I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes

[a_mirror_dimly]

And if that’s the case, a person who is truly and honestly “Sola Scriptura” shouldn’t have the word “Trinity” in their vocabulary, especially since it’s a word that comes from Catholic Tradition.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to use any vocabulary not found in scripture to talk about scripture, and I defy you to find a definition of it that requires such a restriction. It’s much more convenient to use the word Trinity than it is to describe the whole concept from scratch with all the relevant scripture references every time we want to talk about it.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Therefore, his statements in chapter 11 concerning being “cut-off” cannot mean a rejection of salvation.

We can reject, and cut ourselves off the “Vine.”

The difficulty is yours, in that you see only one possible meaning—the justified believer can reject his salvation—when there is certainly more than one possible meaning.

Actually I have less difficulty reading my Bible now that I don’t have to ignore or have my pastor explain away the passages that refute eternal security.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to use any vocabulary not found in scripture to talk about scripture, and I defy you to find a definition of it that requires such a restriction. It’s much more convenient to use the word Trinity than it is to describe the whole concept from scratch with all the relevant scripture references every time we want to talk about it.

But then you’re not truly “Sola Scriptura” you’re “Scriptura” + Catholic Tradition.

 

[sandusky]

Pixie Dust:

We can reject, and cut ourselves off the “Vine.”

Also in Romans 8, Paul states that those God justified (in eternity past), HE ALSO glorified (in eternity past); therefore, the justified believer will neither reject, nor cut himself off from
God because God has decreed his glorification.
Pixie Dust:

Actually I have less difficulty reading my Bible now that I don’t have to ignore or have my pastor explain away the passages that refute eternal security.

Less difficulty is still difficulty; thanks for your honesty.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

But then you’re not truly “Sola Scriptura” you’re “Sola Scriptura” + Catholic Tradition.

No, not at all. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean “if the Catholic Church believes this to be true I must ignore it”. Rather, it says that scripture is “sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine”. The scripture itself testifies to God’s triune nature, the fact someone later coined a word to describe that which was already in scripture doesn’t make the concept a late invention or a product of tradition. If you like yes, the word “Trinity” is a product of tradition, but there’s no necessity that it be called as such. If I decided to refer to the concept as the “Tritheocritus” (not as catchy, I know ) it would be no less true.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Also in Romans 8, Paul states that those God justified (in eternity past), HE ALSO glorified (in eternity past); therefore, the justified believer will neither reject, nor cut himself off from
God because God has decreed his glorification.

Then why bother to warn against it?

Less difficulty is still difficulty; thanks for your honesty.

And I suppose you understand the whole Bible perfectly?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

No, not at all. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean “if the Catholic Church believes this to be true I must ignore it”.

That wasn’t what I was saying.

Rather, it says that scripture is “sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine”. The scripture itself testifies to God’s triune nature, the fact someone later coined a word to describe that which was already in scripture doesn’t make the concept a late invention or a product of tradition. If you like yes, the word “Trinity” is a product of tradition, but there’s no necessity that it be called as such. If I decided to refer to the concept as the “Tritheocritus” (not as catchy, I know ) it would be no less true.

If the Scripture is sufficient of itself, why don’t all who adhere to it agree on what it says?

 

[sandusky]

Pixie Dust:

Then why bother to warn against it?

Perhaps to stir them up by way of reminder (2 Pet 1:12).
Pixie Dust:

And I suppose you understand the whole Bible perfectly?

Nobody understands the Bible perfectly; however, it’s you who’s admitted to having difficulty, and I appreciate your honesty.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Perhaps to stir them up by way of reminder (2 Pet 1:12).

But why, if their salvation is secure?

Nobody understands the Bible perfectly; however, it’s you who’s admitted to having difficulty, and I appreciate your honesty.

No, I said that I had difficulty when I would encounter a passage that flatly defied the theology I was being taught as a Baptist. I have no such difficulty now.

 

[sandusky]

Pixie Dust:

But why, if their salvation is secure?

Sheep tend to forget who they are, and what they know (2 Thess 2:5; Jude 5); therefore, as Peter says, he’s always ready to remind them of what they already know even though they’ve been established in the truth which is present with them (2 Pet 1:12).
Pixie Dust:

No, I said that I had difficulty when I would encounter a passage that flatly defied the theology I was being taught as a Baptist. I have no such difficulty now.

You said you have less difficulty now that you don’t have ignore your pastor, not “no difficulty.”

…I have less difficulty reading my Bible now that I don’t have to ignore or have my pastor explain away the passages that refute eternal security.

 

[cfrancis]

Earlier, in Romans 8, Paul states that nothing can separate the believer from the love of God in Christ.

Therefore, his statements in chapter 11 concerning being “cut-off” cannot mean a loss of salvation.

The difficulty is yours, in that you see only one possible meaning—the justified believer can lose his salvation—when there is certainly more than one possible meaning.

Would you please post the relevant part in Rom 8.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Sheep tend to forget who they are, and what they know (2 Thess 2:5; Jude 5); therefore, as Peter says, he’s always ready to remind them of what they already know even though they’ve been established in the truth which is present with them (2 Pet 1:12).

So Paul’s admonishment about “obedience” was just a waste of vellum? A sheep can still wander away and fall off a cliff, and not because the shepherd doesn’t love it anymore.

You said you have less difficulty now that you don’t have ignore your pastor, not “no difficulty.”

That is not what I said, as you should know since you quoted it. Yes, there are some things that are still hard to understand, but a whole lot of the Bible makes much more sense in light of Catholic teaching than it ever did before.

 

[cfrancis]

No, not at all. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean “if the Catholic Church believes this to be true I must ignore it”. Rather, it says that scripture is “sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine”. .

Where is that in the Bible?

 

[sandusky]

Would you please post the relevant part in Rom 8.

**Romans 8:38-39

38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,

39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.**

 

[sandusky]

So Paul’s admonishment about “obedience” was just a waste of vellum? A sheep can still wander away and fall off a cliff, and not because the shepherd doesn’t love it anymore.

That’s not an issue for me.
Pixie Dust:

That is not what I said, as you should know since you quoted it. Yes, there are some things that are still hard to understand, but a whole lot of the Bible makes much more sense in light of Catholic teaching than it ever did before.

I know what you said by how strenuously you deny it; I’m prepared to say no more about it, if you are.

 

[cfrancis]

Romans 8:38-39

38 **For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,

39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, **will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do you notice what’s missing from Paul’s list?

 

[sandusky]

Do you notice what’s missing from Paul’s list?

There’s nothing missing; it’s a verbatim quote.

 

[cfrancis]

There’s nothing missing; it’s a verbatim quote.

I know it’s verbatim! But through the Holy Spirit, Paul excluded some items from that list. What do the items in this list have in common?
38 For I am convinced that neither

• death,
• nor life,
• nor angels,
• nor principalities,
• nor things present,
• nor things to come,
• nor powers,
• 39 nor height,
• nor depth,
• nor any other created thing,

 

[sandusky]

I know it’s verbatim! But through the Holy Spirit, Paul excluded some items from that list. What do the items in this list have in common?
38 For I am convinced that neither

• death,
• nor life,
• nor angels,
• nor principalities,
• nor things present,
• nor things to come,
• nor powers,
• 39 nor height,
• nor depth,
• nor any other created thing,

Nothing is excluded.

 

[cfrancis]

Nothing is excluded.

Really?
DO you not notice a commonality among those items?