re: Paging Aubie101 re: "Once saved always saved"

quote:

---

When you were a Catholic, you thought that by saying a Hail Mary prayer that you was absolved of sin?

---

I haven't caught up on this entire thread yet, but skimming through, I noticed this strawman. Penance does not absolve sin, and is actually not required, even when the Priest assigns you one.

ETA, I meant to respond to Revelator stating that Catholics believe saying so many Hail Mary's and Our Father's absolves us of our sins.

quote:

---

Penance does not absolve sin, and is actually not required, even when the Priest assigns you one.

---

So basically, the priest is just giving you busywork for kicks

quote:

---

I can’t tell if you’re deliberately missing the point or not. The example has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

---

Your question about how Catholics interpret that passage was in response to Champagne speaking against sola scriptura. I agree with you though, that passage, which Protestant Christians typically quote to defend their view of sola scriptura, does not support sola scriptura at all.

quote:

---

but did the Bible say that Judas showed regret?

---

if I remember correctly, he tried to give back the silver

quote:

---

It's also right there in the Bible that Jesus established the church hierarchy (which includes priests)...

---

and then like the first 300 years of church history before the Bible was compiled.

quote:

---

of course you'll tell me after the apostles disappeared, this ability of forgiving sins was completely disappeared from reality be ause they weren't jewish and dont perform signs or some shite

---

And you’ll tell me Peter was the first pope and your priest also has the ability to forgive sins because he’s following in the progression of the Disciples or something like this.
I’ve got better things to do than bang
my head against the wall with Catholics. Believe what you want.

quote:

---

Tell me how the Eucharist is symbolical and not literal after reading John 6

---

It's called eisegesis. First, you start with your theological presupposition. Then, when you study scripture or the writings of the church fathers, you accept the plain meaning of these writings when it supports your position, and twist it to support your position when it doesn't

quote:

---

I agree, but what do you think it supports?

---

It supports several things. Given the context, Paul travels to Thessalonica and the Jews there reject his oral preaching after examining the scriptures, but the Bereans accept it as sound doctrine. So it
supports the Boreans being more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, since they accept Paul's message that Christ is the Messiah through the Tradition of the new covenant church (oral preaching). It supports the idea that Sacred Tradition was on par with the OT scriptures as being God's word. As a result, it supports apostolic authority.

quote:

---

It supports several things. Given the context, Paul travels to Thessalonica and the Jews there reject his oral preaching after examining the scriptures, but the Bereans accept it as sound doctrine. So it
supports the Boreans being more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, since they accept Paul's message

---

Wow. That's ........ a take.

"10 The brothers[b] immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

They were more noble because they didn't just accept the authority at face value, they compared what was being taught to scripture. It supports the opposite of apostolic authority.