Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[ibetrippin07]

Yes, God’s Truth is indeed in the Bible. But when you have so many mutually exclusive interpretations, it is clear that the Scriptures, by themselves, do not necessarily reveal the same “truth” to every reader.

its enough

God placed His word in the Church, as well. His Word at work in the Church did not disappear just because some of it was committed to writing.

why would it?

They began Jewish, and became Catholic. Well, not all of them were Jews. Luke was probably a gentile.

Yes, the primary author of Scripture is God. But those “men”, moved by the HS to speak from God were all Catholic.

was Jesus king crucified with “king of the catholics” over his head…the catholics are gentiles if anything.

And who decides what, from Scripture, God is demanding of men? Should women wear veils in the church? Not speak at Church, because it is shameful? Should bishops all be married? These are issues that require an authoritative decision outside of Scripture.

Theres this cool thing called the 10 commandments. then theres the 2 main summed up commandments.

I am sure that many Catholic Traditions appear non-biblical to you, since you are coming from a faith tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500+ years. You have lost so much of the faith that it seems to you that Catholics “added to Scripture”.

mhm, contrary to your belief if i could read it in the bible i would support it! but sadly most of them are just not there. so it turns into a “faith” issue. even though “faith” in the bible refers to nothing more than trust really.

I am willing to listen to your point of view, and have dialogue with you about it. It is not within my purview to separate myself from the paradosis in order to embrace your modern innovations. Your interpretations are divergent enough from the Apsotolic faith so as to constitute “a different gospel” than the one we received from our Apostles. If I were to embrace them, I would be “anathema” - a state that I am not willing to enter willingly.

I say the same thing!

That the mutually exclusive interpretations of Scripture make it self evident that an extrabiblical authority is needed.

will he not also use the bible?

Because Jesus holds the fulness of God’s revelation to man:

Eph 1:23
the fulness of him who fills all in all.

No “new” revelation is forthcoming. The One Faith has been “once for all” delivered to the saints.

i agree, but you just used sola scriptura to prove that point. dont use and it prove the same point please.

No ibe. Scripture is normative, authoritative, inspired, and inerrant. None of these truths about scripture require that we force the Holy Writings into a role they were never intended to play.

They are holy for a reason.

 

[PRmerger]

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Even the demons believe, and tremble, no?

(See James 2:19)

Clearly, to take one Scripture out of context leads to egregious and dangerous errors.

 

[ibetrippin07]

No, ibe, we don’t “have to debate about them”. Debate does not necessarily draw us closer to the Truth.

Truth is revealed by God. It is not a human product of human debate.

is this why there was a debate amoungst the apostles? in the end did it not draw them closer to truth?

LOL.

It is not He that is lacking in understanding. It is the lack of ability for certain persons to see that He has manifested His revelation through the Church. If people recognized that God authoritatively spoke through the Church there would be no debate.

I agree. thankfully that people like you and me God speaks through us to minister to others and spread his gospel.

We see it differently. Where should we take our dispute?

anytime anywhere

Clearly it is not, since good people with all sincerity use the same method of SS to come up with mutually exclusive answers.

do they have salvation though?

Can you show me where you find this in the Bible? I have looked, but I can’t.

The bible is God breathed, Jesus is God, the bible is his book. Its not as if he has a previous record of keeping things he wanted done outside the holy scriptures. This is NOT evident in the OT. All the traditions rituals and what not were all described in detail so if God is consistent with himself he would also have done the same for the NT which he did.

Maybe not in your opinon, but people have used the bible for centuries. to support all these things.

Does not make them right.

 

[ibetrippin07]

Well, first you have to provide evidence that Catholicism proclaims he is “sacrificed every Eucharist.”

ok well i suppose to correct my ignorance i will need the following explained. Why is Jesus constantly depicted on the cross?
Is it not true that catholics believe they are literally eating his flesh and blood?

We do not blame you for your ignorance of Catholicism, ibe, but you ought to make some effort to hide it when posting.

well im not all knowing

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice at Calvary. We do not proclaim that Christ is sacrificed again.

Otherwise, the Catholic Church would not have kept in the verse from Hebrews that proclaims our truth regarding “the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

I only agree

Well, good. That makes you Catholic in theology, too. Catholics worship the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ.

I think this should be kept to divinity but to each his own i suppose

 

[ibetrippin07]

Do not even the demons believe, and tremble?

It’s a dangerous paradigm, ibe, to take Scripture in isolation. One needs to look at the *entire *Word of God to come to an understanding of what’s required for our salvation.

as i have previously stated
romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
The demons acknowledge his existence and they know who he is but by no means do they recognize him for worship.

 

[PRmerger]

I think peoples hearts lead them to certain paths in life apart from ss with or without it.

Please cite the Scripture verse for this.

I hold the apostolic faith is no different than anything Jesus taught or what is already instructed in the NT.

Chapter and verse for this, please.

naturally. i would have to say just about any church leader from whatever denomination is fairly authoritative on the subject. most of them have written books, hold various doctorate degrees. if thats not authoritative i dont know what is!

We need a Bible verse for this–something that mentions that authority comes from writing books or holding various doctorate degrees, please!

 

[PRmerger]

as i have previously stated
romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
The demons acknowledge his existence and they know who he is but by no means do they recognize him for worship.

Fair enough.

Then are you saying that all one must do to enter heaven is confess “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead?

Yes, or no?

 

[ibetrippin07]

Just because a passage mentions scripture, doesn’t mean that scripture alone is sufficient to lead you to salvation. Jesus points that out in John 5:39-41 when he explains to the pharisees who were relying on their failed intepretation of scripture to save them, leading them to misunderstand what Jesus was telling them. In mark 7, jesus makes a similar point. His Jewish audience was fixated on their false interpretation of the law (scripture) and missing the message behind it. What you interpret as supporting sola scriptura is actually condemning it. Such is the problem with personal, not-authoritative interpretation.

actually no, the Jews had conjured up things outside of the OT. They were being hypocrites and not sticking to the holy scriptures as their ultimate source on things. This is why he is condemning directly the traditions of men. because they were not sent by God.

I think you really have many, many misconceptions of what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic church was commissioned by Jesus to spread the gospel to all the nations and to administer the sacraments. That is recorded in Matthew 28: 18-20 but understood most fully through Catholic Tradition

I agree that his people the church were commanded this.

Scripture was never meant to be the only way you know about God. Jesus didn’t leave a book behind, he left Apostles to spread the word. And they did through their personal witness. This has been passed on to this day. Along the way, some of what they witnessed was written down and of all the writings left, the Catholic Church canonized 27 books to be the official liturgical and teaching writings. But this isn’t the sole understanding of the Faith. While the Bible speaks to the sacraments, it doesn’t explain how to administer them appropriately. That is Catholic tradition. The bible explains that the Apostles sang hymns but the hymns themselves are part of Catholic Tradition. The bible explains some of the prayers and devotions carried out by the Apostles, but not all of them. That is part of Catholic Tradition.

actually it does say how to properly administer them. read 1 corinth 11:17-26. There are other places but this one in particular i think is the most explanatory.
hymns are a form of worship. its a way to please God and david did this much in the OT.
I stand that the scriptures were written through people by God himself with the guiding of his spirit. The apostles never claim contrary to this and if for whatever reason this is in dispute i will provide the necessary evidence.

You make it sound like Catholics are against scripture. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The books of the new testament were eye witness accounts of the truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles and have great value. However, they must be understood within the context of the Catholic tradition in which they were written. Remember, it was under the authority of the Catholic Church that scripture was written. Scripture didn’t give authority to the Church. The reason that scripture can be believed to begin with is because it was authorized by the Church. Nothing the Catholic Church teaches is in opposition to scripture because part of the criteria for their inclusion in the canon was their fidelity to Catholic tradition. If you think there is opposition, its only because you misinterprit the meaning of scripture. We can help you with that if you want to bring up specific issues

Im not sure why it has to be within the catholic tradition. especially if the apostles were really just messianic jews. If anything all should be understood from the Jewish perspective.
the catholic church is not the first people to authorize scripture. The Jews authorized the OT…
I do not think catholics do not believe their bible holds the ultimate truth, i think contrary to this. however when consulting a certain issue it is the bible and its text that are used and then a judgement is made based off that text. If the pope makes a decree im sure he himself consults the holy scriptures. and thats what sola scriptura is really all about and nothing else.

 

[ibetrippin07]

ibt, As everyone can see, the quote from your post above is "quote=ibetrippin07;7996495]his word alone is authoritative enough.He simply speaks a word and a man is healed. the apostles…no.

"

Everyone can see what you wrote, why do you persist in denying it. It is a rediculous to deny it as it was for that New York congressman; everybody can read what you wrote. Why not come clean?
well let me clear this up for you since your interpretation of my words are incorrect.
My point there was that Jesus simply speaks a word and a man is healed. Now the apostles apart from Christ cannot do this. but with Christs help they can and did. now instead of taking my words to mean what you wanted them to mean please accept what i have said, because i know what i mean…

 

[ibetrippin07]

"

Ibe has made a number of statements in this thread that are embarrassing and ridiculous. I don’t think he took into account that whatever is written will be there for a long time.

I am aware of this. youd be wise to realize the same

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I had said:

Well, then, we disagree. For if you believe this, then you must believe one or more of the following biblical propositions to be only equally plausible as some other competing proposition. So which of the following–in your opinion–“could go either way”?

Begin EricFilmer’s response to each of my numbered propositions:

1. There is one God.
   No problem. But where does Scripture say that one God exists as three people, and that the number of divine persons is limited to three (no more, no less)?

But there is a problem. If you say scripture teaches monotheism (that there is one God), then scripture must be clear enough on this point. We therefore need no infallible interpreter to get this one right, right?

As to your skeptical question, let me ask you this. Where does scripture teach the uni-personhood of God? In other words, does it say the one being, God, can only exist as one person? If not, then it remains a logical possibility that the one being, God, could exist as more than one person. The only question that remains, then, is whether or not scripture does say the one being, God, exists as more than one person. And so it does. For the Bible teaches quite clearly that there are three persons who participate in the one being, God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It does this by ascribing both personhood and divinity to all three.

1. The Father is God.
   Clear exegesis demonstrates this.

You mean we don’t need an infallible interpreter to discern that the Father is God? You mean that the possibility of a arriving at a “clear exegesis” is in fact possible this side of infallibility? Careful, Eric, you’re sounding awfully Protestant right now.

1. The Son is God.
   But what exactly does this mean?

It means the Son is God.

Is the divinity of the Son “the same” as the Father or is it “similar”?

Their divine nature is the same. If it were merely similar, we would have to posit two gods and thus you would contradict 1 above that you have already acknowledged as non-problematic. So if you truly believe God is one (proposition 1 above) then you must posit that the divinity of the Son is identical to the divinity of the Father, or else we would be left with two divine beings, as well as two divine persons. And is this not what scripture teaches when it says of the Son, “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3)? This is the truth we uphold. It is what grounds Nicea’s “One in being with the Father.”

Moreover, show me where in scripture it says that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father”, that he is “begotten, not made” (as the Nicene Creed states).

Once again, Nicea gets it right because the term “only begotten” (μονογενὴς) in John 1:18 does not have to imply that Jesus was “made,” but rather only that Jesus is uniquely God’s Son. It states a personal relationship to the Father not a temporal one. It is also possible to translate this verse so that the μονογενὴς is himself θεὸς, that is, God. Thus on this reading, in this one passage we have an affirmation that the “only begotten” is God, and that the Father is God and that the two are distinct from each other. Further, when we read this verse in light of John 17:5, we learn that the Son shared the Father’s glory before the cosmos—both the material universe and time itself—existed. If the Son existed before time began, then he existed in eternity, and therefore he certainly was not “made” because he could not be considered part of the cosmos that he pre-existed. As Paul put it, “15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15-17).

The “before” that I underlined can be taken in the sense of prominence or temporally or even in both senses. Here the context clearly supports either or both senses of “before,” since Jesus is both the means by which creation came into existence and the purpose for which creation exists in the first place. For Paul—a devout monothesistic Jew—to ascribe such language to a mere creature would be tantamount to blasphemy—unless of course Paul is ascribing such language to someone he believed to be God.

continued…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Continued from previous post…

1. The Holy Spirit is God.
   Show me where in Scripture it clearly demonstrates the Holy Spirit being a distinct divine person rather than what could simply be interpreted as a poetic description of God’s power in action (which is exactly how the Jews interpret the reference to the Spirit in such passages as Genesis 1:2).

Easily done. But first a note on your hermeneutics. The Jewish understanding of Genesis 1:2 does not determine the Christian reading of it. You see, we believe in progressive revelation and therefore we read the Old in light of the New and not the other way around. Second, I would urge caution in assuming that the genre of Genesis 1:2 is pure poetry and not also history. In any case, theological truths are no less true just because they may be expressed in poetry. But here I’m not even sure “poetry” is the right genre classification. (Personally, I see Genesis as historical narrative with a polemical purpose—i.e., to subvert the prevailing “creation myths” of the Ancient Near East by setting the record straight as to which God is the real creator and Lord of history. This is the God of Israel—and not the gods of ancient Mesopatomian civilizations.)

That said, the depicting of the spirit of God as one who “flutters” over the waters is only fully understood at Jesus’ baptism when the Holy Spirit—in the form of a dove—descends upon Jesus. There we see the description of the Spirit in “avian” terms (Hebrew: “flutter”; Greek “dove”). Since the Holy Spirit is distinguished from both the Son and the Father (the voice from heaven saying, “this is my Son…”), we have reason—in light of progressive revelation—for reading the “Spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2 as the Holy Spirit—distinct in person from God the Father and God the Son, but definitely among those who said, “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26).

But as for the clear New Testament teaching that the Spirit is a person—I would refer you first to Matthew 28:19 where we are baptized into the name of the Holy Spirit. Since no one disputes that the Father and the Son are persons into whose name we are baptized, it makes far more sense that the Holy Spirit is likewise a person rather than a non-person. If you study the word “name” in the New Testament (“onoma”) you will find that it refers to a person 224 out of the 228 times it is mentioned. The burden of proof, therefore, rests on those who would say that the Holy Spirit is an exception to the general rule.

Next when we move to John 14-16, we see that the Holy Spirit is a “helper” and “comforter.” John also uses masculine pronouns for the Holy Spirit, rather than the neuter pronouns that the grammar requires. Why change to masculine pronouns if the Holy Spirit is impersonal? The grammatically correct neuter pronouns would have worked just fine. Second, the word “paraclete” in Greek always refers to a person who acts as an advocate or legal adviser. We might think of a “paraclete” as a “paralegal assistant.” But when was the last time you met a paralegal who was not also a person? Thirdly, Jesus says he will send us “another” helper. That implies that there is a helper who is prior to the Holy Spirit. This helper/advocate—according to 1 John 2:1 is Jesus himself. But if Jesus can be described as an advocate and is also a person, then mutatis mutandis, why not the Holy Spirit? And notice what the Holy Spirit does: He can be “known” (14:16). He “dwells within us” (v. 17). He “teaches” and “reminds” (v. 26). He “bears witness” (15:26). These are all the actions of a person, and cannot be dismissed as mere “personifications.” When the Bible does use personification (of impersonal things) it is always in contexts where we have prior reason to believe that the thing being personified is not in fact a person. So, for example, when Paul personifies “Sin” in Romans 7 we know that this corresponds to an impersonal reality. But can the same be said of the Holy Spirit? Is there any reason to suppose that John 14-16 (not to mention all the evidence in Acts and the Synoptics) is nothing more than one long, sustained personification of something we ought to recognize as an impersonal “thing?” When Jesus tells us that we can “blaspheme the Holy Spirit,” are we to believe that the only sin for which there is not forgiveness is a sin committed against a non-person?

In the interest of time, I will spare you all the evidence from Acts which speaks of the Holy Spirit as a person, for I think the point has already been sufficiently established.

 

[PRmerger]

ok well i suppose to correct my ignorance i will need the following explained. Why is Jesus constantly depicted on the cross?

Because this was how we were saved.

But showing a statue of Jesus on the Cross does not equate to sacrificing him “at every Eucharist”.

Just like your showing Jesus as a baby in a manger at Christmas does not equate to keeping him a baby forever, right?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Continued from previous post…

1. The Father is not the Son and not the Holy Spirit.
2. The Son is not the Father and not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Holy Spirit is not the Father and not the Son.
   As I pointed out, these (and other aspects of the doctrine) can be interpreted in other ways for the simple fact that they have been in the past and still are today.

But do those other interpretations make as much sense as the Trinitarian ones, Eric? Once again, the mere fact that other interpretations exist does not mean those other interpretations have the same explanatory value as those of Trinitarianism. You seem to labor under this misconception—that the mere presence of an alternative hypothesis is itself reason to discredit or otherwise doubt the Trinitarian hypothesis. But once again, let this be decided by the quality of the arguments that support each hypothesis.

For example, according to the heresy of Modalism, the distinction between the three persons is simply a distinction in role.

This, however, makes no sense of the language of scripture, for it would require God having conversations with himself by pretending to be someone other than himself. Every time Jesus prays to the Father, for example, the Modalist would have to posit that God is praying to himself which means we would be required to read almost all of the interaction between Father, Son and Spirit as very contrived language for a unipersonal God acting as if he were three persons. But once again, to argue as you do, you have to validate the apriori of the Modalist—namely that there can only be one person per one being. In fact, we’ll pardon your attempt at playing the Unitarrian’s advocate on the grounds of ignorance of the skeptical premise you’re overlooking. But in point of fact, you ought to know better than to argue this way and if you continue to do so—well, then, shame on you, unless you truly believe that the Unitarian is justified in his assumption that there can only be one person for every one being that exits, including God. But how in the world would you begin to justify that assumption on scriptural grounds?

Miguel Sastre:

Which of these propositions here is truly up for grabs in your opinion? Which one requires “Sacred Tradition” in order to know that it is more likely true than its competitor?

EricFilmer:

See what I highlighted in purple text above.

Alas, this truly saddens me. The mere fact that you believe that several of the propositions of Trinitarian theology “could go either way,” suggests strongly that your choice to believe in those propositions is not well grounded. How do you know that you are right to believe as you do if, at the end of the day, your think that it is equally likely that Unitarianism is true?

 

[dogknox]

Back on track:
Sola Scriptura Is a man made TRADITION it first appeared sixteen hundred years AFTER Jesus!

LOGIC ALONE:
Jesus would not make an AUTHORITATIVE Church, with all of God’s AUTHORITY to Teach all nations, then have this same church then TEACH…“Man does not need to listen to the Church, all man needs is the scriptures”!

FACT: Until the printing press, there were very few bibles! (There was very few scriptures!) Bibles were costly works of art, only the very, very rich could own a bible! Besides most people could not even read!!

FACT: It was the Catholic Church that brought Jesus and salvation to the world, she TAUGHT, she PREACHED “Jesus and the Good News” to the world, for the first sixteen hundred years!

The FACT there are thousands and thousands of protestant churches but not one believes the same; PROVES beyond all doubt… “Man CANNOT interpret the scriptures”! This TRADITION of Sola Scriptura divided and conquered, it destroys man!! It is a lie from Satan himself!

**Dogknox **

 

[ibetrippin07]

Please cite the Scripture verse for this.

its really a matter of free will but here are some supports:
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)
“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

Chapter and verse for this, please.

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’"
acts 20:35
mark 3:13-19
Matt 10:5-15
I think these are enough to show what Jesus commanded and we find nothing apart from this in the NT

We need a Bible verse for this–something that mentions that authority comes from writing books or holding various doctorate degrees, please!

dont you know what it “means” when the apostles have authority? Its because they believe and are there first hand so they have the ultimate authority. It would be like if you wanted to know what Jesus said about divorce who would you consult? a random man on the street or an apostle who was directly taught under Jesus?
I dont think I need point out the dozens of scripture supporting they were taught directly from Jesus…

 

[ibetrippin07]

Fair enough.

Then are you saying that all one must do to enter heaven is confess “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead?

Yes, or no?

indeed, but if you understand this to mean “acknowledge” rather than obey and keep his commandments then this would be in error

 

[ibetrippin07]

Because this was how we were saved.

But showing a statue of Jesus on the Cross does not equate to sacrificing him “at every Eucharist”.

Just like your showing Jesus as a baby in a manger at Christmas does not equate to keeping him a baby forever, right?

fair enough, if it is purely symbolic and has no other purpose Im fine with that.

 

[ibetrippin07]

Back on track:
Sola Scriptura Is a man made TRADITION it first appeared sixteen hundred years AFTER Jesus!

Iv already shown how the bible is in support of sola scriptura. for you to induce this is a new doctrine started by protestants you indeed are in error.

LOGIC ALONE:
Jesus would not make an AUTHORITATIVE Church, with all of God’s AUTHORITY to Teach all nations, then have this same church then TEACH…“Man does not need to listen to the Church, all man needs is the scriptures”!

Im starting a topic on the meaning of Chruch right now. This is becoming rather annoying…

FACT: Until the printing press, there were very few bibles! (There was very few scriptures!) Bibles were costly works of art, only the very, very rich could own a bible! Besides most people could not even read!!

FACT: GUESS WHAT!? the bible is a COMPILATION of HOLY BOOKS…

FACT: It was the jewish apostles that brought Jesus and salvation to the world, she TAUGHT, she PREACHED “Jesus and the Good News” to the world, for the first sixteen hundred years!

^fixed

The FACT there are thousands and thousands of protestant churches but not one believes the same; PROVES beyond all doubt… “Man CANNOT interpret the scriptures”! This TRADITION of Sola Scriptura divided and conquered, it destroys man!! It is a lie from Satan himself!

all this proves is that man is taking his own interpretation backed by his own agenda to start his own series of churches. The Jews who are arguably similar to the catholics, split into different denomonations as well. but this still means nothing…

 

[dogknox]

DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL FACT>>>It was “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”!!!
That brought Jesus and salvation to the world, she TAUGHT, she PREACHED “Jesus and the Good News”, to the world,** for the first sixteen hundred years!**
FACT: Not one protestant church taught “Sola Scriptura” for sixteen hundred years…No not even one!!!

There were no PROTESTERS, there was NO REVOLT against, Jesus and his Holy Catholic Church, for sixteen hundred years!
The idea that; “Man does NOT need the CHURCH to find truth” is NOT LOGICAL, it is NOT Biblical!

FACT: Jesus never formed any protestant churches!! NOT one!!
All protestant churches are formed by men… Sixteen hundred years AFTER Jesus!

The Bible does NOT support “sola scriptura.”
The Bible says… “Listen to the CHURCH”!
The Bible says… “The scriptures are USEFUL to, TEACH, to TRAIN, to REBUKE and to CORRECT!!”
Scriptures do not TEACH or train or correct or rebuke… Teachers TEACH, train or correct or rebuke, they use books, books are USEFUL they are NOT ALONE used!!!
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Scriptures are very clear… Jesus made an AUTHORITATIVE Church…COMMISSIONED by God himself to** TEACH all Nations!!**
Matthew 28:20
and** teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always,** to the very end of the age.”

Jesus is “ALWAYS with his CHURCH”!
Jesus is NOT with any protestant churches, not even one…

ibetrippin07 Jesus did not START WITH any protestant churches, so he CAN’T ALWAYS be with any protestant churches!!

God is ALWAYS with his Holy Catholic Church, to the very end of the age"!!
ibetrippin07 To believe Protestantism is true, you** MUST** believe Jesus lied!!

FACT: You must believe; Jesus LEFT his church, you** MUST** believe Jesus lied, when he said…“I am with you ALWAYS, to the very end of the age”!

QUESTION: Did Jesus lie!? Y or N

Dogknox