Nope, I do Not Approach This from "Sola Scriptura"

It's not every day that CMI or AiG are defending Sola Scriptura directly, their usual work coincides with a Catholic Tota Scriptura approach. Here there is an exception.

Why Believing God Used Billions of Years Is WRONG.
26th Aug 2022 | Answers in Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh7_6lzHHKo

I thought this exception was an occasion to make a call for them to make a Catholic conversion. Here are my comments. Numbers refer to time stamps.

10:33 "calling the Church back to Sola Scriptura"

Two problems with an allegation like this one.

1) You show when the Church HAD been Sola Scriptura? Certainly not in the NT era! It is not in all of Scripture and no, II Tim 3 involves a utility and perfection, but certainly not sufficiency of Scripture.
2) If Sola Scriptura is both true and an important truth (say more important than whether Babel is Göbekli Tepe as I hold or Ziggurat of Eridu as Petrovich holds) and they needed to call the Church back to it, that means that an important doctrine had been lost and had to be found again. This is in direct contradiction to Our Lord's orders and His promise to assist the Church in carrying them out.

Matthew 28 last verses can be resumed as : Apostles have been sent with successors to all peoples, all periods (up to doomsday) and with all Christian truth, and God Omnipotent made True Man is every single day assisting them therein.

That being so, an important truth cannot be lost to all of the visible Church for a Century even. Let alone centuries on end between St. Gregory (whose successor Calvin considered to be the first Pope who was Antichrist) and Reformers.

Jesse Bryant

1. When are we directed to a source other than the Bible? The Scriptures say they are sufficient, so does that make the Bible false or you a liar?
2. What?
Matthew 28 can be "resumed"? Who told you that? Oh, the RCC, your true final authority. (As fallacious as that whole idea is.)
What important truth are you talking about?

ThePinkBinks

The code was divinely added when people needed it. People needed it because they were having trouble hearing God directly. The words in the old printed copies of the Bible change miraculously quite often. I’ve seen it happen. (I don’t mean new printed copies of old versions - I mean the printed words literally change in copies that are hundreds of years old).

Oh but I hear you say, old printed copies can’t have their words change. That’d be some supernatural miracle. I don’t believe in the supernatural and science tells me words in a printed book can’t change. But why must you limit God? Of course He can change the words.

Of course he can create galaxies that appear billions of years old. He made them to be old. If he popped a new mountain on earth today He’d make it look many thousands of years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant 1. We are not directed to any specific books other than the Bible, but we are definitely directed to another THING. The Church. More than once. The Scriptures very much nowhere (including II Thess. 3:14 - 17) say they are sufficient. In II Thess 3:14 St. Paul directs St. Tim to something outside the then available Scripture (which he had studied since youth!) namely what he had learned and he is directed to the person of WHOM he had learned it. In verse 15 he is told the OT Scriptures can save through faith in Jesus Christ (a faith not yet formalised in the NT books, or not all of them, and St. Tim certainly hadn't read even St. Matthew's Gospel in his youth). In verse 16 he is told all Scripture is USEFUL, but it doesn't say sufficient. And in verse 17 he is told that they are useful for a particular kind of person, namely the man of God, that meaning not each and every Christian, but someone dedicated in a special way, usually a bishop, monk, priest or sth.

2. I was not bothered to go to Matthew 28 to copy paste from it, but now I need to do so.

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:

This is where I get it from the Apostles, with their successors are the mandatories of Christ, of God in the Flesh.

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

This is where I took my resumé (mine, I didn't copy it from a Catholic priest) that the help offered (see verse 20) is Almighty.

[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This is the geographical catholicity : all nations.

[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

Doctrinal Catholicity : all truth.

and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The Almighty is assisting them (see verse 18) in these tasks, and chronological Catholicity, all days of all years of all centuries to Harmageddon and Doomsday.

What exact part of my resumé is not supported by Matthew 28:16 - 20?

And no, the RCC is not "my final authority" it is part of my final authority, with Bible and Tradition. As the Bible says it should be.

"What important truth are you talking about?"

If you had noted what I quoted, the gentlemen were considering Luther and Calvin as "calling the Church back to Sola Scriptura" - this means THEY are treating Sola Scriptura as an "important truth" as one of the things Christ commanded the Apostles (with their successors, otherwise the promise in verse 20 becomes meaningless) to teach all nations, and promised His Church to help it to keep every day.

The options are : 1) Christ's promise has been kept every day, as He promised, and no one ever had to call the Church back to an important but longforgotten truth, meaning 1a) Sola Scriptura was never lost (hard to argue that in Church history, especially after what they said of the Reformation) or 1b) Sola Scriptura was never an important truth, either untrue or at least no big deal; 2) Sola Scriptura is in the NT, or even the OT, and that meant Christ did not make the promise or did not keep it.

Catholicism or Apostasy are the logical options, Reformation is a dead end.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ThePinkBinks Hecklers like you are pretty much out of the debate.

When new mountains rose after the Flood, they didn't look old, they looked pretty fresh, like rising mud, higher one day than the day before in some places.

But between Flood and Babel - that's 5000 to 4500 years ago, and that is old.

That's why the mountains look dry and hard : because they have had the time to dry and harden.

God's not changing the words he offered as a Revelation.

ThePinkBinks

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You clearly didn’t understand what I mean on any of that so I won’t argue with you. I know you can’t prove either of those things but I’ve seen proof it’s true. Will I share that proof with you? No. Quite simple really. I could.

Go on. Pics of you there at formation of those mountains please. Show me the evidence of how what I talked about didn’t happen - I’ll compare it to what I saw happening. A video of it happening your way would suffice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ThePinkBinks I did not claim to be an eyewitness.

I don't think you are in a real position to claim it either.

14:02 According to St. Augustine, you have an Earth and a Rotating Light Source for the first three days.

By the way, the delimitation of day and night in creation goes with Jerusalem time zone where Adam was created, buried under Calvary and redeemed by Christ Crucified above him.

Jesse Bryant

According to St. Augustine? Well, that's gospel truth for ya! What?? As for your other claim... Where are you getting that information?

t0neg0d

@Jesse Bryant from the book of Trustmebro

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant St. Augustine is a Church Father, a Saint.

As Catholics we are obliged to interpret the Bible with the Church Fathers, not against them.

The second line also refers to St. Augustine of Hippo, and more precisely not "Trustmebro" but "De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII" - "Twelve Books on the Literal Sense of Genesis."

Apart from the information on Adam's burial, which is common in iconography of Calvary. Ever seen a Crucifix above a skull and cross bones? Well, the skull and cross bones in that symbolism are those of Adam. Golgatha means the place of the skull, and traditionally we believe the skull and whole skeleton of Adam was lying there.

As he (St. Augustine) and you and AiG are all agreeing with me that Earth is a globe and something rotated while something else was still, this means once God had divided night from day, when it was day on one place, it was night 180° E/W opposite side of the globe. This means, as St. Augustine saw, that the six days involve a time zone problem, not one he exploited (at least in book I where he deals with this) to argue against the literal days, but one he solves elegantly, by saying Adam was created on the time zone of Jerusalem.

He was created somewhere West of Eden, and Eden certainly involved some of the time zones now common or near common to the four rivers (Euphrates, Tigris and both Niles).

So, his option Jerusalem time zone (he didn't use the phrase time zone, but that's what he meant) certainly fits part of the Biblical narrative and contradicts none of it.

Next question?

[The following is from an extra comment, taken away from the thread, perhaps on policy of allowing no external links ...]

Here is the book by the way, not on the internet, but available over the internet:

St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis (Ancient Christian Writers Book 41) (English Edition) Format Kindle
Édition en Anglais de John Hammond Taylor (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/St-Augustine-Literal-Meaning-Genesis-ebook/dp/B006JMPVT8

(English translation by John Hammond Taylor).

Robert Campbell

@Jesse Bryant Yanking it out of his backside.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
He is? Who said it wasn't? Dude... Hey, good to know that you trust the interpretation of another instead of investigating for yourself. Kind of negates the purpose of actually reading it at all... Which may explain why so few Catholics do! Now, as for the rest of your bloviating...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Campbell I note the link to the book has disappeared from the thread.

Convenient.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "you trust the interpretation of another instead of investigating for yourself."

If that's your attitude, why are you on a video by AiG in order to trust their interpretation?

In fact, there is no place in the Bible which says everyone is supposed to investigate the Bible himself rather than trust another, at all times, and if you try to cite the Bereans, they were people who both had good expertise in advance in OT Scripture, and were not yet decided whether to become Christian or not.

In fact, there is not even any place saying every Christian has to read the Bible at home. The first Christians heard OT readings and Gospel readings, later on Epistle readings, in Church.

And no, doesn't even kind of negate the purpose of reading it oneself at all, one can always profit from another guys extra reading and reflections - at least if he's Catholic.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'm not. That is your assumption. But then, why are you here?

And yes, the Bible actually says:
"Study to show yourself approved..." And the Berean's are praised for searching out the truth of Scripture, the Pharisees reprimanded for not knowing the Scriptures, and Jesus himself admonished that we "search the Scriptures."

If you actually do read or study the Word for yourself, you should know these things.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "I'm not. That is your assumption."

Fairly reasonable, how did you find my comment otherwise.

"But then, why are you here?"

Most usually for good content. Nine times of ten, AiG are good, sometimes even then there's som quibble to comment on. First ten videos of this one were fine. AND as said, I believe in reading other people's comments, unless contradicting the Church Fathers, which YEC doesn't.

Now, before I get to your proof texts, let's be precise exactly what I don't think the Bible says and by contrast, what it does say. Some people definitely DO need to study. Each and every Christian - no. It would have been physically or at least economically impossible before the Gideons.

2 Timothy 2:15 - St. Paul was writing to St. Timothy, whom he had consecreated bishop. Bishops are FORBIDDEN not to know Scripture, and even not to read it daily. The chapter devisions we have in the Bible was by a bishop who loved hunting and knew the Bible by heart, and he did all the chapter divisions while on a hunt. This proof text says nothing about each and every Christian.

" the Berean's are praised for searching out the truth of Scripture"

As a synagogue, they were competent!

Also, the truth was not one in the OT Scriptures alone but one between the OT Scriptures and what St. Paul had said. They still exist, there is a Church in Viria (modern Greek for Berea) which arguably has had Christians since St. Paul's day without interruption. They are Greek Orthodox.

"the Pharisees reprimanded for not knowing the Scriptures"

As a body of experts, they should know them! It's like a Mathematician not able to get 2 + 2 = 4 right. Or at least not to have a clue on equations with two unknowns.

John 5:39 - for the narrator's "the Jews" (5:16) - don't read the Synoptics' "the crowd" but do read the Synoptics' "the Pharisees" or "the Scribes" or some other body of experts. St. John is resuming all Hebrew and non-Samaritan opponents of Jesus as "the Jews" - meaning those that took that name by the time his Gospel was written.

The crowd would not have made a persecution on their own (as in blaming) without their Pharisaic leaders around.

Have any more quotemining out of context?

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yep, just pointing out the fact that you were the one making the assumption, not me.

YEC doesn't contradict the Bible or the early Church Fathers? I concur!

Also, yes, each and every Christian does need to study. To say that they do not is absurd. And if you have no teachers—how did these folks become believers?

Bishops are forbidden? But then, we are ALL commanded to learn—which requires study. The text in question absolutely applies to ALL Christians.

They were competent? And you aren't? How does one become competent? Through study. Who has access to the Word of God today? ... Hm...

Christians since Paul's day? So what? How is that relevant to this discussion?

As a body of experts? No kidding! But how does one become an expert? Through study! I can't believe you're defending ignorance and Christians NOT reading the Bible. Are you being serious?

John is resuming... So what?

The crowd would not have? So what?

Why do you lie about quote mining?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "I concur!"

Fine we are agreed on something.

"Also, yes, each and every Christian does need to study."

Nowhere in the Bible.

"To say that they do not is absurd."

Perhaps in certain situations today, but overall in the 2000 years, no.

"And if you have no teachers—how did these folks become believers?"

Well, the teachers certainly DO need to study the Bible and that very definitely IS in the Bible as the quotes and references you gave.

"The text in question absolutely applies to ALL Christians."

The text written to St. Timothy, a bishop, certainly applies to all Christian BISHOPS. And given some other instructions, elsewhere, presbyters and deacons as well.

"They were competent? And you aren't?"

I didn't say I wasn't, I said a layman does not have an obligation to be so. I became so anyway while a Protestant and along my conversion to Catholicism. A layman is not forbidden to be competent. As in competent = knowledgeable. But competent also means things like "the competent judge" and that laymen ordinarily aren't.

"So what? How is that relevant to this discussion?"

Well, as you always point out the nobility of the Bereans, why not tell you they aren't Protestants today?

"As a body of experts? No kidding! But how does one become an expert? Through study!"

There is a difference between being expert - knowledgeable - and being part of a defined body of experts. Precisely as between being good at theology and being DD (doctor of divinity = accredited teacher of theology).

"I can't believe you're defending ignorance and Christians NOT reading the Bible."

Most Christians don't have time to get good at it, stick to false explanations told by pastors (like II Tim 2 cited verse applying to laymen).

And over the centuries most Christians have not been economically able to afford a Bible even one in each house.

Your so what's are an example of your not being good at the Bible.

And if you are not conscious of having quote mined yourself, it's perhaps because you trust your pastor too much.

None of the passages except just possibly St. John 5 could even remotely be a proof text for laymen having to read the Bible.

In close analysis as I provide it, even St. John's Gospel, chapter 5 isn't so, and anyway some of you have a rule of needing two proof texts.

So, no, I do not defend ignorance, but I do defend laymen having the knowledge, mainly, portioned out to them in Catechisms - extracts and concentrates of Bible truth. Around Creed, Commandments, Our Father and Hail Mary and finally the Seven Sacraments.

If someone has the leisure and bent to go beyond that, fine - as long as it doesn't land him in heresy.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, we do agree on something. Imagine that!

Nowhere in the Bible? Except for all the places where believers are admonished to study and that if you don't study (or aren't at least taught by those who have)... This is the 21st Century bud. The only way you know about living the Christian life is through the Bible. Stop being so obtuse. You think ignorant believers = good thing? Of course you don't! (I think you're just being difficult because you need to defend your unbiblical stance. Can't and don't or won't are NOT the same thing. I mean, the teachers do? Well duh! And how did they become Christians and later teachers... Funny how that works! And you think that passage was ONLY for Timothy and is merely a historical artifact and not meant to be applied to any who seek to know and understand what it means to be a Christian and live accordingly? Dude...

Okay, this is both tedious and absurd.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant Wait a little moment, I may just yet have something to enlighten you, especially at the end of this answer.

"Except for all the places where believers are admonished to study and that if you don't study (or aren't at least taught by those who have)."

Exactly.

OR AREN'T TAUGHT BY THOSE WHO HAVE - especially of course the Catholic bishops, whom the Apostles instituted as their successors as authorised teachers.

"The only way you know about living the Christian life is through the Bible."

AND TRADITION, AND MAGISTERIUM. AND - by being taught by people having read the Bible in the light of Tradition and enjoying the authority of the Magisterium.

"You think ignorant believers = good thing?"

No, but I think a little learning well mastered from a catechism is way better than lots of learning from the Bible ill mastered and mixed up with lies from your illegitimate pastors.

"And how did they become Christians"

By now mostly usually by infant baptism. And by reading the Catechism.

"and later teachers"

By dedicating all of their time (or most of it) at seminaries to study the Bible and the Church Fathers and the Magisterial pronouncements. You are obviously dedicating most of your time to something else, to judge from your level of understanding of the Bible words you quote.

"And you think that passage was ONLY for Timothy"

For all in his position (bishops) and all in similar positions (priests, deacons, monks, nuns - and in my own case lay apologists).

Still very far from every single Christian, these are a minority, they may be one to one hundred in a given parish.

"and not meant to be applied to any who seek to know and understand what it means to be a Christian and live accordingly?"

Now, if YOU are a seeker, I'm not, by the way, how about having the humility of the Eunuch of the Candace? A clear indication the verse is not meant for seekers, by the way:

Acts 8:[30] And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? [31] Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

And as in your circles TWO proof texts are a minimum requirement, here is one which was the sign from God to my confirmation sponsor's confirmation sponsor:

Romans 10:[14] How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

So, no, the way to become a teacher is certainly to study the Bible, but the way to become an instructed Christian is to trust someone sent by someone who was sent by someone who was sent by someone ultimately from the Apostles and they from Christ and Christ from the Father.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mindless babbling. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever instruct any believer not to grow in their understanding of the Word and mature as believers—which comes only through the Word. You can defend a mindless faith all you like, you can't use the Bible to support such a notion.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, regarding your clearly Catholic and yet mindless appeal to the regress to the Apostles as if ONLY they could understand what the Word says and it is impossible to learn unless you learn directly from them—too many of whom have been demonstrated to be heretics, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. You're delusional! Not to mention that the claim you just made—can't be found in the Bible ANYWHERE. We are always instructed to go back to the source, the Bible, not to men who taught men who taught men who taught men... Who are part of a heretical and hierarchical organization that teaches a false Gospel known as the Roman Catholic Church. You need to go to the word yourself—and stop blindly believing what those who claim to part of some unprovable apostolic succession. Believe God, not man.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "too many of whom have been demonstrated to be heretics, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc."

You are mainly talking of modernists, even before Vatican II, the scandals started when the Vatican became soft on Evolution (Romans 1 and all that, and Pagans also descend from communities which once had the true religion).

"You're delusional!"

I think it was verse 22 in the 5th chapter of Matthew that Our Lord said something about what you are calling me ...

"Not to mention that the claim you just made—can't be found in the Bible ANYWHERE."

You forget Matthew 28:16 - 20. Plus the many passages (including II Tim 1:6) of the NT that detail how the Apostles took care to get successors (and no, St. Paul was in the episcopal quality not a de novo apostle, only in his witness capacity, he did get episcopal powers together with St. Barnabas, see Acts 13).

Again : the NT does not encourage any multitude of different denominations, it was ONE Church, with a visible unity.

Verse 16 shows, the Great Commission was given to the Eleven.

Verse 20 shows, it is valid for all days to the end of time.

How this could NOT mean what I have just said is beyond me, and arguably beyond you too, since you are content to blind yourself to the obvious, while arguing against the conclusion, from a Church that is not the Roman Catholic Church.

"We are always instructed to go back to the source, the Bible, not to men who taught men who taught men who taught men..."

Oh yes, Romans 10 precisely DOES instruct us to appeal to men who have been taught by men who have been taught by the Apostles and by Christ. If you don't see that, you haven't learned to read.

"Who are part of a heretical and hierarchical organization"

No one should be part of a heretical organisation. Like your denomination or like the Vatican II Sect. All should be part of an organisation that is as hierarchical as Christ and the Holy Ghost left the Church when the 7 deacons were chosen.

"and stop blindly believing what those who claim to part of some unprovable apostolic succession."

This is not for you, blind benighted man, but for our readers (yes, this debate is mirrored on a blog of mine).

The Apostolic succession is proven from Matthew 28 and from the other passages (like Romans 10 or II Tim 1).

Protestants lack it. They therefore WANT to believe such a claim is unprovable. Not your lucky day, it may land you in Hellfire.

If you pretend it was not extant in NT times, you haven't read the NT. Not what reading normally means, like some guys who think Sauron was Hitler or Stalin would not have been reading the LotR. If you think the succession was lost after the Apostles, you have forgotten about the "all days" clause in Matthew 28:20.

I did stop blindly believing people with your agenda, decades ago.

"Nowhere in the Bible does it ever instruct any believer not to grow in their understanding of the Word and mature as believers"

And neither am I recommending that. But different people have different capacity for growth, and your self importance in knowing many Bible passages, but less Bible truth is the cancer type of growth.

Growing doesn't have to mean knowing more Bible passages. If that were the case, the man who knows all of the Bible (yes, such exist, one of them gave us the chapter division, he was a Roman Catholic bishop) could grow no more. This means, you can grown in understanding of the truth without knowing more of the Scriptures. And this may be the ideal dose for some : the Catechism. Obviously a Roman Catholic one.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Okay, I'll count to 5...
1. Apparently you haven't been present for the past century and aren't aware of recent events...
2. Not remotely. I don't think there is anything "light" regarding the heresies of Roman Catholic Church—or the absence of the Gospel from their teachings. Nice try though!
3. And you think that applies to our present day why and how exactly? Oh! My bad. That's what your Church told you... And you think that is passed down to heretics, pedophiles, and perverts through... touch? Uhm... Okay...
4. Who said that the NT does encourage any multitude of anything? I know I didn't! I speak of the Bible and you speak of denominations? And you seem to be forgetting your own denomination... and all the atrocities, heresies, perverts, corruption, infighting, contradictions, etc., that go along with it.
5. The Great Commission? Catholics don't ever express concern for people's souls or witness or anything. Sir, you must be joking! Not one time in my life has any Catholic expressed concern for my soul or shared their faith with me. Not one time. And I've spent a good deal of time online pleading with Catholics to share the Gospel. They don't know what it is. Do you? Hans, have you been born again?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "1. Apparently you haven't been present for the past century and aren't aware of recent events..."

I think you are referring to the Vatican II Sect. While certain prequels to the major pedophile period (now exchanged for a gay period) were before Vatican II, they were leading up to it.

"2. Not remotely. I don't think there is anything "light" regarding the heresies of Roman Catholic Church—or the absence of the Gospel from their teachings. Nice try though!"

Are we counting same things? What I count here would be And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. - and now you speak of heresy?

"3. And you think that applies to our present day why and how exactly? Oh! My bad. That's what your Church told you... And you think that is passed down to heretics, pedophiles, and perverts through... touch? Uhm... Okay..."

Why it would apply to the present day? Well - I do have a reason from within the text. Matthew 28:20 specifies and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. And last time I checked, Harmageddon hadn't happened and Christ hadn't called up dead from tombs to judge them yet.

Whether or not an utterly unworthy person can have apostolic succession is beside the point. The point is, your options for the NT Church are the ones that realistically claim Apostolic succession. These being : Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Nestorians (a k a Assyrians).

There are theological reasons to eliminate non-Chalcedonians. This leaves RC and EO. There are more "spiritual" and less hard and fast reasons to prefer RC over EO.

"4. Who said that the NT does encourage any multitude of anything? I know I didn't! I speak of the Bible and you speak of denominations? And you seem to be forgetting your own denomination... and all the atrocities, heresies, perverts, corruption, infighting, contradictions, etc., that go along with it."

It is remarkable how many copouts you can accumulate. You belong to a division of Christians that are a minority of the persons, but not just a majority but a near totality of the number of denominations.

I am not the least forgetting Roman Catholicism - or its parodic shadow, the Vatican II Sect, which each decades gets further from it. In 1988 I could confuse the two, now I can't.

"5. The Great Commission? Catholics don't ever express concern for people's souls"

Not the way you do - we think it bad manners to tell a man "I am worried about your soul" - and no where in the Bible does anyone I can think of use such words.

Plus, if you look at verse 16, it was given to the 11 (and given verse 20, to their successors).

"or witness or anything."

We also believe such witnessing is a risk of presumption on one's standing with God.

"Sir, you must be joking! Not one time in my life has any Catholic expressed concern for my soul"

You have no Catholic parents. A certain Charbel's mother was very concerned with his soul when he was close to becoming a Muslim.

"or shared their faith with me. Not one time."

Oops, I have been sharing my faith with you pretty long now, more than just today, as I recall ....

"And I've spent a good deal of time online pleading with Catholics to share the Gospel."

If I haven't shared all of St. Matthew's Gospel, I have at least shared select verses from chapters 5 and 28.

"They don't know what it is. Do you?"

Don't tell me it's pretending John 3:16 proves "faith without works" is saving faith ... as the Dimond brothers pointed out, the end of the chapter shows very clearly, the faith Christ is requiring is a faith that obeys, therefore that does good works.

"Hans, have you been born again?"

Actually, yes, in Regent Hall, at age c. 10. And I have become a Catholic to keep my salvation.

Updated

dialogue:

Jesse Bryant

Last one first: Hans, have you been born again?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant [1 Peter 3:15] uses the plural "you" and does not textually require me to give testimony about my life.

St. Peter is telling the Church (and laymen can fulfil it usually by referring to priests) to give satisfaction about reasons for the hope that is in the Church.

Nevertheless, yes, I am Catholic. I am born again of water and spirit in a sacrament called baptism. On your view, however, I would have been born again before that, at age 10, when accepting Jesus as my Saviour, from sins which would otherwise damn me, so I can go to Heaven by Him instead of to Hell by my sins.

On my view, that was at least a preparation for my Baptism, and we are not supposed to go around being sure of our state of Grace. Ecclesiastes 9:1

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hans, have you been born again? And no, the Bible does NOT teach that the act of Baptism is what it means to be "born again." Also, Ecclesiastes 9:1 does not say what you suggest it does. And if it did, it would be a contradiction of what John writes 1 John 5:13 and what the gospel of John tells us, etc. So who or what exactly are you trusting for your salvation? How can Jesus be your Savior if you don't know if you are saved? How about we stop the "my view", "your view" and talk about the biblical view? And you can fulfill the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15 by deferring to another?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
PS: As for my previous 5 points... No comment on any of those?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant Did you miss my answer?

Has it been taken down?

You can still find it on my blog Assorted Retorts, right now 3:rd from top. [actually 6th]

@Jesse Bryant // And no, the Bible does NOT teach that the act of Baptism is what it means to be "born again." //

You have missed John 3.

// Also, Ecclesiastes 9:1 does not say what you suggest it does. //

What does it say on your view?

1 John 5:13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

In case you missed it, the text uses the plural you. The Church collectively is depository of eternal life, St. John didn't turn to one man and tell him "that though mightest know" etc.

1 Peter 3:15 is also with a plural you, and means the Church to whom St. Peter wrote had to be collectively capable or ready to do so. Not that each person had to be it. Therefore a person of minor standing, is perfectly justified in deferring to someone of major standing - except on occasions where one has mistrust those who are.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your answer to what? No, I see no answer whatsoever...

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
John 3 doesn't say what you claim it does. If you think it does, please quote it.

Ecclesiastes 9:1 doesn't say what you're claiming it does. It is not my job to explain to you a passage you cited that you made no effort to substantiated.

And no, the Church is NOT the "depository" of eternal life, that is available ONLY through Christ. (John 14:6)

Your Church (which is your true final authority) has lied to you about this verse referring collectively to the Church—an interpretation that makes no sense. Hans, what IS the Church and why does it need to believe?

Also, you see no reason to defend your own faith? So much for the Great Commission, eh? Oh, I guess that's the Churches responsibility to, not the believers? C'mon man...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant I hope you will see this link (some updates due) - and answers on your five question just above bolded time stamp 14:25, here:

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/08/nope-i-do-not-approach-this-from-sola.html

@Jesse Bryant A few I missed:

"How about we stop the "my view", "your view" and talk about the biblical view?"

What my and your views are about is exactly what is the Biblical view.

"John 3 doesn't say what you claim it does."

Verse 5:
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

"Ecclesiastes 9:1 doesn't say what you're claiming it does."

Being worth love means having Christ in one, being worth hatred means being slave of sin.

"And no, the Church is NOT the "depository" of eternal life, that is available ONLY through Christ. (John 14:6)"

Who is available through His Church. His Church literally is the depository of His continued presence in the Eucharist and in the teaching of the things He commanded.

"Also, you see no reason to defend your own faith?"

My faith is not me being in a state of grace, my faith is in Christ, not in myself. I do defend the faith which the Church holds. As long as I am not canonised it's not a dogma that I am a saint.

I'd have plenty of things to say about myself in other contexts, but not in this one.

"So much for the Great Commission, eh?"

Give to the eleven, see Mt 28:16.

"Oh, I guess that's the Churches responsibility to, not the believers?"

It's mainly the clergy's responsibility, since the eleven were clergy. Therefore, not of the simple believers, the laymen.

Many Catholic clergymen (if "Catholic" is still an appropriate word for them) do less than their share. I do beyond the normal duties of a layman.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
1. Should be! But...
2. Verse 5: And how does that say what you claimed previously?
3. You would need to argue for whatever it is you are actually claiming.
4. There is no such presence. And the RCC teachings many extras-biblical and heretical teachings...
5. Who said anyone's faith was being in themselves? What are you talking about? And I guess how you respond to this will demonstrate whether or not your defend the false gospel of the RCC or not. Dude, I'm not asking YOU about YOU. What?
6. Oh, so you think only the eleven were supposed to go out and preach the Gospel to everyone? If that's the case, the Gospel would have died with them...
7. Mainly the clergy's responsibility? Says who? The clergy should lead the flock/body, the body should be a witness to the world. And you do so much more? I'm having a hard time believing that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant Your numbering this time doesn't correspond to the previous numbering.

I can't find what you are referring to with the numbers. I'll try to find some things I can recognise, though.

@Jesse Bryant With some hesitations on what you meant, and would you stick to this new numbering now?

1) // And no, the RCC is not "my final authority" it is part of my final authority, with Bible and Tradition. As the Bible says it should be. //

What is your "but"?

I am claiming my authority is the authority the Bible tells us is the right one : Bible, Tradition, Magisterium.

Or is it this one?

// No one should be part of a heretical organisation. Like your denomination or like the Vatican II Sect. All should be part of an organisation that is as hierarchical as Christ and the Holy Ghost left the Church when the 7 deacons were chosen. //

Here is the obvious but this one : but people like you have irrational prejudices against Hierarchical Churches and chose to stand outside the one Christ founded.

2) Verse five : the rebirth involves both water and the Holy Spirit. Obviously you meant John 3.

3) You are not referring to a specific point, as the numbering is not the previous 1 - 5 one. If this 3 = 3 in the 1 to 5, the case against Churches that do not have apostolic succession is obvious enough, and is all you need for now, even if singling out RC among the 5 candidates may be less obvious for now.

4) Denying the real presence, which I suppose you refer to, will land you in Hell with the disciples who left Jesus in the John 6 speech and with Zwingli. The completely unbiblical heresy is yours.

5) "Dude, I'm not asking YOU about YOU."

You were asking if I MYSELF was saved. That's asking me about me. And as for a comment you made about Jesus couldn't be my saviour if I didn't know I was saved, well, He still would be because I know there is no other one, and also because I know He has saved from sin on previous occasions.

6) "Oh, so you think only the eleven were supposed to go out and preach the Gospel to everyone?"

How many disciples did Jesus have at this time? At least 500, right?

Whom does He speak to, single out? Eleven, and not just any eleven but THE eleven. His highest tier of clergy in the Church He organised while on earth.

I mean that not all of the 500 were required to be sent out. Mary Magdalene wasn't sent out. Neither was the wife of Cleophas, or a few more. The eleven were.

"If that's the case, the Gospel would have died with them..."

Not with the pains they took to not just get successors, but good ones. Theologically, St. Paul was independent of their witness, he witnessed the risen Christ himself. But sacramentally and in the mission, check Acts 13:

[1] Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. [4] So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

That is when Sts Paul and Barnabas became successors of the Apostles, and the occasion means that some others had become so too in the meantime. It doesn't mean that all the 500 were Apostles or that the women were so (Andronicus and Junia were "apostles" insofar as Andronicus was bishop and Junia bishop's wife, she was not bishop herself).

"7. Mainly the clergy's responsibility? Says who?"

Jesus and St. Matthew, the latter taking pains to show (28:16) that the Great Commission was given at that time (with an implicit promise of successors) to the CLERGY Christ had chosen in Matthew 10:1.

"The clergy should lead the flock/body, the body should be a witness to the world."

So the world should never be the flock? That's once again against Matthew 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

He is not saying, unlike the JW pseudo-translation, to make disciples of men from out of all nations, a kind of holiness club in each. He is saying entire nations and ideally all of them, should be made His disciples, as Israel had been in the desert and in entering the Holy Land and up to the Crucifixion (with some defection on part of the ten tribes).

This means, "flock witness to world" is meaningless for situations like Romans being Christians in 500 AD or Franks being so long before 550. The flock is the world, and it's the clergy that witnesses to them.

"And you do so much more? I'm having a hard time believing that."

I never claimed to do much more than YOUR idea of what laymen should do. I claimed to do more than the Catholic (and truly Biblical) idea of what we are normally required to do.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
1st post: It wasn't supposed to. See, you didn't use the numbers so that we could keep things straight so I just addressed each of your claims/comments/assertions as presented—and numbered them as I went.

2nd post:
1. But where did the Bible and tradition come from... according to your true final authority, the RCC? The Bible doesn't say that the final authority is the 3 things you listed. Or maybe you could cite those passages? And you did say "Bible" right? ... You're not seeing this? As for my denomination, what denomination is that? Also, you continue to assume what you have not argued for and also denied, that being that the RCC is your final authority. Also, what irrational prejudices? You're not seeing how you just keep piling on claims without actually arguing for or providing any evidence at all?
2. What are you talking about? YOU cited the verse, not me. I asked YOU about YOUR claim regarding the verse YOU cited.
3. So no argument whatsoever for the 3rd claim you made previously? Okay... Also, the Roman Catholic Church has no apostolic succession, but even if they did, so what? In all seriousness, what do you think that proves? That God hand-picks pedophiles and perverts? Seems to be lots of stuff the RCC just demands folks accept without evidence or argument or even good reason at all.
4. Nothing you just stated is biblical. What did Jesus say when the disciples expressed confusion? There's your clue! Fact is, what you claim would have been a violation of the 10 Commandments and Jewish Law and would make it the ONLY non-evidential miracle of all the Bible (requiring blind faith) AND would contradict the Bible itself, since it would mean that you are NOT saved via repentance and faith through the shed blood of Christ "once for all." Why should anyone accept blindly such a convoluted and problematic teaching?
5. You weren't asking about me? Then why the accusation, dude? What were you asking? Hans, are YOU saved or not and how do YOU know? When a Catholic says "saved" what do they mean?
6. Oh, so you are a disciple then and the commission is YOUR responsibility? You think that Mary never shared the Gospel? What? (Seems to me like you were doing little more than obfuscating.) Okay Hans, how about this: What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Roman Catholic Church? "...what must I do, that I may be saved?" << If you address nothing else, PLEASE answer this most fundamental question!
7. How do you know that is only to those who are "authoritative" in the Church and not all believers? Also, the world is NOT the flock... Teach ALL nations (the WORLD) so that they might believe and become part of the FLOCK. As for your final claim, here is your chance to prove that. (Please see #6 above.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant 1) "The Bible doesn't say that the final authority is the 3 things you listed. Or maybe you could cite those passages?"

Bible AND Tradition:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

"our epistle" = in the Bible
"by word" = oral traditions only later put down to writing

Magisterium:

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

"Also, you continue to assume what you have not argued for and also denied, that being that the RCC is your final authority."

I have argued for RCC magisterium being PART OF and have only denied RCC being ALL OF my final authority.

The one thing I have NOT argued much for is chosing RCC over EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians.

"As for my denomination, what denomination is that?"

Very obviously one of the Protestant ones. If you are "non-denominational" that involves a Protestant view of the Church, and a radically such. Which one among 30 000, I don't know.

2) The phrase "born again" refers both to "from water" and "from spirit."

3) "Also, the Roman Catholic Church has no apostolic succession, but even if they did, so what?"

So, if RCC hadn't, which one of the following? EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians?

The option "doesn't exist" is un-Biblical. The option "Baptist continuity" is unhistorical, and very wildly so.

"That God hand-picks pedophiles and perverts?"

God handpicked a carnal man who stole from the treasury and betrayed Him. The original twelfth.

If you are suggesting ALL RCC are that, even in the Vatican II Sect (which isn't Catholic, it's a new near-Anglican denomination founded in 1962-65, and less and less high Church) that would be a ridiculous statistic.

"Seems to be lots of stuff the RCC just demands folks accept without evidence or argument or even good reason at all."

I have been giving good reasons, but you have eyes and do not read. Like the Jews who rejected Christ.

4) "What did Jesus say when the disciples expressed confusion? There's your clue!"

He meant THEIR flesh was not a good key to understanding, as YOURS isn't.

If His flesh had been no use, why the Incarnation at all?

"Fact is, what you claim would have been a violation of the 10 Commandments"

Which one of them? How?

"and Jewish Law"

Eat nothing with blood? Applies to physically visible blood.

"and would make it the ONLY non-evidential miracle of all the Bible (requiring blind faith)"

Isn't the forgiveness of sins also non-evidential? Isn't being born again also non-evidential? Baptism, Confession-Absolution - as non-evidential as the Real Presence. Usually.

Bc, by now there are lots of Eucharistic miracles, making the Real Presence an evidential miracle through these ones.

"AND would contradict the Bible itself, since it would mean that you are NOT saved via repentance and faith through the shed blood of Christ "once for all.""

It is precisely through that shedding one is saved : because not just the Body and Blood, but also their once for all separation in sacrificial death on Calvary is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Your argument might hold some weight against Anglicans and Lutherans who affirm Real Presence and deny the Sacrifice.

"Why should anyone accept blindly such a convoluted and problematic teaching?"

Because it's what Christ said on the Last Supper and on the John 6 occasion. Because He also said blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed (John 20:29) and because the Disciples of Emmaus recognised Him in the breaking of bread (as they weren't there on the Last Supper, they had paid attention when He prepared them for this sacrament, like in John 6).

5) "You weren't asking about me?"

I was asking about the objective side of your faith - how you know your belief corresponds to what the Apostles taught.

"When a Catholic says "saved" what do they mean?"

When I say I was saved at 10, I mean what you mean. I thought I had eternal security. My beliefs were Evangelical. I hurried to become Catholic when I had screwed up so much I knew I needed confession, in my teens.

6) " Oh, so you are a disciple then and the commission is YOUR responsibility?"

I am not clergy, so no.

"You think that Mary never shared the Gospel?"

She obviously did more than once, but not as per the requirement of Mt 28:16-20. St. Luke was a disciple of St. Paul and a bishop, so She shared the Gospel by telling Him the facts She knew.

Again, one can as non-clergy do more than required of non-clergy, but that doesn't make one clergy or equally required as the clergy is.

"...what must I do, that I may be saved?"

He gave an answer in John 3:5 and it is followed up in Matthew 28:16-20. You need to be baptised in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and you need to observe all things whatsoever Christ taught His clergy and you through them.

But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Well, this belief includes belief in the things Christ taught them. Including the distinction between general disciples (laymen), 7 deacons, 72 disciples (priests), 12 disciples (bishops), St. Peter (pope). Including the sacraments. Things that Acts 16 doesn't explicitate, but they - Paul and Silas - did, at some length, see next verse:

And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.

7) "How do you know that is only to those who are "authoritative" in the Church and not all believers?"

Because it was never "all believers" at any single time in the New Testament!

Your position requires you to argue when NT hierarchy ceased to oblige and when simple believers acquired equal standing of authority with for example St. Timothy.

"so that they might believe and become part of the FLOCK."

Exactly. At some point, different for different nations, a nation, not just a few Christians in it, become part of the flock. And then the flock and the world to some degree coincide.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Scrolling through to see if you answered the Gospel question... Nope. You didn't. Not a single mention of Christ's sacrifice, repentance, or faith! No, just extra-biblical nonsense and your own goodness—even though NONE of us are "good" according to Jesus himself. Typical. I guess we're done here. I want to discuss the truth of the Gospel, you wish to talk endlessly about religion. No thanks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant I never mentioned any own goodness, blind liar!

He is

now blocked.

14:25 Reminds me, was any one of your congregations (your being in the same ministry doesn't equal your being in the same congregation) as strict about what God in the Flesh was saying in the context around Mark 10:6?

I recall a certain Hovind divorced and remarried, and he was often citing that verse.

As strict as the Catholic Church is.

WatchingMyLifeFlashB

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Holy Roman Catholic Church is no longer ultra strict. Due to lowered attendance, membership, & parishioners becoming increasingly unwilling to follow Church edicts & ordinances, the Church is breaking with their strict traditions. In the same way that Catholics are no longer eating fish on every Friday, the Church isn't totally condemning cohabitation before marriage, divorce, raising children exposed to two different religions, women who have had abortions, even tolerating homosexuality. And the Ecumenical Movement, which the Pope instituted, is about bringing the Church's rebellious daughters, the Protestant denominations, back under her motherly wing. The Church Fathers have to slacken their authoritative vices in order to trick their escapees into returning into the fold. All in the name of peace, unity, & harmony. Fork tongued.

The book of the Revelation of John describes this reunification of the Church. The bumper stickers that read Coexist are fruits of this movement.

The Pope portrays that he respects the other religions, but anyone who is wise should remember that a tiger doesn't change its stripes, only camouflage, walk stealthily, & kkenly prepare to pounce when the time is right. Just like the Church assimilated pagan rites & idol worship to become inclusive of potential pagan converts. Compromise in order to encourage familiarity & assimilation. As Solomon said, Nothing new under the sun.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Strict in one area... heretical in so many others. And what does divorce or remarriage have to do with the verse you cited? You can't marry things that are the same... And in the Hovind situation, who left who? (Yeah, I don't know all the details of that unfortunate event.) I've got a lot of Catholic family members and they are the ones who were both promiscuous and who have been divorced and remarried. Not sure I'm tracking with your line of thought here...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@WatchingMyLifeFlashB Wait, aren't you referring to the Vatican II Sect, the Conciliar Church, the Montinian Church, the Modernist Antichurch in communion with Bergoglio?

"Just like the Church assimilated pagan rites & idol worship to become inclusive of potential pagan converts."

Except this one is not a truth about that Antichurch, it is a lie about the real Catholic Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant And what does divorce or remarriage have to do with the verse you cited? You can't marry things that are the same

The verse is in context not about gay marriage - an abomination Christ never directly in so many words mentioned - but about fidelity one to one, one man to one woman, not man to women or men to a woman.

And in the Hovind situation, who left who?

According to Christ's words irrelevant, since the one who marries a repudiated wife commits adultery, even if it was her man who left her.

THAT'S where Catholicism is stricter than you guys.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant " I've got a lot of Catholic family members and they are the ones who were both promiscuous and who have been divorced and remarried."

In that case, they are perhaps belonging to the Vatican II Sect, which would explain if they were heretical against Young Earth as well - Young obviously relatively speaking in comparison to moyboy, 7200 years is old.

Francine Williams

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It looks like you like to fight. Okay, nice for you.

The Father doesn't need humans to fight His battles. The Son said Follow Me.

The arguing & bickering seems secular, even if religious matters are the subject.

Bless you & hope you find enough peace to put it all in God's hands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Francine Williams By arguing, I am in fact accepting what God gave me a good schooling for.

May seem like bickering to a lady, but I'm a gent. Heard of Maria von Trapp? On the Charismatic conference in Kansas City in 1977, often cited by ma since then, she said "always remember this : a man is a man, and a woman is a woman"