Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter suzyq_psu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To CopticChristian…

(quote)Bare,

Ok. Got that one, now that it is out of the way…tell me this…

Wait a minute here! If you really *GOT THAT ONE! You wouldn’t need to ask any further, as to where I’m coming from!
Further CC… there are related in NT scriptures five baptisims. I won’t refer to them, for it would require more information as to what, and which baptism/s are you referring?

Do you have to be Baptized to be a Christian?

Do you have to believe before you are Baptized?

Do you believe that babies should be Baptized?

Do you profess Sacraments or 2 ordinances?

What version of the Bible do you use…so I can check your syntax…?

CC. to know that the scriptures used are the Word of God in whatever translation you would use, should be enough for any Christian. For it is not the letter that counts, but the Spirit of the letter that gives life…

Sincerely In Christ.

Barelohim.
 
To CopticChristian…

(quote)Bare,

Ok. Got that one, now that it is out of the way…tell me this…

Wait a minute here! If you really *GOT THAT ONE! You wouldn’t need to ask any further, as to where I’m coming from!
Further CC… there are related in NT scriptures five baptisims. I won’t refer to them, for it would require more information as to what, and which baptism/s are you referring?

Do you have to be Baptized to be a Christian?

Do you have to believe before you are Baptized?

Do you believe that babies should be Baptized?

Do you profess Sacraments or 2 ordinances?

What version of the Bible do you use…so I can check your syntax…?

CC. to know that the scriptures used are the Word of God in whatever translation you would use, should be enough for any Christian. For it is not the letter that counts, but the Spirit of the letter that gives life…

Sincerely In Christ.

Barelohim.
Bare,

Since I have to choose…lets see, the fire., eny-meeny-miny…Ok Mo…Ok…lets go with Water…

Do you have to be Water Baptized to be a Christian?

Do you have to believe before you are Water Baptized?

Do you believe that babies should be Water Baptized?

Do you profess Sacraments or 2 ordinances?

What version of the Bible do you use…so I can check your syntax…?

Ok so its not the letter, now are we talking letter to the Romans? Ephesians…and since you earlier pointed out Spirit…and you said Jesus is the Holy Spirit…help me out here…
 
Dear CC…(Bare,

I think he is saying that if it is invisible then you can’t see it and if it is invisible you can’t touch it nor can you find it because it is invisible and that makes it difficult when you consider that if you have eyes that see and ears that hear if it is invisible then you are out of luck in finding what it is you cannot see or hear because if you think about it if believers that think it is invisible when they go there and try to find out how to get there will be lost since they know it is invisible and if it is invisible then how can they hear anything unless it is visible…so you are better off being blind and deaf because you in as good a position to find the invisible as it is absent from our senses…

I think that is it…

Something like Faith hey CC… Faith is the assurance, the evidence… not the thing hoped for or as yet unseen… You do understand that all things that are visible were made from that which was invisible. For the invisible is more real than the tangible, temporary, or temporal…

Might I ask CC, why members text one another, concerning a third,or fourth party, about what has been written, rather than keeping the dialogue between the two of them?
Kinda like talking behind someones back, knowing that they are right there listening?

Kinda makes one look like a gossiper, do you think?

Sincerely In Christ
Barelohim.
 
Might I ask CC, why members text one another, concerning a third,or fourth party, about what has been written, rather than keeping the dialogue between the two of them?
Kinda like talking behind someones back, knowing that they are right there listening?

Kinda makes one look like a gossiper, do you think?

Sincerely In Christ
Barelohim.
You are comparing those who do not accept “sola scriptura” as gossipers?
:confused:
 
CC.
Ok so its not the letter, now are we talking letter to the Romans? Ephesians…and since you earlier pointed out Spirit…and you said Jesus is the Holy Spirit…help me out here…
Reply With Quote

CC, I don’t think I can help you out. It really hurts my heart and spirit to say so. Reminds me when Jesus had to speak to His disciples, about their lack of understanding. Paul said the same to some of his disciples…

They didn’t understand, until the Spirit came, and abode within them. THEN they understood what Jesus, and thus also Paul was saying…

Have you received the Holy spirit since you became a believer in Christ? Do you have any of the manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit according to 1 Cor. 12. Have you seen the character of Christ begining to be seen in you? Do you KNOW HIS VOICE!

Sincerely In Christ
Barelohim.
 
Dear CC…(Bare,

I think he is saying that if it is invisible then you can’t see it and if it is invisible you can’t touch it nor can you find it because it is invisible and that makes it difficult when you consider that if you have eyes that see and ears that hear if it is invisible then you are out of luck in finding what it is you cannot see or hear because if you think about it if believers that think it is invisible when they go there and try to find out how to get there will be lost since they know it is invisible and if it is invisible then how can they hear anything unless it is visible…so you are better off being blind and deaf because you in as good a position to find the invisible as it is absent from our senses…

**
I think that is it… **

Something like Faith hey CC… Faith is the assurance, the evidence… not the thing hoped for or as yet unseen… You do understand that all things that are visible were made from that which was invisible. For the invisible is more real than the tangible, temporary, or temporal…

Might I ask CC, why members text one another, concerning a third,or fourth party, about what has been written, rather than keeping the dialogue between the two of them?
Kinda like talking behind someones back, knowing that they are right there listening?

Kinda makes one look like a gossiper, do you think?

Sincerely In Christ
Barelohim.
Bare,

You are a good teacher…I wasn’t sure but you confirmed that I got it…👍

Now as I understand it Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen…and if you did not know it this dude I know wrote something called “Saved in Hope” that equates Hope and Faith in a marvelous way…

Now you really have me wondering. Texting? I have been getting these wierd messages on my cell phone with symbols. You know I actually went down to the Sprint store and they did not have a clue…blamed it on the storm or something…You will have to explain what it is you mean about texting…

Now, Bare…I am still waiting for a response to this…
Since I have to choose…lets see, the fire., eny-meeny-miny…Ok Mo…Ok…lets go with Water…
Do you have to be Water Baptized to be a Christian?
Do you have to believe before you are Water Baptized?
Do you believe that babies should be Water Baptized?
Do you profess Sacraments or 2 ordinances?
What version of the Bible do you use…so I can check your syntax…?
Ok so its not the letter, now are we talking letter to the Romans? Ephesians…and since you earlier pointed out Spirit…and you said Jesus is the Holy Spirit…help me out here…
 
You are comparing those who do not accept “sola scriptura” as gossipers?
:confused:
Just,

Please. Did you not see the question as to texting. I didn’t understand that either but I did not draw any conclusions. I asked for clarification. Let Bare explain this.🙂
 
You are comparing those who do not accept “sola scriptura” as gossipers?
:confused:
Your apparent gossiping was referring to your open discussions with another member, about a dialogue you and I were, and are having, KNOWING that I am right here, and able to hear your conversation with them.

And that is what this point was about CC.

Sincerely In Christ
Barelohim…
 
Your apparent gossiping was referring to your open discussions with another member, about a dialogue you and I were, and are having, KNOWING that I am right here, and able to hear your conversation with them.

And that is what this point was about CC.

Sincerely In Christ
Barelohim…
Bare,

I understand. This is a public forum. I understand your disontent. People just jump in and out as they wish. I have had that same problem too. I have been reprimanded now and again by someone not liking me jumping in and you know it just happens. Do not take offense. People just do that. Sometimes I will say…I know you didn’t address me, but I could not help but notice or something like that…but everyone is different.

Forgive me if I do that. Forgive them if they do that. It is not done with malice.
 
Bare,
Are you saying you have some spiritual insight the rest of us don’t? And if you are, could you please enlighten us as to why?
 
To CopticChristian…

(quote)Bare,

Ok. Got that one, now that it is out of the way…tell me this…

Wait a minute here! If you really *GOT THAT ONE! You wouldn’t need to ask any further, as to where I’m coming from!
Further CC… there are related in NT scriptures five baptisims. I won’t refer to them, for it would require more information as to what, and which baptism/s are you referring?

Do you have to be Baptized to be a Christian?

Do you have to believe before you are Baptized?

Do you believe that babies should be Baptized?

Do you profess Sacraments or 2 ordinances?

What version of the Bible do you use…so I can check your syntax…?

CC. to know that the scriptures used are the Word of God in whatever translation you would use, should be enough for any Christian. For it is not the letter that counts, but the Spirit of the letter that gives life…

Sincerely In Christ.

Barelohim.
Bare - you are keeping everyone in suspense with a lack of response. A lack of an answer seems pretty defensive. Why so? We won’t kick you off like c**m.org does to Catholics who stand up to their faith. Also, if you are baptist or whatever you are, I’d proudly put it in my header. Actually, thank you for posting. 😉
 
The problem with “invisible Church” is that it implies one can’t see it. Our confessions say, however, it is where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. For the sacraments to be administered there must be some form of established visible Church.
Visible enough that I know where to go to receive the means of grace.

Jon
AMEN - 👍

And also somewhere to go when we have problems, confusions and dissensions among even good and sincere Brothers in Christ.
Someone we can “tell it to” and “Listen to”.

Peace
James
 
Do you know James, that even those of the Jewish faith, have two books… The Torah, and the teachings of the rabbiis… One the written laws/precepts, and the oral law of the rabbis… Today, and conflict between the written law of Moses, and the oral law of the rabbiis, the oral law takes precedent over the written law… Tradition has taken over from the written word. I find a parallel here in your comments.
Perhaps you DO see a parallel…but that does not make what you see correct…
You agree there is an invisible head of the church, but also a visible head of the church. And you ask that believers who are in error if they believe more certainly in the invisible to change and accept the visible over the invisible! Have I stated that rightly?
No you have not stated rightly.

I ask you to examine the evidences I provided earlier From Scripture and, like the Bereans, see if what I say is not true.
I provided multiple, interlocking examples, from multiple authors that demonstrate the following:
  • That Christ himself instructed that there be a visible ekklesia with authority to “bind and loose” - “whatever”. These are Jesus’ own words - not mine.
  • Again by our Lord’s own voice, He instructed that we tell our problems to “the Church” and that we “Listen to The Church”.
  • That - from the voice of our Lord as well as Sts Peter and Paul the exhortation of unity is given, prayed for and repeated multiple times…
  • That the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture and caused it to be assembled into a single volume - chose to have these things recorded AND included in the volume we call the Holy Bible.
  • That by the voice of St Paul, not only are we told that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of faith, but that it is through the Church that God makes His wisdom known to the world.
I ask you to examine this very carefully - Christ prayed be we one - as He and the Father are one. He instructed there to be a single ekklesia with authority, and we know this to be true by the example given in Acts 15. Not only that, but we know that the decision by the council to set aside a large part of “Scripture” as it was practiced at the time, was done so because “it seemed good to the Holy spirit and to us (the church leadership in council)…”(Acts 15:28)

The Holy Spirit protects councils.

So examine this and see. If you would follow Christ. If you would be true to Scripture as recorded and preserved by the Holy Spirit of God, then it is necessary that you accept that Christ Himself established a visible and authoritative Church.

And by recognizing this you will come to see that He acts within and through that Church - not separately from it.

THEN -

And as a correction to your comments above - it is not a matter of accepting the visible over the invisible, but rather accepting the invisible within the visible.
After all - In our conversations here, it is not yourself that you wish me to see and believe - but that which lives within you…correct? Same with His Church…

Now -

If you examine the above and find fault with it. I would be happy to read your equally compelling and scriptural evidence for a Christ founded church that has no universal authority, is based on bible alone, AND is permitted to have, among it’s many branches and locations - conflicting doctrinal positions on matters that are of import to the salvation of souls.
Show me such a church structure described in Scripture…

Peace
James
 
Originally Posted by CopticChristian
Bare,

You make no sense.
Oh, so its just not me. I thought I getting some form of early senility. :cool:
JL: He makes no sense to me either. In one post I thought he was OSAS in another I thought he was one of the ONENESS Pentacostal groups. Another post seem to indicate he believes in the Trinity. Another seems to say Christ was not God but just a man. It would make things alot easier if he would just tell us the name of his faith group. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
 
onemangang said:
Phineas

I think you have taken the view that many BIBLE ONLY Christians should take, if one is of the belief that, there was never any conferring given by God, to men. If that be true, then the natural conclusion to your premise is logical.

No, I have never, and do not think most “Bible first” advocates have ever, believed that God has never conferred upon men positions of authority in His church on earth. I firmly believe it is scriptural that Christians unite, organize in local, regional or even worldwide churches and ordain leaders as moved by the Holy Spirit. Such church organizations have the authority to bind and to loose, but only in accordance with the word of God. God is the author of all scripture it would be utterly chaotic to have church leaders so presumptuous as to bind and loose in direct opposition to the teachings of scripture. God is not an author of confusion and the scriptures are not to be altered or broken. (Matt 5:17-19 and John 10:35).

The authority to bind and to loose was not given only to Peter (Matt 16:19) but to the apostles and the church ( Matt 18:18) The concept of “binding and loosing was commonly used among the Jewish people in relation to the authority of the rabbis to forbid and permit certain practices. Jesus gave Peter and the apostles authority over both the doctrine and practices of the first-century church. Through the leading of the Holy Spirit, they would be given wisdom to know what to forbid and what to permit.

When looking at the context of Matthew 18:18. one can see what was to be bound or loosed . The passages of Matt15-17 speak of a “brother [who] transgresses” (verse 15), reprove him (verse 15), “witnesses” (verse 16), “church” (verse 17), and excommunication (“let him be to you as a “heathen man and a publican”” (verse 17, ) leave no doubt that the passage is about church discipline. Including excommunication. This is the context for verse 18 , which says “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Taking Matthew 18:15–20 in context, Jesus was authorizing church leaders to follow a specific process to preserve the purity and witness of the church. Leaders are designated to protect the honor of God and His church, and, to rebuke, correct or, if need be, dismiss members who persist in sinful lifestyles. Their decisions are authoritative and binding.

According to Greek grammarians, the tense in Matt. 16:19 and Matt 18:18 are periphrastic future perfect, which is the equivalent of the future perfect. This type of construction occurs rarely in the New Testament “The future perfect denotes an action that will be already finished at some future time. It is thus a perfect transferred to the future.” “It is a future action as completed in relation to another future action. Hence a future prior to another future.” In other words,whatever has been first approved in Heaven will done by his true church on earth .

Good explanation of this is as follows:
“Lest we take the traditional translation of these words to the extreme, we need to note that this text does not grant unbridled human influence on the decrees of God. Authoritative Greek reference grammars note that we need to render verse 18: “whatever you shall bind on earth shall have [already] been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have [already] been loosed in heaven.” Christian leaders are to reflect the will of God in their decision making, not generate it. A**s with many other Scripture passages, this one teaches us as His servants to do His will rather than requiring that He do our will (Matthew 6:10; 7:21; 26:39; Romans 12:1; Ephesians 5:10,17; Col 1:9,10).” ** W.E. Nunnally, Ph.D., professor of Early Judaism and Christian Origins, Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri
Code:
**Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven**.Matt 6:10
It is definitely not God’s will, as has been clearly stated by Jesus, that the church on earth break any one of His ten commandments or strip Him of His Lordship of the Sabbath.
 
onemangang said:
Phineas

I think you have taken the view that many BIBLE ONLY Christians should take, if one is of the belief that, there was never any conferring given by God, to men. If that be true, then the natural conclusion to your premise is logical.

**No, I have never, and do not think most “Bible first” advocates have ever, believed that God has never conferred upon men positions of authority in His church on earth. **I firmly believe it is scriptural that Christians unite, organize in local, regional or even worldwide churches and ordain leaders as moved by the Holy Spirit. Such church organizations have the authority to bind and to loose, but only in accordance with the word of God. God is the author of all scripture it would be utterly chaotic to have church leaders so presumptuous as to bind and loose in direct opposition to the teachings of scripture. God is not an author of confusion and the scriptures are not to be altered or broken. (Matt 5:17-19 and John 10:35).

The authority to bind and to loose was not given only to Peter (Matt 16:19) but to the apostles and the church ( Matt 18:18) The concept of “binding and loosing was commonly used among the Jewish people in relation to the authority of the rabbis to forbid and permit certain practices. Jesus gave Peter and the apostles authority over both the doctrine and practices of the first-century church. Through the leading of the Holy Spirit, they would be given wisdom to know what to forbid and what to permit.

When looking at the context of Matthew 18:18. one can see what was to be bound or loosed . The passages of Matt15-17 speak of a “brother [who] transgresses” (verse 15), reprove him (verse 15), “witnesses” (verse 16), “church” (verse 17), and excommunication (“let him be to you as a “heathen man and a publican”” (verse 17, ) leave no doubt that the passage is about church discipline. Including excommunication. This is the context for verse 18 , which says “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Taking Matthew 18:15–20 in context, Jesus was authorizing church leaders to follow a specific process to preserve the purity and witness of the church. Leaders are designated to protect the honor of God and His church, and, to rebuke, correct or, if need be, dismiss members who persist in sinful lifestyles. Their decisions are authoritative and binding.

According to Greek grammarians, the tense in Matt. 16:19 and Matt 18:18 are periphrastic future perfect, which is the equivalent of the future perfect. This type of construction occurs rarely in the New Testament “The future perfect denotes an action that will be already finished at some future time. It is thus a perfect transferred to the future.” “It is a future action as completed in relation to another future action. Hence a future prior to another future.” In other words,whatever has been first approved in Heaven will done by his true church on earth .

Good explanation of this is as follows:
“Lest we take the traditional translation of these words to the extreme, we need to note that this text does not grant unbridled human influence on the decrees of God. Authoritative Greek reference grammars note that we need to render verse 18: “whatever you shall bind on earth shall have [already] been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have [already] been loosed in heaven.” Christian leaders are to reflect the will of God in their decision making, not generate it. A**s with many other Scripture passages, this one teaches us as His servants to do His will rather than requiring that He do our will (Matthew 6:10; 7:21; 26:39; Romans 12:1; Ephesians 5:10,17; Col 1:9,10).” ** W.E. Nunnally, Ph.D., professor of Early Judaism and Christian Origins, Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri
Code:
**Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven**.Matt 6:10
It is definitely not God’s will, as has been clearly stated by Jesus, that the church on earth break any one of His ten commandments or strip Him of His Lordship of the Sabbath.
Phinny,

I figured it out. There has been no man that has been conferred the power on Earth. Ellen White is a woman.👍
 
Phineas - Very interesting post…I know it is addressed to another but I hope you don’t mind my commenting…
No, I have never, and do not think most “Bible first” advocates have ever, believed that God has never conferred upon men positions of authority in His church on earth.
Firmly agree with this, but then the form that this belief takes will depend on which tradition of “Bible first advocates” one talks to.
I firmly believe it is scriptural that Christians unite, organize in local, regional or even worldwide churches and ordain leaders as moved by the Holy Spirit. Such church organizations have the authority to bind and to loose, but only in accordance with the word of God. God is the author of all scripture it would be utterly chaotic to have church leaders so presumptuous as to bind and loose in direct opposition to the teachings of scripture. God is not an author of confusion and the scriptures are not to be altered or broken. (Matt 5:17-19 and John 10:35).
Well Said…
Now - What should these organizations do if and when then note that another organization holds to bible based doctrines that are different from their own? And when I say different I mean in conflict - and the difference is in an area that deals with matters of salvific import such as:
  1. The real presence (if you do not eat…you have no life in you…John 6:53 )
  2. The necessity of water Baptism
  3. The permissibility of abortion inducing contraceptives (Murder is grave sin)
I do not bring these up as specifics to debate but rather as items on which various christian groups disagree…teaching conflicting things and claiming the bible (and the guidance of the Spirit) as justification.

What should the groups, “organized in local, regional or even worldwide churches and (with) ordain(ed) leaders as moved by the Holy Spirit”, do when they look at another “Christian” organization, and see them teaching a “different Gospel” or some important doctrine contrary to what your organization holds?

To me - the answer to this question - following this to it’s logical conclusion is the surest way to coming to know the NT Church that Christ intended.
The authority to bind and to loose was not given only to Peter (Matt 16:19) but to the apostles and the church ( Matt 18:18) The concept of “binding and loosing was commonly used among the Jewish people in relation to the authority of the rabbis to forbid and permit certain practices. Jesus gave Peter and the apostles authority over both the doctrine and practices of the first-century church. Through the leading of the Holy Spirit, they would be given wisdom to know what to forbid and what to permit.
Completely agree
When looking at the context of Matthew 18:18. one can see what was to be bound or loosed . The passages of Matt15-17 speak of a “brother [who] transgresses” (verse 15), reprove him (verse 15), “witnesses” (verse 16), “church” (verse 17), and excommunication (“let him be to you as a “heathen man and a publican”” (verse 17, ) leave no doubt that the passage is about church discipline. Including excommunication. This is the context for verse 18 , which says “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Taking Matthew 18:15–20 in context, Jesus was authorizing church leaders to follow a specific process to preserve the purity and witness of the church. Leaders are designated to protect the honor of God and His church, and, to rebuke, correct or, if need be, dismiss members who persist in sinful lifestyles. Their decisions are authoritative and binding.
Likewise agree but with one question as regards verse 15…The Greek used here is:
Hamartano
To be without a share in; to miss the mark; to err, be mistaken; to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor; to do or go wrong; to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
Would you say that the apostles would consider “teaching a false Gospel” to be a sin? - a transgression?
If your answer is yes, then it follows that, in context, this passage authorizes a “specific process to preserve the purity and witness of the Church” on doctrinal matters as well as “sinful lifestyles”. In this I see a wonderful illustration of the above passage contained in Acts 15.
According to Greek grammarians, …(Snip)
No Problem there…

Peace
James
 
Do you know James, that even those of the Jewish faith, have two books… The Torah, and the teachings of the rabbiis… One the written laws/precepts, and the oral law of the rabbis… Today, and conflict between the written law of Moses, and the oral law of the rabbiis, the oral law takes precedent over the written law… Tradition has taken over from the written word. I find a parallel here in your comments.
It seems that oral law always has precedence over the written law. This is true because the written law is simply marks on parchment–completly material. Only when a mind looks at the marks and the marks generate ideas in the reader’s mind is there meaning. And those ideas and meanings are oral. To repeat, notions in the mind are oral. When Luther or Calvin or Wesley or Ellen White teach something, their oral teachings now take precedence over the written.

Do not think that Luther’s, Calvin’s, Wesley’s, Ellen White’s teachings are scriptural teachings. No, they are teachings of humans, of “rabbis,” which become human traditions. Without the oral traditions in the human mind, the written marks are mute.

You may say that the Holy Spirit guides you. Maybe. But that is a hard sell when it is seen that the Holy Spirit is guiding different teachers in different directions. And, besides, if the Holy Spirit is guiding, then it is not scripture but the Holy Spirit that is the source of ideas. Scripture becomes unnecessary.
 
Object Lesson on Importance of Sola Scriptura

Errors of the so called Church fathers submitted by Porknpie

Quoted by Porknpie
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, … that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

Here we have a statement purported to be from Ignatius saying Christians no longer have to keep one of the commandments of God… In addition Ignatius transplants the Lord’s day from Sabbath to Sunday and intimates that the Sabbath was the “old order of things”. Are the other commandments also the “old order of things”? He doesn’t dare say. By whose authority were these changes made? -certainly not by Jesus whom he calls his master. What did Jesus say about this:
Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

“On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that ‘His soul hateth;’ which Sabbath He in His body abolished.” Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).

He now fasts rigorously on that day to avoid appearing as observing a Sabbath with Jews. Does he also steal and murder that he not be observed as keeping the other commandments as the Jews do?

Here Victorinus shows his complete ignorance of the word of God. He is referring to Isa 1:13-14 which speaks of the 7 yearly feast days which are also yearly Sabbaths. This is part of the ceremonial law, and even then God did not hate those feast days, but rather he hated the hypocritical manner in which they observed them.

God, of course, would never hate one of His own commandments. Read further in Isaiah and you will find His displeasure in His people for not keeping properly the Sabbath commandment. His Sabbath was to be a delight. See Isa 58:13-14

“They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we.” Eusebius, Church History, 1:4,8 (A.D. 312).

Here is another example of either complete ignorance of God’s word or purposeful deception. Paul kept the Sabbath and never spoke against it. None of the apostles was ever accused of breaking the Sabbath command or teaching others to do so. But most important is the fact that the Sabbath one of the commandments of God while circumcision was not and was part of the ceremonial law nailed to the cross.

“Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord’s day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost.” Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).

So after shunning the Sabbath day and erroneously calling it part of the ceremonial law for the Jews, we now have a church father keeping Pentecost, a yearly Sabbath and feast day, and a true part of the ceremonial law. Does that make any sense to anyone?

So Coptic Christian, after reading all the NT verses on Paul keeping the Sabbath and preaching to the Gentiles on that day, now reads the above completely erroneous statements from professed “church fathers” that Porknpie submitted, and he professes to be confused.

, “Why halt thee between two opinions?” If the Scripture be true then follow them. if the traditions of men take precedence, then follow them. “Choose you this day whom you will serve”

May Jesus never say of us,“Ye do err in not knowing the scriptures” (Matt 22:29)
 
Object Lesson on Importance of Sola Scriptura

Errors of the so called Church fathers submitted by Porknpie

Quoted by Porknpie
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, … that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

Here we have a statement purported to be from Ignatius saying Christians no longer have to keep one of the commandments of God… In addition Ignatius transplants the Lord’s day from** Sabbath** to Sunday and intimates that the Sabbath was the “old order of things”. Are the other commandments also the “old order of things”? He doesn’t dare say. By whose authority were these changes made? -certainly not by Jesus whom he calls his master. What did Jesus say about this:
Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

“On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that ‘His soul hateth;’ which Sabbath He in His body abolished.” Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).

He now fasts rigorously on that day to avoid appearing as observing a** Sabbath **with Jews. Does he also steal and murder that he not be observed as keeping the other commandments as the Jews do?

Here Victorinus shows his complete ignorance of the word of God. He is referring to Isa 1:13-14 which speaks of the 7 yearly feast days which are also yearly Sabbaths. This is part of the ceremonial law, and even then God did not hate those feast days, but rather he hated the hypocritical manner in which they observed them.

God, of course, would never hate one of His own commandments. Read further in Isaiah and you will find His displeasure in His people for not keeping properly the **Sabbath **commandment. His Sabbath was to be a delight. See Isa 58:13-14

“They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we.” Eusebius, Church History, 1:4,8 (A.D. 312).

Here is another example of either complete ignorance of God’s word or purposeful deception. Paul kept the** Sabbath **and never spoke against it. None of the apostles was ever accused of breaking the **Sabbath **command or teaching others to do so. But most important is the fact that the Sabbath one of the commandments of God while circumcision was not and was part of the ceremonial law nailed to the cross.

“Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord’s day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost.” Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).

So after shunning the **Sabbath **day and erroneously calling it part of the ceremonial law for the Jews, we now have a church father keeping Pentecost, a yearly **Sabbath **and feast day, and a true part of the ceremonial law. Does that make any sense to anyone?

So Coptic Christian, after reading all the NT verses on Paul keeping the** Sabbath **and preaching to the Gentiles on that day, now reads the above completely erroneous statements from professed “church fathers” that Porknpie submitted, and he professes to be confused.

, “Why halt thee between two opinions?” If the Scripture be true then follow them. if the traditions of men take precedence, then follow them. “Choose you this day whom you will serve”

May Jesus never say of us,“Ye do err in not knowing the scriptures” (Matt 22:29)
Phinieas,

I have stated and I will state again that I go to Mass, Church on Saturday. You have pointed out that the Sabbath is great concern to you and in my experience concerning Protestant issues this is of great concern for a minority of Protestants groups with one exception.

I also see that you dismiss the Church fathers by describing them as purported and professed. You then dismiss ipso facto the books such as Martyrs Mirror, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and another I cannot recall that was suggested to me by Contarini.

This means that you have incurred the wrath of the Menonnites as they used the Church fathers to write those books. I don’t know if you have dialogued with my brother Radical but he is firm in his beliefs and may take issue with you dismissing the Church Fathers as I have seen him dwelve deep into the Fathers to prove his point.

Then there is my Episcopalian brother Contarini and oh my he is one smart historian dude and he may take issue with your tossing the Fathers here and there…

Lastly Ellen White was not a Church Father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top