Another Nail for the Sola Scriptura Coffin

[Timothy_Piper]

How does the Bible tell us to that we can tell the Spirit of Truth from the Spirit of Deception? Who is the “WE” in 1John4:6? When NT writers say, “it is written” they are referring to the OT scriptures…not the NT. Jesus says it many times…he certainly isn’t referring to the NT scriptures.

What is the “pillar and bulwark of Truth”?
CC

Is the NT the word of God? The point was and you inadvertently agreed, that the writers and Jesus referred to the OT and nothing outside of it - sola scriptura, which is the point.

The “we” are Christians.

The pillar and support of the truth is the true church of God, which upholds, proclaims and protects the Word of God - Sola Scriptura.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Ok…you just agreed with St. Paul and the Catholic Church in denying the heresy of Sola Scriptura. Did you miss it?

Please. Certainly you must realize the answer is not none!

1 Cor 11:24-25

John 1:23

John 1:33

John 1:43

John 1:47

The list goes on and on (and on) but i think you get the idea.

If you do a word search on akouo (hear) and anaginoskein (read) you will also notice a ‘disturbing’ pattern. In a world of no printing press and limited literacy, a God who imposed sola scriptura would be a sadistic one indeed.

You missed the point again; you list you gave you only know because “it is written”; however I did come of with one where Jesus used the word said, for something that was actually written.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ - but He is referring to the hearing of the Word, which was already written.
Ex 21:24, Le 24:20, & De 19:21

Nice of you to refer to god as sadistic, interesting.
The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. Is this the case? Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word does it? Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did-more focus on making copies more available and more time studying to be better teachers of the Word IMO.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

But Elijah raised the dead. So did St. Peter and St. Paul. They also healed people - often. Let me give you the REAL ANSWER. Jesus RAISED HIMSELF from the dead!! It’s difficult to put in words, certainly, especially because it isn’t even attempted in the scriptures. Jesus explained His life BEFORE His Incarnation. He never remotely explained His person while living as a man on this earth. He said He was God – THAT got Him crucified. It was the Church that had to penetrate just WHO THIS PERSON, JESUS, WAS. Everyone was trying - everyone was using scripture - the Church was COMPELLED to avoid the Church from being rent asunder. This was a problem TOO BIG FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA. Examine the Church Councils. They didn’t feel compelled to use ONLY THE BIBLE to solve this dilemma of who Jesus was.

No Timothy. The Hypostatic Union says that Jesus in ONE PERSON with TWO NATURES - one human and one divine. These natures didn’t compete with each other for dominance. These natures didn’t somehow become homogenized into one nature. Each false view gets one into heresy. Nothing could have been more important to the early Church that to understand PRECISELY who Jesus was. For example – it must be understood that Jesus is in a state of being eternally begotten. But Scripture doesn’t state this with clarity. It only states He is the only begotten of the Father. So what’s a sola scriptura Christian going to do? You can’t get from A to B using scripture alone.

That’s the topic for another thread so I PASS.

MonFrere

Only the power of God can raise the dead, look into Elijah again and read carefully, then you will see that god raised the dead based on the plea from Elijah, also try with the apostles and even Christ in his humanity often prayed and ashed the Father before raising the dead.

The topic of “begotten” and how it is used in the Bible, especially concerning Christ is for another day if the Lord should will it.

Got to run for now and Lord willing i will be back.
Timothy

 

[inkaneer]

You clain to know what Sola Scriptura is, but you defined what it is not. It is the fact that the Words of God written in the Bible are 100% sufficient for the practise of the Christian faith and contain all the moral law necessary to live that Christian life.

It is implicit throughout Scripture, take the phrase “it is written”, this is how the apostles and Jesus referred to God’s revelation to make many of their points. You won’t find a single passages quoting anything outside of Scripture as a source of Christian practice.

I like the quote you gave, which is the church id the “pillar and support” of the truth, which is to say that the church is responsible for upholding, proclaiming and protecting the Word of God - Sola Scriptura. Also, Jesus was definitely a Sola Scriptura, when He was tempted in the wilderness, how did He fight all temptation; it was summed up in this phars “man shall not liveth by bread alone, but by every word that procedeth from the mouth of God” - where is every word from the mouth of God? Sola Scriptura.

What about Psalm 19, try reading it; it is Sola Scitpura as well and very explicit as well.
The law of the LORD is perfect,
converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple.

8The statutes of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart:
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes.

9The fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring for ever:
the judgments of the LORD are true
and righteous altogether.

10More to be desired are they than gold,
yea, than much fine gold:
sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
**
11Moreover by them is thy servant warned:
and in keeping of them there is great reward.**

What I cannot understand is how you can reject which is very implicit, if not explicit - sola scriptura; yet accept such things a “immaculate conception”, which is not even slightly implicit in God’s Word, but to each their own beliefs.

The problem with your position is that you skip over some very important points. For instance, you say that the word of God is scripture as if the word of God was ONLY scripture. You forgot the ONLY [sola] part. But what did Jesus say? Jesus told the Apostles:

"“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

That contradicts your concept of sola scriptura. Agin Jesus says:

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

You missed the point again; you list you gave you only know because “it is written”; however I did come of with one where Jesus used the word said, for something that was actually written.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ - but He is referring to the hearing of the Word, which was already written.
Ex 21:24, Le 24:20, & De 19:21

Nice of you to refer to god as sadistic, interesting.
The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. Is this the case? Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word does it? Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did-more focus on making copies more available and more time studying to be better teachers of the Word IMO.

If you notice he never quotes my post because they prove you ABSOLUTELY incorrect. If you would to actually read the thread and participate in a meaningful way try actually reading posts with scholarly resources and not just your own banter. And as for the Ophelimos I already stated that in my post. This is proof that none of the Protestants are reading it. BEcause they read it and get angry at it’s truth and historical accuracy, and at the fact I quote Fundamentalist Protestants to back up my argument. Case closed, simple as that, I believe the thread should now be closed.

 

[inkaneer]

You clain to know what Sola Scriptura is, but you defined what it is not. It is the fact that the Words of God written in the Bible are 100% sufficient for the practise of the Christian faith and contain all the moral law necessary to live that Christian life.

It is implicit throughout Scripture, take the phrase “it is written”, this is how the apostles and Jesus referred to God’s revelation to make many of their points. You won’t find a single passages quoting anything outside of Scripture as a source of Christian practice.

I like the quote you gave, which is the church id the “pillar and support” of the truth, which is to say that the church is responsible for upholding, proclaiming and protecting the Word of God - Sola Scriptura. Also, Jesus was definitely a Sola Scriptura, when He was tempted in the wilderness, how did He fight all temptation; it was summed up in this phars “man shall not liveth by bread alone, but by every word that procedeth from the mouth of God” - where is every word from the mouth of God? Sola Scriptura.

What about Psalm 19, try reading it; it is Sola Scitpura as well and very explicit as well.
The law of the LORD is perfect,
converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple.

8The statutes of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart:
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes.

9The fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring for ever:
the judgments of the LORD are true
and righteous altogether.

10More to be desired are they than gold,
yea, than much fine gold:
sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
**
11Moreover by them is thy servant warned:
and in keeping of them there is great reward.**

What I cannot understand is how you can reject which is very implicit, if not explicit - sola scriptura; yet accept such things a “immaculate conception”, which is not even slightly implicit in God’s Word, but to each their own beliefs.

The problem with your position is that you skip over some very important points. For instance, you say that the word of God is scripture as if the word of God was ONLY scripture. You forgot the ONLY [sola] part. But what did Jesus say? Jesus told the Apostles:

"“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

That contradicts your concept of sola scriptura. Again Jesus says:

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.” Mark 16:15

Not a ringing endorsement of sola scriptura is it?

Then of course there is Paul’s words to the Thessalonians to hold onto the traditions they received by either word of mouth or by letter. Again that’s not sola scriptura.

As for Psalm 19 I fail to see where this supports sola scriptura. Nowhere in the psalm you quoted does it even mention the written word of God. It doesn’t even mention the word of God but but refers to words like ‘testimony’, ‘statutes’, ‘commandments’, ‘fear’ and ‘judgements’ which you then impose your own spin that these have to be written. But Paul writes scripture referring to the New Covenant quoting God as saying:

"10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Hebrews 8:10

Notice the laws of God are not written in a book as sola scriptura says.

Again Paul writes to the Romans:

“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.” Romans 10:17

He doesn’t say it comes by reading a book does he?

As for all those “It is written…” quotations can you show me one quotation where Jesus limited His disciples only to the written word? Don’t try to portray Catholics as being anti scripture. We are not. We acknowledge scripture as an authority. That is why we quote it againstyou. But unlike protestants we do not see any contradiction between scripture and the Oral Tradition, We accept both as being Apostolic Tradition and as Paul tells the Thessalonians worthy of belief. It is the protestants who have rejected the Apostolic Oral Tradition because it does not support their false doctrines the chief of which is sola scriptura. It is a tradition of man, by man, for man.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

This is just getting ridiculous as I covered those things in my tow long posts on page 8, did any of them bother to read it, nope.

 

[MonFrere]

Please demonstrate that which we have outside of the Bible that is the very voice of God; aside from creation.

That’s the whole point I was trying to make, Tim. The word of God speaks to us through creation – NOT ONLY THE BIBLE. I had to go through an awful lot of verbiage to get you to admit it. Thank you.

When the Scriptures speaks of “the word of God” it can be speaking of far more than the Holy Scriptures. Protestants go on a default mode in reading “word of God” in scripture and automatically default that it is a specific reference to scripture. You, Tim, used Psalm 19 as a demonstration of this. I showed you where, in the context, of Psalm 19: the whole creation is being referred to as being as a Law of God or as the statutes of the Lord. Before I demonstrated this to you - you went to the default Protestant position. Thanks for admitting this mistake and expanding your concept of “word of God”.

MonFrere

 

[MonFrere]

Only the power of God can raise the dead,

Of course. BUT you used Jesus’ raising people from the dead as proof that He was God. THIS is not proof; because other men also raised people from the dead. From this miracle we do not have proof that Jesus was God – because Elijah, St. Peter and St. Paul also raised people from the dead and were not God.

Now, when Jesus raised Himself from the dead – now THAT’S something NO MAN has ever done and is a proof of Jesus’ Divinity.

MonFrere

 

[MonFrere]

As God
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).
He knows all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 10:28)

**All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)
As Man
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)
He died (Rom. 5:8)
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5) etc.

Nice try. These scriptures say that Jesus was both God and man. It doesn’t state at all HOW this takes place. None of the scriptures speak of Jesus having two distinct natures and being at the same time just one person. Some people spoke of two modes of being. The scriptures “could be” taken to mean this. Scripture does NOT clarify the exact meaning because it does not go deep enough into this mystery. How can scripture tell me that Jesus didn’t simply have two different modes of being each one coming to the forefront as necessary? Where does scripture tell us there is no confusion between these two modes or natures or souls or whatever Christ had two of? Do you want to try again? All the scriptures have identified so far is the human quality of Jesus and the divine quality of Jesus. This isn’t the definition of the Hypostatic Union.

Tim - On the Hypostatic Union ---- Take Two!

MonFrere

 

[adriancombe]

LOL - you are silly. go back and count how many time “the Word of God” is used. The Bible is the word of God, the living word at that.

You are ignoring the very post you are claiming to ridicule, and laughing at your own silliness. Read post #85, with the aid of a ruler if need be.

Every instance of the phrase in Acts is cited. They are all referencing oral teaching. The majority of NT usage supports this. I can only assume, since you ignored this post, that you tacitly concur.

 

[adriancombe]

You missed the point again; you list you gave you only know because “it is written”; however I did come of with one where Jesus used the word said, for something that was actually written.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ - but He is referring to the hearing of the Word, which was already written.
Ex 21:24, Le 24:20, & De 19:21

Nice of you to refer to god as sadistic, interesting.
The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. Is this the case? Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word does it? Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did-more focus on making copies more available and more time studying to be better teachers of the Word IMO.

Actually, what you are saying is impossible, and you know it to be such. Think about it. You said the only reason I know about it is because it is written. False! It had to be spoken first.

Remember Moses’ seat? Chapter and verse please…it was not all in writing as you well know.

Or maybe because you assume SS (in order to prove it!) you cannot see the forest for the trees. Luke 10:16 - we hear Jesus when we hear those He sent! This obviously was going on before the NT was written. As St Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospel unless moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

And what you said about making more copies is simply more assuming what you set out to prove. Obviously the copies you would have liked did not exist in the time of Jesus. The primary mode of learning was listening. This is why >90% of the OT references in the NT aren’t direct quotes.

The only sadistic God is the fictional one you impose on the universe when you try to wedge Him into your SS distortions.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

The problem with your position is that you skip over some very important points. For instance, you say that the word of God is scripture as if the word of God was ONLY scripture. You forgot the ONLY [sola] part. But what did Jesus say? Jesus told the Apostles:

"“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

That contradicts your concept of sola scriptura. Again Jesus says:

How does that contradict; it confirms for Jesus is the “Living Word”; which is the mouth of God. Why does He say who hears you hears me? Because the words given and the remembrance given, which were eventually completely written and put together, were from whom? God. Again - Sola Scriptura is the only place to hear God speak and the only place He has spoken is written in the Bible - Sola Scriptura. You are just going to keep fighting that which is a fact of truth because there is no other place for us to go as Christians to hear the word of God; the only other testimony outside of the Bible is creation.

If you haven’t noticed around here; whenever someone here tries to defend a doctrine; they go to the Bible to try to give it authentication. Why? At the end of the day Christians know the authority of God rests in the Word of God.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

What you just wrote, that I put in BOLD above ISN’T SCRIPTURALLY ACCURATE…

VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE – In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Protestants far too often have this automatic reflex where every time they see THE WORD - they automatically think BIBLE. This is absurd! The opening of St. John’s gospel is just one of scores of examples where this absurdity is demonstrated – In the beginning was THE BIBLE and the BIBLE was with God and the BIBLE was God. Pretty ridiculous.

Let’s take the VERY VERSES in Psalm 19 that you quote to demonstrate this AGAIN – your Protestant view that God’s Word is a slam dunk reference to the Bible isn’t accurate.

But when Jesus made this statement he wasn’t pitting the “scriptures” AGAINST the Church. Catholics will not do this. We honestly do view the Bible as the written WORD OF GOD. PERIOD. End of discussion. Of course Jesus made this statement to Satan who also used scripture to try to use God’s word against Him. And why not – it worked like a charm with the first Adam when he said “DID NOT GOD SAY”. Unfortunately, it wasn’t so effective with the second Adam. Of course, with the first Adam there were no written scriptures - poor Adam had to take GOD’S WORD for it without any written record - and the Word of God had just as much authority as scripture ever did.

Read the above – what is being equated as THE WORD OF GOD? It is the heavens. The glory of the heavens, because of their great wonder, as said to UTTER SPEECH. In other words - THE WORD OF GOD can speak to us through God’s creation. Psalm 19 is not talking about the written scriptures at all; but you are superimposing this meaning into this psalm. If you take the last verses to exclusively mean scripture when it speaks of “The Law of the LORD” “The statutes of the LORD” etc. then the whole point which opens this psalm is lost. Verses 1-6 is speaking of creation and the heavens and in verses 7-11 suddenly and abruptly for no reason at all it’s talking of the Torah. The ancient Jewish people looked at the creation of the earth as a great cosmic TEMPLE. I think what is being spoken of here is a view of the creation that in its own silent way UTTERS THE SPEECH of the Law of God and gives reflection to the statutes of God in a way that actually would enhance the scriptural texts. So, in other words Psalm 19 is actually expanding the concept of scripture (the Word of God) to encompass more that the written - but to also include the vastness and wonder of the whole creation which in its own way UTTERS SPEECH. To me this is a FABULOUS lesson of scripture given in this psalm – and if one can, even for a moment, get out of their paradigm that all references to the “word of God” automatically = the written scriptures - I think one can have their eyes open to greater horizons of understanding that can deepen our respect for the God we serve.

MonFrere

I agree that creation is the testimony of Gods handiwork; Romans 1 and beginning of 2 tells us that; wow that was written in Scripture as well and wow so was Psalm 19 written in Scripture - Viva Sola Scriptura.

You stated above the following: " I think one can have their eyes open to greater horizons of understanding that can deepen our respect for the God we serve."

Please enlighten me with your divine insights not found in the written word of God and maybe even elaborate how this might be manifest in your church.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

If you notice he never quotes my post because they prove you ABSOLUTELY incorrect. If you would to actually read the thread and participate in a meaningful way try actually reading posts with scholarly resources and not just your own banter. And as for the Ophelimos I already stated that in my post. This is proof that none of the Protestants are reading it. BEcause they read it and get angry at it’s truth and historical accuracy, and at the fact I quote Fundamentalist Protestants to back up my argument. Case closed, simple as that, I believe the thread should now be closed.

Then leave if your opinion closes the door for you and don’t let it hit you on the way out. Are you one of those that believes because you said it is so then it is? You will never debunk viva sola scriptura because it is an implicit truth given by God; just as the Trinity is. Using all the intellect in the world and quoting every person who disagrees will not change the facts; after all isn’t the message of all the writers the gospel of our salvation? Where else will you search and find that salvation except through the “Living Word”, which is Jesus Christ , which is the message of the Scripture, which God says is sharper than a two edged sword, which is another reference to the Word, which is Jesus. Is the Bible Jesus; yes and no, yes in the sense that it is his voice, which is the part of His nature and character He chose to reveal about Himself to man and no because it is also just a book to a nonbeliever. I’m sure I am not articulating this very well, but I can handle the flack.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

(Cont…)

Protestant and Catholic Bibles differ there is no question about that. Another argument against Sola Scriptura is that most Protestant versions of the Bible are historically inadequate, I shall elaborate.

 A Catholic Bible has "more books" than a Protestant Bible. While each NT has the same amount of books the Catholic Old Testament has 46 whereas the Protestant version has 39, why? Many Protestants will claim the CC added seven books to the OT: Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 2 Maccabees and parts of Daniel and Esther. Actually a one, Martin Luther departed from 1500 years of Christian tradition and subtracted these books. These missing books are called the Deuterocanonicals or in Protestant circles, "The Apocrypha". Now CAF'ers in Christs day the OT had NOT been determined. Different groups in Palestine honored different canons of Scripture. The Sadducees for example held that only the Pentateuch or the first five books of the Bible (Gen-Deut) were canon. The Samaritans the same with their own versions. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition roughly the same as the Protestant one today though the boundaries were not set. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls considered a few more books Scriptural however. Finally you had some Jews who honored a canonical tradition that is best represented today in the Septuagint translation of the OT. This Greek translation was made between 250-125 B.C. and is called Septuagint because of the number of translators that compiled it. Septuagint coming from the Latin word for 70. They compiled it's Pentateuch according to tradition.

 The real question in play here CAF'ers is which canon did Christ and His apostles use? In the time of Jesus, Hebrew as a language was dead, Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic as many know and Greek was the common tongue. Not suprisingly the NT writers used the Greek Septuagint. According to Protestant authors, Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, the VAST majority of quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint but only 33 places does it cite the Hebrew canon. SOURCE: Gleason Arhcer and G.C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago, IL, Moody Press, 1983) xxv-xxxii. 
 Guess what CAF'ers?, that means that OVER 90% of the time by that count, the NT writers quoted the Septuagint, and remember the entire NT was written in Greek.

Now in 1529 Martin Luther proposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism of 39 books as OT canon, Luther justified this by citing the concerns of St. Jerome. However UNLIKE St. Jerome who humble submitted his opinon in private and accepted full authority of the Church, Luther arrogantly challanged them and made his opinion public, maybe Luther forgot humility with all the Penance he was so famous for?

Another REAL question fellow CAF’ers is this, Which OT canon would you rather use, the OT used by the apostles and the NT writers, and the early Church, OR, the OT used by the later Jewish peoples who rejected Christ? If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow the apostles amd the other NT writers and the early Church. If your Bible omits them, you follow the NON-CHRISTIAN rabbis and Martin Luther, a man whose view of Sacred Scripture allowed him to deliberately add the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28. in an attempt to throw out even more books of the Bible, including Esther, Revelation!!!=O and EVEN JAMES??? Which he dismissed as “an epistle of straw”. SOURCE: Stoddard’s Rebuilding a Lost Faith (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1990), 137

Glory be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, may God bless her and grant us strength to be great Apologists in her favor. God bless, you all, God bless the Church, and God bless Catholicism,…Verum out.

This post containse not one opinion only historical fact. Show me once at all there is any opinion in this post, and cite a source stating otherwise. This is a forum for scholarly debate and thus far you haven’t handled any flack as not once have you even cited a scholarly resource to back up your point, so unless you have degrees in Theology and can scan that and submit a link, or a Masters in History or some other credit to show, then stop relying on your own junky opinion as a believer and start really trying to change minds if you feel that passionate about it. In the end though I still think you’ll come up short as you are incinuating and as Catholics we have less of a respect for the Bible which is wholeheartedly untrue.

 

[MonFrere]

Please enlighten me with your divine insights not found in the written word of God and maybe even elaborate how this might be manifest in your church.

First, we both know that MY insights are not divine. So, we’ll put that part of your comment aside.

But MY CHURCH, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, formulated the Doctrine of the Trinity. It formulated the Doctrine the Hypostatic Union of Christ. Because of the Hypostatic Union of this historical person, Jesus Christ - it can be stated with authority that Jesus’ Mother is Theotokos, and worthy of the title Mother of God.

These doctrines DO NOT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE.

HOWEVER,** they are not formulated by scripture**.

In other words, it took MY CHURCH, to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the Scripture.

MY CHURCH, also RIGHTLY DIVIDES the scripture when saying that “sola scriptura” is a false doctrine not upheld by a correct reading of the scriptures. It also has determined, with the authority given to it by the same Jesus Christ they properly identified through its Doctrines of the Hypostatic Union, that “sola fide” is a corruption of the ancient doctrines of the Church concerning grace and justification.

MY CHURCH rightly divides the Word of Truth you cry “foul”. MY CHURCH formulates the Doctrine of the Trinity. You say OK. MY CHURCH formulates the Hypostatic Union. You say OK. MY CHURCH condemns “sola scriptura”. You cry “heresy”. MY CHURCH condemns “sola fide”. You cry “heresy”.

We condemn Arianism and you agree. We condemn Donatism and your agree. We condemn Protestantism and you cry “foul”. YET – we are the SAME CHURCH as we were during the Arian crisis as we were during the Donatist crisis as we were during the Protestant crisis. WE DIDN’T CHANGE. You are the ones who changed doctrine. We didn’t. And you call us corrupt. Quoting that great Cuban saint - Ricky Ricardo - You’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do! Now prove the Hypostatic Union by scripture alone. I showed you where your first attempt didn’t really address what this doctrine really demonstrates - so, I’m asking you to try again.

MonFrere

 

[Timothy_Piper]

That’s the whole point I was trying to make, Tim. The word of God speaks to us through creation – NOT ONLY THE BIBLE. I had to go through an awful lot of verbiage to get you to admit it. Thank you.

When the Scriptures speaks of “the word of God” it can be speaking of far more than the Holy Scriptures. Protestants go on a default mode in reading “word of God” in scripture and automatically default that it is a specific reference to scripture. You, Tim, used Psalm 19 as a demonstration of this. I showed you where, in the context, of Psalm 19: the whole creation is being referred to as being as a Law of God or as the statutes of the Lord. Before I demonstrated this to you - you went to the default Protestant position. Thanks for admitting this mistake and expanding your concept of “word of God”.

MonFrere

You getting off the point; for faith and practice of Christians explain how creation speaks to us in that manner; it show us there is a divine creator, which is written in His word. I shows His glory, which is also revealed in his word.

No you did not show that Psalm 19 that the whole creation is being referred to as “as a Law of God or as the statutes of the Lord”. The Psalm shows the “The Works and the Word of God” - plural, which is used for the faith and practice of Christians? - Sola Scriptura. Creation helps provide evidence for the veracity of Scripture - Sola Scriptura.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

Then leave if your opinion closes the door for you and don’t let it hit you on the way out. Are you one of those that believes because you said it is so then it is?

Haha that’s funny considering Martin Luther was, where these silly erroneous views originated from.

You will never debunk viva sola scriptura because it is an implicit truth given by God; just as the Trinity is.

Those last two posts do a pretty good job debunking if you ask me, let’s ask the others? So your citationg to back you up here is that because the Trinity is a n implicit truth given by God Sola Scriptura is? That’s interesting, not very scholarly, influential or helping your argument but interesting.

Using all the intellect in the world and quoting every person who disagrees will not change the facts; after all isn’t the message of all the writers the gospel of our salvation?

Excuse me good sir WHAT FACTS? are you talking about so far all you have done is quote Scripture and your interpretation of that Scripture I reiterate unless you can provide documented proof as an authority on those matters please cite proper authorities in the mean time. As for quoting every person who disagrees? I cited two fundamentalist Protestant authors who accept sola scriptura to back up my argument against it. Thus it is quite a slam when the research and findings of people on your own side of the argument dig up evidence against it.

Where else will you search and find that salvation except through the “Living Word”, which is Jesus Christ , which is the message of the Scripture, which God says is sharper than a two edged sword,.

How sad Timothy that you make a classic Protestant error here. Focusing on little sections of Scripture to mean bigger things. Like the “Living Word” and the Scripture being “sharper than a two edged sword”. And interesting you should bring that up as a double edged sword has a draw back, it can be pressed against you. Maybe a bad analogy?

which is another reference to the Word, which is Jesus. Is the Bible Jesus; yes and no, yes in the sense that it is his voice, which is the part of His nature and character He chose to reveal about Himself to man and no because it is also just a book to a nonbeliever. I’m sure I am not articulating this very well, but I can handle the flack.

The Bible is Jesus? No Jesus speaks to us through the Bible, huge mistake there. The NT writers never even knew Christ the gospels were written in A.D. And there is not a serious Christian out there that will dispute that so there again you tread on historical information that is becoming your downfall. It’s not that you are not articulating well it’s that you haven’t evidently had any classes in argumentation, or literature classes that teach you how to write critical papers. Because you have not provided ONE compelling argument for sola scriptura other than your opinion of Scripture itself. I said the thread should be closed and debate ended because I knew this probably to be the case that you would not fall in line with that mode of debate, and so far I have been proven correct sir, God bless you!

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

You getting off the point; for faith and practice of Christians explain how creation speaks to us in that manner; it show us there is a divine creator, which is written in His word. I shows His glory, which is also revealed in his word.

Source? Or agreeing authority? I see none, straight opinion try again Tim.

No you did not show that Psalm 19 that the whole creation is being referred to as “as a Law of God or as the statutes of the Lord”. The Psalm shows the “The Works and the Word of God” - plural, which is used for the faith and practice of Christians? - Sola Scriptura. Creation helps provide evidence for the veracity of Scripture - Sola Scriptura.

No he didn’t show that? Where’s your source or agreeing authority for what YOU state that the Scripture means, oh there’s no source, straight ol’ Tim’s opinion, try again TIM! I’m rooting for you!!! >_-