RELIGION....(part 2)

[mannyamador]

---

Oh no. try again kid. No support on the Bible? 2 Tim. 3:16. If you don't get that..who's illogic now?

Here is 2 Timothy, 3:16:

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation,
for correction, and for training in righteousness"

Now WHERE does it say that the Bible is the final authority? Can ANYONE show me where it says the Bible is the FINAL authority, or that there should be no other? Oh, I get it... you're just INTERPRETING it to make it say what you want! And we're supposed to take YOUR interpretation ar authoritative? Please spare us that idiocy.

You're imagining things. All it says is that scripture is useful for "correction, and for training in righteousness", but it does NOT say scripture is the ONLY one that does that or that it is the HIGHEST or FINAL authority.

Twisting scripture around to pretend that it says whatever you want is a most despicable and sinful practice.

So where's that verse I asked for? C'mon, surely you can even one teeny verse to support your ridiculous claim, can't you? But no, you CAN'T! Any Yahoo can make silly claims like you, but it's another thing to be able to prove it. And you've failed. MISERABLY. Try not to make me wait till Kingdom come, OK?

[dacs]

Oh no. try again kid. No support on the Bible? 2 Tim. 3:16. If you don't get that..who's illogic now?

2 Timothy 3:16 - 'All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness' - proves nothing of your case. Â*In fact, it proves something very different. Â*At the time 2 Timothy is written, there is no complete collection of New Testament books. Â*The Revelation to John is probably not yet written.

So, what 'scripture' is this verse referring to? Â*If you say that all of the epistles of St. Paul is part of the Scriptures (and quote a verse from one of the epistles of Peter), then why is it that the letter to the Laodiceans mentioned in Colossians 4:16 is nowhere to be found in the Bible? Â*St. Paul insisted on it to be read to the Colossians.

Read 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. The first letter was probably lost and this is the earliest letter that survived - thus, the name. Â*Why did God allowed such letter to be lost for eternity?

[shoeless_rebel]

hahaha...

religion:

the opium of the masses...

the instigator of war (even online obviously)

the pinnacle of deceit

i should write a book about religion... m gonna call it "Religion: 2 millennium of inciting conflict and proud of it!"

[soulshocked]

If you want the reader to read the whole chapter, why don't you say so in the first place instead of quoting only a part of it (leading the reader to believe that you want him to read that part only)? Â*Whew!

Clearly you're too lazy to read the whole context on what it really meant. Â*And obviously you don't understand what it meant that's why you went gaga on it.

Hello? Â*Isn't it true that, even if you redeem something, it still can be lost? Â*The context you used the word 'saved' is for all eternity, right? Â*The redemption can still be 'botched'. Â*That is the very reason why St. Paul exhorts Christians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, and said to himself that he do not stand acquitted. Â*An apostle with no assurance of salvation!

Â*Again same thing! Â*v. 13 Â*For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Â*And for sure you don't understand that. Â*I was thinking you were reading the Bible (correctly), that you've read the whole context. Â*But you proved me wrong. Â*

@shoeless_rebel

Indeed.

Again, I do not intend to condemn anyone..but I do surely want to condemn Â*the error of such doctrine. Â*Whether we like it or not, we're going to make an account individually on what we have done to this earthly body. Â*Whether be it of doctrine and beliefs. Â*I pray that you do have a genuine salvation and my these two texts(though they may be long) be a guide to open your hearts and minds to the truth. Â*Thus, I leave you in peace.

[soulshocked]

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...b/ss-0027.html

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0015.htm

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/workout.html

The Sword of the Lord vs Other unbiblical doctrine (An illustration)Â*
http://www.fundamentalpreaching.com/forums

Once there were two men who were about to get into a swordfight. Why is irrelevant. Both persons used different swords, but were equal in combat skill on their chosen weapon in every way. One sword was straight and sharp, the other was curved and not as sharp. People who were watching seemed very interested on how this was to turn out.
Before the fight started, the one with the curved sword, who we will refer to as Curvy henceforth, decides to start explaining to the one with the straight sword, who we will refer to as Straight henceforth, why his sword was just as effective as Straight's sword. Straight was not impressed, says nothing, and lunges at Curvy, knocking him off balance. Curvy gets back up and reiterates his intellect of why he chose a curved blade over Straight's straight one. Straight, again saying nothing whirles around and blade slicing throught air, manages to knock Curvy down again with an effective blow against Curvie who barely parries it with his own sword. Curvy, getting kind of frustrated, starts really digging into his education on metallurgy, smithing, and other swordsmithing techniques.
He starts spouting of how it was based on the best and most ancient styles of swordmaking techniques and how the type of metal used couldn't be better in the world. Straight just stands there waiting for Curvy to try something. As Curvy keeps spouting a multitude of words, he surprisingly launches an attack at Straight with his sword which snaps in twain at the first contact with Straight's sword which easily deflects the inferior blade.
Curvy just stood there not knowing what to say. He couldn't understand why Straight was able to prevail against his knowledge of the sword and it's proper use.
Later that day, a man approaches Straight and asks him why he was able to prevail against Curvie's sword: "I don't understand, you were both equal in skill, both intellectual on how the sword was to be used, and in every way it should have been at least a tie, it just doesn't make sense."
Straight puts his arm around the man and gently responds, "I didn't win the fight, the sword did. I was just someone who held it. It didn't need me to defend itself. It just needed someone who was willing to carry it wherever it needed to go".

[mannyamador]

I was thinking you were reading the Bible (correctly), that you've read the whole context.

Clearly you weren't thinking at all! Dacs DID read the whole context and was pointing how YOU DIDN'T. YOU are the one twisitng scripture to make it "say" whatever you want. Well, YOUR personal interpretation is prone to error just as much as any individual's. So why should we take YOUR interpretation as authoritative?

And please spare me the bit about being guided by the Holy Spirit. Lots of other "bible believing" christians claim to be so guided and have conclusions different from yours. No wonder there are over 25,000 such "bible-believing" sects, all with their own (and often conflicting and contradictory) interpretations. Personal interpretation of scripture is NEVER authoritative and rerally isn'yt worth squat. Just as yours is.

By the way, CURVY, where's that verse I asked for? Can't find one yet? I figured as much.

[mannyamador]

Scripture and Tradition
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scri..._Tradition.asp

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith" -- as expressed in the Bible itself -- is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–, as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

[mosimos]

2 Timothy 3:16:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Firstly, Paul specifically writes that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction. These are each ecclesiastical functions of the various ministers of the Church, and hence Paul deliberately states that Scripture is a pastoral tool in the hands of the leadership of the Church. But while Paul writes that Scripture is useful for doctrine, he does not say that Scripture is the necessary and sufficient font of all doctrine. Such is simply not in the text at hand.

Moreover, it should not escape our notice that Paul is referring to the Old Testament, since the New Testament was not yet written, compiled and canonized. Does this mean, by the logic of internal sufficiency, that we should REJECT the New Testament as inspired and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction?

Does this passage in any way establish which books are to be part of the canon of the New Testament? Does this passage in any way establish its own standing as Holy Scripture?

Finally, it is worth noting that Paul was writing to Timothy, who was Greek; he was writing in Greek, and cites the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). Hence, when he says "all Scripture," he is implicitly pointing to the Septuagint translation and canon of the Bible. Thus, Paul means that "ALL Scripture" must certainly include the deuterocanonical books of the Greek canon of the Old Testament (e.g., Wisdom, Sirach, Tobut, Maccabees, etc.). Does this mean that Baptists should put these books back into their Bibles?

2 Peter 1:19-21:

"And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed … knowing first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

gain, this passage proves the divine inspiration of Scripture, but says nothing to the matters of sufficiency or supreme authority. Indeed, since Scripture, being the voice of God through the Holy Spirit, is not of any private interpretation, then the interpretation of Scripture is surely a task of the "bishops which the Holy Spirit has appointed to shepherd the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:2. Indeed, does not Paul inform Timothy that Scripture is a profitable tool for the formulation of doctrine?

We must take 2 Peter 1:19-21 in the context of the entire first chapter of Peter's Second Epistle. Peter reminds his audience that he has for many years proclaimed to them, by means of his preaching and witness, the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:16); he tells us that he has seen confirmation of the words of the prophets (1:19; which indeed he did in the Transfiguration and in the Empty Tomb). He tells us that he is about to suffer martyrdom (1:14), but that he will leave a "means to recall these things to mind" (1:12, 15).

Hence we must take note that Peter never wrote a Gospel, and that 2 Peter is his last canonical Epistle. What then did he leave behind "to remind you always of these things"? Peter left behind the teaching office of the Church to call these things to mind. Indeed, it is Peter who tells us so firmly to "be submissive to the presbyters" (1 Pe 5:5)!

An indication of the full scope and import of this teaching office that Peter and the Apostles established is to be gleaned from the telling fact that two of the four Gospels were written by Christians who had no first hand knowledge of the Life of Christ, but rather drew on the traditions and teachings of the Church for their information.

It is thus that 2 Pe 1:19-21 takes its meaning: if the interpretation of prophecy (i.e., Scripture) is not of a private nature, then it is of an ecclesial nature. The Scriptures have great authority, but the individual Christian, often a "newbie" or inexperienced soul ('neoteros', 1 Pe. 5:5) in his walk with the Lord, has no real business taking the interpretation of Scripture upon himself. Indeed, Peter reminds us quite explicitly that many have fallen into error in misreading Paul's epistles (2 Pe 3:16).

[dacs]

Clearly you're too lazy to read the whole context on what it really meant.Â* And obviously you don't understand what it meant that's why you went gaga on it.

What is obvious to me - and probably to quite a number of readers of your post - is your lack of consistency of what you wanted to be done.Â* You quote something to defend your position.Â* Yet, when confronted that the quoted verse does not prove what you intend it to prove, you throw a tantrum and castigate us for not reading the whole chapter or the verses before.Â* Are you too lazy to quote the whole chapter or include the preceding verse?

You know, you can just say that you're sorry and that you made a mistake.Â* Instead, you made your position much more untenable.Â* Sorry about that, bro.Â* Truth must hurt.

Again same thing!Â* v. 13Â* For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.Â* And for sure you don't understand that.Â* I was thinking you were reading the Bible (correctly), that you've read the whole context.Â* But you proved me wrong.

Really?!

Let us say you did something objectively good.Â* Will you be saying that God made you do it?Â* Then why would God judge you according to your good works when in fact it was He who made you do it?Â* You are under duress.Â* You cannot be held responsible for the act and, therefore, it cannot be attributed to you.Â* Let us go to the opposite direction.Â* If you did something objectively evil, will you be saying that the devil made you do it?Â* Will you now suppress the courts of law because it was the devil who made the criminals do their crimes (and therefore the person cannot be held responsible for it)?Â* Or will you be telling me that a man can freely will to do evil (that is why we can adjudge the man responsible for a crime as a criminal) but not to do good (if he can, then he is responsible for the good he has done)?

But wait!Â* Why did St. Paul exhort the early Christians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling?Â* If it was God who made them do good, why fear and tremble?Â* If you are of God, the devil has nothing on you - and that is biblical.Â* Why should St. Paul fear disqualification in the only race he believed that is worth participating in?Â* No, your system of beliefs does not add up rightly to the whole of the Sacred Scriptures.Â* Indeed, I have proved you wrong - but on an entirely different issue (and a more important issue at that).

Again, I do not intend to condemn anyone..but I do surely want to condemnÂ* the error of such doctrine.Â* Whether we like it or not, we're going to make an account individually on what we have done to this earthly body.Â* Whether be it of doctrine and beliefs.Â* I pray that you do have a genuine salvation and my these two texts(though they may be long) be a guide to open your hearts and minds to the truth.Â* Thus, I leave you in peace.

[dacs]

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...b/ss-0027.html

[Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 981] After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations." (Lk 24:47) The apostles and their successors carry out this "ministry of reconciliation," not only by announcing to men God's forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ (2 Cor 5:1:

St. Augustine, Sermo 214,11:PL 38,1071-1072.
[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.

[Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1697] Catechesis has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ. Catechesis for the "newness of life" (Rom 6:4) in him should be:

- a catechesis of the Holy Spirit, the interior Master of life according to Christ, a gentle guest and friend who inspires, guides, corrects, and strengthens this life;

- a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;

- a catechesis of the beatitudes, for the way of Christ is summed up in the beatitudes, the only path that leads to the eternal beatitude for which the human heart longs;

- a catechesis of sin and forgiveness, for unless man acknowledges that he is a sinner he cannot know the truth about himself, which is a condition for acting justly; and without the offer of forgiveness he would not be able to bear this truth;

- a catechesis of the human virtues which causes one to grasp the beauty and attraction of right dispositions towards goodness;

- a catechesis of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, generously inspired by the example of the saints;

- a catechesis of the twofold commandment of charity set forth in the Decalogue;

- an ecclesial catechesis, for it is through the manifold exchanges of "spiritual goods" in the "communion of saints" that Christian life can grow, develop, and be communicated.

I could quote more, but I think these will suffice to prove that Catholics believe that we are saved by the grace of God.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0015.htm

"I have written to him the great things of my law; but they were counted as a strange thing." — Hosea 8:12

This is a very nice quote.Â* The doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church can be proven historically and biblically to be that believed by the apostles and the early Christians.Â* Yet, most of which are considered by the Baptists as 'strange' (to say the least).

Let me further quote Hosea 4:6 —

My people perish for want of knowledge! Since you have rejected knowledge, I will reject you from my priesthood; Since you have ignored the law of your God, I will also ignore your sons.

Search for real knowledge and real facts - and not those made up by people to further their agenda.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/workout.html

Paragraph 4 actually anticipate the possible rejection and retort such as"that was just your interpretation" and actually labeled these people who reject their claims as having conscience that is seared.Â* Yet, note that is never any mention of any writing of the early Christians regarding the interpretation of this verse.Â* Why is that?

Let me quote just some of the writings of the early Christians:

"But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made."

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 6 (A.D. 155), in Ante-Nicene Fathers, I:177

"On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, 'Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men ida it] that they may obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as One beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway.' This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord (sed non ultro coalitam)."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:7 (A.D. 180), in Ante-Nicene Fathers, I:520

"[T]hus by the grace of the Saviour healing their souls, enlightening them and leading them to the attainment of the truth; and whosoever obtains this and distinguishes himself in good works shall gain the prize of everlasting life... But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope."

Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be saved?, 1,2 (A.D. 210), in Ante-Nicene Fathers, II:591

It is no wonder why Spurgeon did not quote the early Christian writings.Â* It is so Catholic.

The Sword of the Lord vs Other unbiblical doctrine (An illustration)Â*
http://www.fundamentalpreaching.com/forums

Once there were two men who were about to get into a swordfight. Why is irrelevant. Both persons used different swords, but were equal in combat skill on their chosen weapon in every way. One sword was straight and sharp, the other was curved and not as sharp. People who were watching seemed very interested on how this was to turn out.
Before the fight started, the one with the curved sword, who we will refer to as Curvy henceforth, decides to start explaining to the one with the straight sword, who we will refer to as Straight henceforth, why his sword was just as effective as Straight's sword. Straight was not impressed, says nothing, and lunges at Curvy, knocking him off balance. Curvy gets back up and reiterates his intellect of why he chose a curved blade over Straight's straight one. Straight, again saying nothing whirles around and blade slicing throught air, manages to knock Curvy down again with an effective blow against Curvie who barely parries it with his own sword. Curvy, getting kind of frustrated, starts really digging into his education on metallurgy, smithing, and other swordsmithing techniques.
He starts spouting of how it was based on the best and most ancient styles of swordmaking techniques and how the type of metal used couldn't be better in the world. Straight just stands there waiting for Curvy to try something. As Curvy keeps spouting a multitude of words, he surprisingly launches an attack at Straight with his sword which snaps in twain at the first contact with Straight's sword which easily deflects the inferior blade.
Curvy just stood there not knowing what to say. He couldn't understand why Straight was able to prevail against his knowledge of the sword and it's proper use.
Later that day, a man approaches Straight and asks him why he was able to prevail against Curvie's sword: "I don't understand, you were both equal in skill, both intellectual on how the sword was to be used, and in every way it should have been at least a tie, it just doesn't make sense."
Straight puts his arm around the man and gently responds, "I didn't win the fight, the sword did. I was just someone who held it. It didn't need me to defend itself. It just needed someone who was willing to carry it wherever it needed to go".

Good story.

By the way, I am Straight and I have the Catholic Church - the very Church founded by Christ. I will not win any fight for her; she can do it on her own. Sometimes, she need me to be willing to carry the fight. Here I am and I will carry on.

Mane nobiscum, Domine!