ECT CATHOLIC VS PROTESTANT BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

[Cruciform]

Faith is defined as firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Nonsense. Here you make the beginner's mistake of relying on an English language dictionary---rather than a theological dictionary---for your (mis)understanding of "faith." Try again.

Your sect does not have proof that Jesus or God is real.

As usual, you completely miss the point. The "proof" I requested in reply to certain anti-Catholic claims was simply support from both Divine Revelation (in my opponent's case, "Scripture alone") and ecclesiastical history, since his/her claims were supposedly based upon both sources of information. If one is going to issue allegedly biblical and historical claims about the Catholic faith, one needs to be prepared to "prove" (demonstrate) his assertions from those particular sources. Sorry for your confusion, but you're off on a rabbit trail here.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nonsense. Here you make the beginner's mistake of relying on an English language dictionary---rather than a theological dictionary---for your (mis)understanding of "faith." Try again.


As usual, you completely miss the point. The "proof" I requested in reply to certain anti-Catholic claims was simply support from both Divine Revelation (in my opponent's case, "Scripture alone") and ecclesiastical history, since his/her claims were supposedly based upon both sources of information. If one is going to issue allegedly biblical and historical claims about the Catholic faith, one needs to be prepared to "prove" (demonstrate) his assertions from those particular sources. Sorry for your confusion, but you're off on a rabbit trail here.

I can't help but notice that you completely avoided the issue. I also note that Paul's statement of belief was not based on reason, but on believing in God. I stand by what I have said exactly as I have stated it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

"prayer" (archaic, "to ask") in which we invoke the intercession of past Saints on our behalf

That is clearly idolatry.

Also, Catholics [...] pray to the past Christians which they (statues/icons) represent.

Which is also clearly idolatry.

You have proven that Catholics are idolaters in deed, even though they deny it in word.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

[Cruciform]

I can't help but notice that you completely avoided the issue. I also note that Paul's statement of belief was not based on reason, but on believing in God. I stand by what I have said exactly as I have stated it.

Already sufficiently answered in my previous posts above.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already sufficiently answered in my previous posts above.

Yes, you have given the best answer you are able to give. I am sorry for you.

 

[Ktoyou]

Already sufficiently answered in my previous posts above.

Why post, if you are unwilling to explain again. Too much effort? You sure are willing to use your fancy font!

 

[Cruciform]

Yes, you have given the best answer you are able to give. I am sorry for you.

What you do---or fail to do---with the information provided is entirely up to you. Be sorry for yourself.

 

[Cruciform]

Why post, if you are unwilling to explain again.

Because he's already received the information he required. If he rejects that, there is no further purpose in repeating it.

 

[Ktoyou]

Because he's already received the information he required. If he rejects that, there is no further purpose in repeating it.

Then it may be better to state that fact, rather than making flippant responses.

 

[Cruciform]

Then it may be better to state that fact, rather than making flippant responses.

CM is fully aware of that fact. In any case, where exactly was my answer in any way "flippant"?

 

[CabinetMaker]

What you do---or fail to do---with the information provided is entirely up to you. Be sorry for yourself.

The problem with reason is that it is a form of logical argument. Essentially, if you have faith because you have reasoned that it is logical to do so, then you have been argued into believing something, not because you believe in that thing, but because you believe that the arguments for that thing are reasonable

The trouble is, if you have been argued into believing something then it is logically possible to be reasoned out of believing if presented with another set of reasonable arguments not to believe.

That is why I say that faith based on reason is a false faith.

 

[Cruciform]

The problem with reason is that it is a form of logical argument.

...he declares in the form of a logical argument. :doh:

Again: Faith and reason cannot be separated.

Essentially, if you have faith because you have reasoned that it is logical to do so, then you have been argued into believing something, not because you believe in that thing, but because you believe that the arguments for that thing are reasonable.The trouble is, if you have been argued into believing something then it is logically possible to be reasoned out of believing if presented with another set of reasonable arguments not to believe.That is why I say that faith based on reason is a false faith.

Already answered in previous posts above.

 

[CabinetMaker]

...he declares in the form of a logical argument. :doh:

Again: Faith and reason cannot be separated.


Already answered in previous posts above.

Reasoning that any atheist would be proud of. Good for you!

 

[Cruciform]

Reasoning that any atheist would be proud of. Good for you!

Actually, an atheist would do exactly what you've done---separate faith and reason. Then he would simply insist that only reason is a reliable indicator of truth. You've simply opted for faith as opposed to reason. But your separation of faith and reason (grace and nature) is identical to that of the atheist.

In any case, my observation that your entire post is made in the form of a rational argument stands exactly as posted.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Actually, an atheist would do exactly what you've done---separate faith and reason. Then he would simply insist that only reason is a reliable indicator of truth. You've simply opted for faith as opposed to reason. But your separation of faith and reason (grace and nature) is identical to that of the atheist.

In any case, my observation that your entire post is made in the form of a rational argument stands exactly as posted.

Your rational is exactly why your witness for the Roman Catholic sect leaves my cold.

 

[Cruciform]

Your rational is exactly why your witness for the Roman Catholic sect leaves my cold.

Note that the above statement is itself presented in the form of a rational proposition, being directed to the intellect. CM's assumption merely refutes itself.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Note that the above statement is itself presented in the form of a rational proposition, being directed to the intellect. CM's assumption merely refutes itself.

Of course it's a rational proposition as a comment regarding the practices and doctrines of the RCC is not a statement of faith. Faith in Christ, in who and what He is and what He accomplished for me is the Faith I am talking about. I do not believe in God because the Bible says God is. I believe that the bible is God's word to us because I have faith that God is. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Cruciform]

Of course it's a rational proposition as a comment regarding the practices and doctrines of the RCC is not a statement of faith. Faith in Christ, in who and what He is and what He accomplished for me is the Faith I am talking about. I do not believe in God because the Bible says God is. I believe that the bible is God's word to us because I have faith that God is. Do you understand the difference?

Already answered in previous posts above.

 

[whatever67]

Which is unbiblcal? Both. There is nothing in scripture about how to interpret scripture so, by definition, neither can be biblical. How, then, is one to understand what is in scripture? On their knees.

not true

in the bk of Peter there is a passage that says soemthing to the effect that no Scirpture is up for private interpretation