J
Jason_L_Barnes
Guest
If you’re through with the doctrinal dance, Miguel, we would all like to see the Doctrine of the Trinity demonstrated SS style please. 
God bless!
God bless!
- Status
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Doctrinal dance?If you’re through with the doctrinal dance,Miguel, we would all like to see the Doctrine of the Trinity demonstrated SS style please.
God bless!
Did you miss where we already discussed the following premises? Here they are for your consideration, along with a single scripture text (though more could be cited):
- God is one. (Duet. 6:4)
- The Father is God. (Isa. 63:16)
- The Son is God. (Hebrews 1:8-12)
- The Holy Spirit is God. (2 Cor. 3:17).
- The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another. (Matt. 3:16-17)
Conclusion: In the one being, God, there exists three distinct persons–Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Hope that helps.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Do not Mormons and JWs also proclaim the above are true, yet come to a different conclusion, Miguel?
Thus, it appears that something outside of Scripture is required to come to the dogma of the Trinity.
D
dogknox
Guest
Miguel Sastre “Scripture ALONE” means protestants can’t teach a lick… If they do TEACH then “Scriptures are NOT ALONE!”
It becomes for them… “Scriptures** PLUS **the TEACHING”!
The protestant can’t scan the scriptures to see if the “TEACHING” is in line with the scriptures, because if it does NOT line with the scriptures, as they see scriptures, then the scriptures become "Scriptures PLUS their interpretation of scriptures" and NOT “Scriptures ALONE”!
Joseph Smith was raised Presbyterian; Joseph Smith read the exact same bible all protestants read today! Joseph Smith believed the Man made TRADITION of “Scripture ALONE” he believed as all protestant do, that “Each man can interpret the scriptures rightly!”
From his bible: Joseph Smith interpreted there was no true church left on the earth, so he formed one! Because of “Scripture Alone”, Joseph Smith had the RIGHT to decide truth!
He promptly formed his LDS Church, then declared “Satan was the Brother of Jesus”! Because of Scriptures ALONE; Joseph Smith had the right to form his church!!
No protestant can say “LDS” is wrong or Joseph Smith was WRONG not a christian or the protestant will have to admit; “Scripture ALONE” is a lie!
They will have to admit, “Man CAN’T interpret the scriptures and get it right, all the time!!”
Joseph Smith was protestant he “TAUGHT” his doctrine!! He was TEACHING protestant teaching with the right “Scripture ALONE” gave him!!
Dogknox
It becomes for them… “Scriptures** PLUS **the TEACHING”!
The protestant can’t scan the scriptures to see if the “TEACHING” is in line with the scriptures, because if it does NOT line with the scriptures, as they see scriptures, then the scriptures become "Scriptures PLUS their interpretation of scriptures" and NOT “Scriptures ALONE”!
Joseph Smith was raised Presbyterian; Joseph Smith read the exact same bible all protestants read today! Joseph Smith believed the Man made TRADITION of “Scripture ALONE” he believed as all protestant do, that “Each man can interpret the scriptures rightly!”
From his bible: Joseph Smith interpreted there was no true church left on the earth, so he formed one! Because of “Scripture Alone”, Joseph Smith had the RIGHT to decide truth!
He promptly formed his LDS Church, then declared “Satan was the Brother of Jesus”! Because of Scriptures ALONE; Joseph Smith had the right to form his church!!
No protestant can say “LDS” is wrong or Joseph Smith was WRONG not a christian or the protestant will have to admit; “Scripture ALONE” is a lie!
They will have to admit, “Man CAN’T interpret the scriptures and get it right, all the time!!”
Joseph Smith was protestant he “TAUGHT” his doctrine!! He was TEACHING protestant teaching with the right “Scripture ALONE” gave him!!
Dogknox
T
Timonator348
Guest
Unfortunately for most Protestants none of the “5 Solas” are Biblical when you consider the entire Bible. Really what Protestants mean by sola scriptura is “sola certain Bible verses”. Scripture nowhere says we are saved by faith alone (actually it says exactly the opposite, see James) or that we are to use Scripture alone as the sole rule of faith. The fact that certain verses can be twisted to make it seem as if this is the case is shortsighted to say the least
D
dogknox
Guest
Timonator348 Good point…
Question how would a protestant interpret this verse… Word for word…
Matthew 28… And surely I am with** you** always, to the very end of the age.
Knowing that when Jesus made this statement, there were no protestant churches! There were NO protestant churches for sixteen hundred years, AFTER Jesus said… “I am with you ALWAYS!”
Does the word “YOU” mean, Jesus is ALWAYS with any protestant bodies?!
I would think the protestant must reject this verse… To be “ALWAYS WITH” Jesus must have STARTED WITH!!!
Dogknox
Question how would a protestant interpret this verse… Word for word…
Matthew 28… And surely I am with** you** always, to the very end of the age.
Knowing that when Jesus made this statement, there were no protestant churches! There were NO protestant churches for sixteen hundred years, AFTER Jesus said… “I am with you ALWAYS!”
Does the word “YOU” mean, Jesus is ALWAYS with any protestant bodies?!
I would think the protestant must reject this verse… To be “ALWAYS WITH” Jesus must have STARTED WITH!!!
Dogknox
We’ve discussed before that SS does not exclude Traditon. It requires all teachings and teachers be accountable to it. You can disagree with SS all you want. I have no problem with that. It is obvious that our two communions differ on how to practice hermeunetics.Miguel Sastre “Scripture ALONE” means protestants can’t teach a lick… If they do TEACH then “Scriptures are NOT ALONE!”
It becomes for them… “Scriptures** PLUS **the TEACHING”!
The protestant can’t scan the scriptures to see if the “TEACHING” is in line with the scriptures, because if it does NOT line with the scriptures, as they see scriptures, then the scriptures become "Scriptures PLUS their interpretation of scriptures" and NOT “Scriptures ALONE”!
Joseph Smith was raised Presbyterian; Joseph Smith read the exact same bible all protestants read today! Joseph Smith believed the Man made TRADITION of “Scripture ALONE” he believed as all protestant do, that “Each man can interpret the scriptures rightly!”
From his bible: Joseph Smith interpreted there was no true church left on the earth, so he formed one! Because of “Scripture Alone”, Joseph Smith had the RIGHT to decide truth!
He promptly formed his LDS Church, then declared “Satan was the Brother of Jesus”! Because of Scriptures ALONE; Joseph Smith had the right to form his church!!
No protestant can say “LDS” is wrong or Joseph Smith was WRONG not a christian or the protestant will have to admit; “Scripture ALONE” is a lie!
They will have to admit, “Man CAN’T interpret the scriptures and get it right, all the time!!”
Joseph Smith was protestant he “TAUGHT” his doctrine!! He was TEACHING protestant teaching with the right “Scripture ALONE” gave him!!
Dogknox
You, however, are disagreeing with a misunderstanding of sola scriptura.
The Formula of Concord says:
No mention of personal interpretation. In fact, SS protects us from people like Smith.
Further:
Under your poor understanding of SS, we could not claim to “pledge ourselves” to the Creeds.
Your disagreeing with an understanding that is wrong is exactly the same as when some protestants rail against and condemn the invocation of saints and the Blessed Virgin
as idolatry and necromancy, when it is nothing of the sort.
Jon
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
No. Mormons teach that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, that Heavenly Father was once a man and that exalted Mormons can one day become God of their own planet/universe. The JWs deny that the Son is divine. In other words, both groups deny one or more of the premises I outlined in my previous post.
Another non-sequitur. Once again, the fact that someone draws a different conclusion need only imply that they are wrong–not that the scriptures are unclear. But even were we to grant your skeptical premise, what is that “something outside of scripture” that can fill in the gaps in our knowledge and/or give additional clarity to the issue? What more is needed in your opinion?
J
john_aurelius
Guest
I think Sola Scriptura is great. After all, the Bereans were praised because they weren’t willing to deny that every doctrine should be compared with the Sacred Writings.
After all, the Holy Spirit will not contradict himself.
My understanding of Lutheranism is that whatever is not forbidden by Scripture is also allowed (as opposed to the Calvinist regulative principle).
After all, the Holy Spirit will not contradict himself.
My understanding of Lutheranism is that whatever is not forbidden by Scripture is also allowed (as opposed to the Calvinist regulative principle).
I
inkaneer
Guest
Well, first of all you got it backwards when you say that sola scriptura requires Tradition be accountable to it. For the early church the original test for any writing to be considered for and included in, the canon of scripture, was that it support the Oral Tradition which was far more voluminous than the Written Tradition. That being the case how can the Oral Tradition be held accountable to something that is accountable to the Oral Tradition??? I have said it before and I will keep on saying it till someone here takes the time to read the history of why it was necessary in the late fourth century to codify the New Testament. Why then and not before or after? The reason for the need to have the canon of scripture defined was Gnosticism. The scriptures were codified to preserve unity in the church so that churches in different locales would have the same readings used at the celebration of the Eucharist. The intent was for liturgical worship and not to formulate a self study guide to christianity. That is a protestant perversion.
As for personal interpretation not being mentioned it appears you miss the forest because too many trees are in the way. So let’s back up a little. If, as the Formula of Concord states, “… the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone;” then scripture has to be the tool that any protestant has to use. He cannot rely on his preacher’s interpretation or that of his bishop (if he has one), nor a theologian, nor (God forbid) a pope. He is on his own to apply scripture and arrive at a conclusion. The protestant, in effect becomes his own preacher, his own bishop, his own theologian and (horrors of horrors), his own pope! Private interpretation is the corrollary to sola scriptura whether you want to admit it or not. Scripture is the puppet whose mouth is moved by the protestant puppet master but the words are those of the puppet master.
P
Philthy
Guest
Miguel -
Are you claiming that this is a definitive Scriptural presentation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Yes or No?
P
PRmerger
Guest
You did not post any “premises”, Miguel. You posted Scripture verses. The very same ones that they use to deny the Trinity.
That’s exactly our point. You posted verses, and they read the very same verses. Yet come to a completely different understanding.
It is only through a non-Scriptural authority–the Catholic Church–that you have come to the revelation of the Trinity.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Logic dictates a different conclusion, Miguel.
The existence of tens of thousands of different Christian denominations attests to the fact that the Scriptures indeed are quite un-clear.
Heck, even a simple verse, seemingly quite clear, that “baptism now saves you” isn’t, well, isn’t* clear *enough to have a universal Christian understanding of baptism.
We still have disagreements as to whether it’s
- a sacrament or an ordinance
- to be done in infancy or adulthood
- better to be in a river or in a font
- to be done by sprinkling or immersion
- valid using the Trinitarian formula or in Jesus’ name only
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Did you see my words, “the basics of the Trinity?” If so, then I don’t know how your question could arise.
What I am claiming is that each of those premises is established by scripture. Since sola scriptura is the claim that doctrine must be stated plainly in scripture or deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence, then I think I have established the Trinity using sola scriptura as historically understood rather than as habitually misrepresented in this thread.
Now the question becomes, which of those premises would you eliminate and on what basis would you eliminate it/them?
D
dogknox
Guest
JonNC You post The Formula of Concord:
1.** We believe, teach, and confess **that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
2]** Other writings,** however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear,** must not be regarded as equal** to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
**Simply **The Standard to JUDGE teachers and dogmas are the scriptures!
Your CONCORD is "Other writings"!!
FACTS Are; You can’t trust your CONCORD over the scriptures… Show me scriptures that say…
“Man does NOT need to listen to the Church”!
Show me scriptures that say… “Scriptures is all Man needs”!
JonNC The scriptures say… “They are USEFUL for teaching!”
Joseph TAUGHT “There is NO church left on earth!!”
Joseph believed “All the scriptures, the sole rule is the scriptures!” He like you is protestant! You are wrong and he is right… Who are you to judge, Joseph Smith!?
JonNC One protestant TEACHES “Man CANNOT loose salvation!”
Another protestant TEACHES “Man CAN loose salvation”!
One is clearly the spawn of Satan … Both got their TEACHING from scriptures!
Both believe the scriptures are their “Sole rule”!!!
You can’t judge who is right and who is wrong… “You are NOT scriptures you are just a man!”
Both have to be accepted as protestant both have to be accepted as “Believers” yet they are polar opposites!!
Proving the lie of " the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures
Dogknox
1.** We believe, teach, and confess **that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
2]** Other writings,** however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear,** must not be regarded as equal** to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
**Simply **The Standard to JUDGE teachers and dogmas are the scriptures!
Your CONCORD is "Other writings"!!
FACTS Are; You can’t trust your CONCORD over the scriptures… Show me scriptures that say…
“Man does NOT need to listen to the Church”!
Show me scriptures that say… “Scriptures is all Man needs”!
JonNC The scriptures say… “They are USEFUL for teaching!”
Joseph TAUGHT “There is NO church left on earth!!”
Joseph believed “All the scriptures, the sole rule is the scriptures!” He like you is protestant! You are wrong and he is right… Who are you to judge, Joseph Smith!?
JonNC One protestant TEACHES “Man CANNOT loose salvation!”
Another protestant TEACHES “Man CAN loose salvation”!
One is clearly the spawn of Satan … Both got their TEACHING from scriptures!
Both believe the scriptures are their “Sole rule”!!!
You can’t judge who is right and who is wrong… “You are NOT scriptures you are just a man!”
Both have to be accepted as protestant both have to be accepted as “Believers” yet they are polar opposites!!
Proving the lie of " the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures
Dogknox
No, I don’t have it backwards. It is your opinion, and perhaps that of your communion, that the practice of SS is backwards, but I do not have sola scriptura backwards.
Apparently, that didn’t work out too well, because by 1054 there was a lack of unity, and different Churches in Apostolic Succession were using different canons. And again, while there is nothing wrong with scripture being a self-study guide, that has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
No. Scripture has to be the tool the Church uses, not “any protestant”. I am not my own preacher or bishop (I’m not ordained), and there is only one Pope.
You are quite welcome to insist that personal interpretation is a corrollary to SS. As I told another poster, your insistance regarding what SS is or isn’t is as relevent as the protestant who (wrongly) insists that Catholics worship (latria) the Blessed Virgin.
Jon
J
john_aurelius
Guest
Actually, the Scriptures are all that is necessary for salvation…
Paul wrote to Timothy “…that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Tim. 3: 15
And this is refering to the OT.
Paul wrote to Timothy “…that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Tim. 3: 15
And this is refering to the OT.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Then surely you must not know what a premise is.
Actually, I stated several propositions and then gave a scriptural reference to support those propositions. But since scripture verses can function as premises in an argument, your objection is moot anyway.
Which proves nothing more than that they deny these propositions. But that doesn’t mean a thing. You keep clinging to this notion that dissent implies a lack of clarity. But I don’t think you really believe that. Here’s why:
Catholic claim: Rome is infallible. (Affirmation)
Protestant and Orthodox response: Rome is not infallible. (Dissent)
Ergo: It is “unclear” that Rome is infallible.
Ergo: If Rome claims the Trinity is true, we still can’t be sure since it isn’t “clear” that Rome is infallible.
So unless you’re using a double standard (and it sure looks like you, Eric, Philthy et alia are), I don’t see how you can claim that the infallibility of the Roman Magisterium is “clear” in scripture, but that the Trinity is not.
So what?
And you know this how?
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is an excellent point.
The Christian faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to paper (or papyrus, as the case might be.
)
P
PRmerger
Guest
To state in advance as an introduction or explanation.
So, watch how this works.
You “state in advance” a belief, and then support it by Scripture.
Is this really how you want to argue Sola Scriptura and the Trinity?
'Cause it surely *sounds *like an argument for “tradition”, no?
Yup. You have the propositions, before Scripture. [SIGN]That’s called tradition. [/SIGN]
- Status