates with the religious leaders. He asks them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures?" (Matthew 21:42). He appeal is not made to any ecclesiastical body, the priesthood, or tradition.

    The Sadducees, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, hoped to trap Jesus with a question that seems to have no rational or biblical answer. Jesus, with all the prerogatives of divinity, could have manufactured a legitimate and satisfactory answer without an appeal to Scripture. He did not. Instead, he tells them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Here we find Jesus rejecting ecclesiastical opinion -- as represented by the Sadducees -- in favor of sola scriptura.

    To whom does Abraham appeal in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus? Does he point to tradition? He does not. Ecclesiastical Authority? No. A saint? (Abraham himself may have qualified.) No. Abraham answers, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them" (Luke 16:29). The rich man is not satisfied with this response. "No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!" (verse 30). Maybe a miracle is in order, the rich man suggests. Abraham's appeal, however, is to Scripture: "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead'" (verse 31).

    On the road to Emmaus Jesus presents and argument to explain His death and resurrection: "And beginning with Moses and the with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). No mention is made of tradition.

    If you want eternal life, what are you to search? The Bible says, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of me" (John 5:39). The religious leaders were searching the correct revelation, but they were looking for the wrong savior.
    The Pharisees, who were notorious for distorting the Word of God by means of their "tradition" (Mark 7:8), still could speak the truth as long as they stuck with sola scriptura. When the "scribes and the Pharisees" seat "themselves in the chair of Moses," that is, when they are faithful in their use of Scripture, "do and observe" what they tell you (Matthew 23:2-3).

    Paul and Sola Scriptura

    When Paul "reasoned" with the Jews, what revelational standard did he use? "And according to Paul's custom" he "reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2). Paul, who claimed apostolic authority (Romans 1:1; 11:13 1 Corinthians 9:1; Galatians 1:1), did not rebuke the Berean Christians when they examined "the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things" he was telling them were so (Acts 17:11). Keep in mind that the Bereans are described as "more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica." Could a Roman Catholic put the Pope on the spot like this? Could a Catholic challenge a Church doctrine with such an appeal? Notice that the Bereans were equal to Paul when it came to evaluating doctrine by means of Scripture.
    Paul's argument for the defense of sola fide is an appeal to Scripture: "For what does the Scripture say?" (Romans 4:2). Roman Catholic doctrine would add, "and Church tradition." Paul "opposed" Peter, supposedly the first Pope, "to his face" on this doctrine (Galatians 2:11), demonstrating that "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith [fide] in Christ Jesus" (verse 16).

    Acts and Sola Scriptura

    When church leaders met in Jerusalem to discuss theological matters, again, their appeal was to Scripture. Their deliberations had to "agree" with "the words of the Prophets" (Acts 15:15), The Book of Acts is filled with an appeal to sola scriptura: the appointment of a successor to Judas (1:20); an explanation of the signs at Pentecost (2:14-21); the proof of the resurrection (2:30-36); the explanation for Jesus' sufferings (3:18); the defense of Stephen (7); Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian and the explanation of the suffering Redeemer (8:32-35): "Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture [Isaiah 53] he preached Jesus to him" (verse 35). In the Book of Acts the appeal is always to Scripture (10:43; 13:27; 18:4-5; 24:14; 26:22-23, 27; 28:23). The word tradition is nowhere to be found.

    Scripture and Tradition

    But what of those verses that discuss the validity of tradition? These were very troubling to Scott and Kimberly Hahn, especially 2 Thessalonians 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." Before we look at this verse, consider the Old Testament. Prior to its inscripturation, most people heard God's Word "in many portions and in many ways" (Hebrews 1:1). Some of this revelation came by way of oral instruction and written communiques. Over time this revelation came together in inscripturated form designated "Scripture" in the New Testament. By the time of Jesus' birth this body of written revelation was recognized as being authoritative (Matthew 2:5; Luke 2:22-24). No church council was called to place its imprimatur on these Old Testament books. The Old Testament canon -- Scripture -- was not the product of the Old Testament church. "The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon control, creates and defines the church of Christ."(6)

    Once the completed written revelation was in the hands of the people, appeal was always made to this body of material as Scripture. Scripture plus tradition is not a consideration. In fact, Jesus condemns the Pharisees and scribes because they made the claim that their religious traditions were on an equal par with Scripture (Mark 7:1-13). The Roman Catholic answer to this is self-refuting: "Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undercut Christian truths."(7) Precisely. But how does one determine whether a tradition is an "erroneous tradition"? Sola scriptura! The Catholic Church maintains that the appeal must be made to the Church whose authority is based on Scripture plus tradition. But this is begging the question. How could anyone ever claim that a tradition is erroneous if the Catholic Church begins with the premise that Scripture and tradition, as determined by the Catholic Church, are authoritative?

    How, then, is Paul using tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? New Testament tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus passed down to the apostles. This is why Paul could write:
    Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

    In time, these New Testament doctrines -- traditions -- became inscripturated in the same way Old Testament doctrines became inscripturated. When the Old Testament canon closed, the canon was referred to as Scripture. The same is true of the development of the New Testament canon. After a complete end had been made of the Old Covenant order in A.D. 70, the canon closed. All New Testament books were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. All that God wanted His church to know about "faith and life" can be found in Scripture, Old and New Testament revelation. The Westminster Confession of Faith states it this way:

    All synods and councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both (Ephesians 2:20; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 2:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14) (WCF 31:4).

    Any "tradition" that the church develops after the close of the canon is non-revelational. Its authority is not in any way equal to the Bible. All creeds and confessions are subject to change based on appeal to Scripture alone.
    The denial of sola scriptura is Roman Catholicism's foundational error.


    from web page

    God bless,

    Mike
     
  13. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    But without explanation as to what the Keys may be, therefore with spiritual insight and reasoning one must come to their own interpretation of what is meant by "keys". Let him who has ears...

    At the time the keys were given there was only the Old Testament Scripture in existance, and of course they did not tell us much about Jesus and his band of twelve, or the Church that Jesus would build upon the truth of who and what he is, and the faith of those who believe in him. The New Testament is were the Kingdom of God is explained. An explanation of anything is the "key" to its understanding.

    So if you are sola scriptura, you will never understand that there was no New Testament scripture at the time Jesus told his Apostles that He is giving them the Keys to the Kingdom which they would write down, and which at some time would be compiled into what we now refer to as the Bible of the Holy Scriptures of God.

    Perhaps that is because you are sola scriptura and do not believe that there is truth outside of the scriptures.

    You yourself stated that there is nothing of scriptural support for my personal interpretation, so I gave you a couple of "Keys" to understanding that the Bible does not contain every bit of truth that exists.

    I see that you understand, or you would not have thought of this statement which is not contained in the Holy Scriptures.

    Do try2understand, won't you?
     
  14. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Shoot. :confused: The link up in my 6:51pm post doesnt work. I wont be able to fix it until later on, when I have acces to my computer at home. Thats where that material is stored.

    Mike
     
  15. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have read history books. What I see is the church now known as the "Catholic" church starting, almost from the beginning, but more so in the early 300's

    Well, I urge you to continue reading.

    Consider what J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant church historian, has to say. I read this book of his for my Historical Foundations graduate course, and it was an incredible read; I wholly recommend it:

    "As regards ‘Catholic’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–191).

    Ignatius of Antioch, who was the bishop of Antioch - ordained by St. Peter the Apostle himself and learned at the feet of St. John the Apostle - on his way to Rome to be martyred for the faith by being thrown to the lions in the Colisseum, writes: "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
     
  16. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    D2BGUY,

    Are those words that you cut and pasted infallible? The vast majority of them I do not see in scripture anywhere. More later when I have time.
     
  17. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Carson,

    By the way, where is Steubenville? I lived in Columbus from 75-80, and got to know Ohio pretty well, but I dont know where your town is.

    Mike
     
  18. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thesselonians,

    My goodness, no. Only the scriptures that are quoted and cited are infallible. (And, needless to say, the article is just flooded with scriptural support, of course)Nothing else on planet earth is infallible but the word of God.

    How in the world could you be so confused about that?

    (Well, "duh", I guess I know the answer to that, dont I?)

    Mike

    [ May 20, 2003, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: D28guy ]
     
  19. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    My goodness, no. Only the scriptures that are quoted and cited are infallible. Nothing else on planet earth is infallible but the word of God.

    How in the world could you be so confused about that?



    (Well, "duh", I guess I know the answer to that, dont I?)

    Mike
    </font>[/QUOTE]D2B,

    Oh no, not confused at all. I most certainly knew it was not infallible. [​IMG]
     
  20. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thess,

    I just updated(edited) my last post.

    Mike
     
Loading...