second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Isaiah45_9]

The church began on Pentecost, the OT writings were around before Pentecost.

Really? The New Covenant Church did. So we are not the seed of Abraham?

Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Again, this isn’t all that hard; Paul reasoned with people from scripture while proclaiming Christ and Him crucified. If he had said that Jesus was not of the line of David, they would know that Jesus was not Messiah because it would contradict scripture. The idea is clearly there.

You are dancing around an answer. Who determines the correctness of Scriptures?

We disagree.

We have proven from Scriptures how it does.

The burden of proof is on you.

You and others have asked for definitions of SS, and when it is given from a protestant perspective you don’t accept it. That is your right if you wish to see it a certain way.

Because we can’t get one single answer. SS according to Lutherans. SS according to Kliska. SS according to Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, et. al.

How can we accept something that morphs into whatever fits an individual theology?

God is the authority that stand behind inspired scripture. Believers recognized it, and have the necessary tools to interpret it.

God is the ultimate authority. And delegated this authority to His Church.

Matthew 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

God has all things planned out, history itself bends to God’s will. The OT happenings and writings were around long before the church for a reason.

Yes, to point to Christ. And Christ gave us a Church.

But if you want the written word only, then you must be under the Law of Moses.

I’d rather be under the Law of Christ.

 

[Kliska]

Really? The New Covenant Church did. So we are not the seed of Abraham?

I’m not dancing, you are. Scripture was around before the church. This is clear from scripture itself. The church was born on Pentecost, this happened in Jerusalem where scripture was studied daily.

You are dancing around an answer. Who determines the correctness of Scriptures?

The Holy Spirit.

We have proven from Scriptures how it does.

The burden of proof is on you.

Not so on either count. The disagreement is now not about argument in the formal sense but rather semantics, or the meaning of words. You wish to define SS a certain way, we don’t define it the same. If we cannot agree on the definition of the phrase Sola Scriptura, then there is no basis for conversation.

Because we can’t get one single answer. SS according to Lutherans. SS according to Kliska. SS according to Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, et. al.

How can we accept something that morphs into whatever fits an individual theology?

You say this despite the fact that the discussion right here in this thread is the focus. It just happens that you don’t like this particular definition. That is your right, but it also ends the conversation on any meaningful level.

God is the ultimate authority. And delegated this authority to His Church.

He delegated the authority to the Holy Spirit. It is one of the main functions of God the Spirit.

Yes, to point to Christ. And Christ gave us a Church.

To become a part of the church, you must become a part of Jesus. We can clearly see this with Philip and the Ethiopian. He showed the Ethiopian how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in Isaiah. Paul reasoned from scripture while preaching Christ and Him crucified. Paul also clearly answered the question, “What must I do to be saved?” with “Believe (faithe) on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

But if you want the written word only, then you must be under the Law of Moses.

Not so. The NT is the word of God as well as the OT.

 

[pocohombre]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

That is right, the scriptures desire to lead to Jesus. He is the key figure in the written word , the Alpha and Omega (alphabet to write with). Jesus speaks of witness’s, the Father, John the Evangelist, works and scriptures last. I do not see church/Jewish magisterium here (they mostly failed).

 

[pocohombre]

Is that a quote from Patriarch Phil of duck dynasty too? Fallible people with an inspired book? I don’t know Phil is freaking me out. Phil has the civil war confused with scripture. You guys might be considered a US watch group soon.

The bible does not promise infallibility of its reader for sure.

We don’t need infallibility as much as assurance.

 

[Peter_J]

… from a RCC/ECC position …

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, to point to Christ. And Christ gave us a Church.

That is right there is the ecclessia/church/body that has grown .He more importantly gave us the Comforter, the Holy Spirit and “He will be in you”. He also gave us Scripture. He gave us teachers, prophets ,apostles healers etc etc. also. All this is in Scripture.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m not dancing, you are. Scripture was around before the church. This is clear from scripture itself. The church was born on Pentecost, this happened in Jerusalem where scripture was studied daily.

There was no New Testament before the Church. Again, if you want to follow the Scriptures only, then you must be under the Law of Moses.

The Holy Spirit.

How?

and

What happens when 2 or more claim to have received revelation from the Holy Spirit and all the revelations are different…?

I know!!!

Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Not so on either count. The disagreement is now not about argument in the formal sense but rather semantics, or the meaning of words. You wish to define SS a certain way, we don’t define it the same. If we cannot agree on the definition of the phrase Sola Scriptura, then there is no basis for conversation.

I don’t define SS. It is a heresy that wears many disguises. Its fruit is division.

You say this despite the fact that the discussion right here in this thread is the focus. It just happens that you don’t like this particular definition. That is your right, but it also ends the conversation on any meaningful level.

So your definition is above all the others? See what I mean? You want me to work with a private personal definition of a term. Something absent for 1,500 years in Christian History.

The meaningful conversation needs to end because you want to define all terms and parameters of the conversation. Why should I play by your rules? You said the Church started in Pentecost. I play by the rules of that Church - not of private individuals.

He delegated the authority to the Holy Spirit. It is one of the main functions of God the Spirit.

I’m sorry - I thought Matthew 16, 18, and 28 were the Apostles…

To become a part of the church, you must become a part of Jesus. We can clearly see this with Philip and the Ethiopian. He showed the Ethiopian how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in Isaiah. Paul reasoned from scripture while preaching Christ and Him crucified. Paul also clearly answered the question, “What must I do to be saved?” with “Believe (faithe) on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Again, you want to be Scripture Alone - then be under the law of Moses.

Faith without works is dead. If I have all the faith in the world as to move mountains and have no love, I am nothing. Now where must I have read those?

Sola Fide is dead as well.

Not so. The NT is the word of God as well as the OT.

But you want Scriptures only. Scriptures only is the law of Moses.

Christ is the New Covenant. We can’t be double minded. One or the other.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That is right, the scriptures desire to lead to Jesus. He is the key figure in the written word , the Alpha and Omega (alphabet to write with). Jesus speaks of witness’s, the Father, John the Evangelist, works and scriptures last. I do not see church/Jewish magisterium here (they mostly failed).

Poco,

Scripture Alone doesn’t do it.

We must follow Christ to have eternal life.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That is right there is the ecclessia/church/body that has grown .He more importantly gave us the Comforter, the Holy Spirit and “He will be in you”. He also gave us Scripture. He gave us teachers, prophets ,apostles healers etc etc. also. All this is in Scripture.

All this in Christ and His body = The Church. Why separate Christ?

 

[Kliska]

There was no New Testament before the Church. Again, if you want to follow the Scriptures only, then you must be under the Law of Moses.

So, the NT isn’t scripture in your eyes?

How?

How did Paul know where the Spirit wanted him to go preach? How do you believe the Pope and/or the magisterium is guided by the Spirit?

Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

This is about a problem between two believers, it has nothing to do with SS.

I don’t define SS. It is a heresy that wears many disguises. Its fruit is division.

And, with that, I’m done here. Have a good evening. :curtsey:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So, the NT isn’t scripture in your eyes?

It is. But I’m not a Scripture Alone person.

How did Paul know where the Spirit wanted him to go preach? How do you believe the Pope and/or the magisterium is guided by the Spirit?

The Church and Christ are one. I don’t try to divide them with Sola phrases.

This is about a problem between two believers, it has nothing to do with SS.

It has everything to do with SS. If Scriptures were the sole rule. It would be easy to solve this problem from Scriptures.

And, with that, I’m done here. Have a good evening. :curtsey:

au revoir

Did you figure out how to reconcile 2 conflicting Scripture passages with the law of non-contradiction?

 

[PRmerger]

You realise that that doesn’t follow, right? X being correct y number of times does not ever mean that X must always be correct.

Oh, but I haven’t asserted that you believe “that X must always be correct.”

I have only asserted that you believe that X was correct, on numerous occasions, on this particular issue: the canon of the NT.

As such, since X was correct on numerous occasions, in different venues, with completely different men, with NOTHING to base their decision on save for the testimony of those who went before them…AND you believe they did this without error…

this means…

wait for it…

that…

you acknowledge that their testimony was sufficiently and correctly professed and received…

which is a testament to…

Sacred Tradition.



AND!

As the Church could have erred on these numerous occasions, but you believe she didn’t…

that means…

that you believe that the Church received the charism of infallibility…

on numerous occasions.

At least, as it applies to this one issue.

That’s all I’m saying.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes but the ark was still “wood and gold” from a fallen earth

Yes, and Mary is still flesh and bone.

. Yes it was set apart to hold that which was holy. Not sure I meant it was pure. Can wood be pure ? Dedicated, set apart (holy), yes . The ark is more symbolic of Christ

The Ark carried the Divine. The Ark was NOT divine, poco.

** As such, the Ark references Mary, not Christ. **

But what the Ark carried: the Word, the Bread, the Rod–all references to Christ.

You have misunderstood your metaphors.

 

[PRmerger]

THANK YOU!

you’re right, i was wrong. I gave it careful thought and can discern the difference

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PRmerger]

I do not know what mentally disabled people are capable of. I assume that it is possible.

So you are saying that everyone in the world today has sinned.

Including mentally disabled people, who may not even be able to speak, are fed through tubes, and are completely dependent upon others for their caretaking…your pastor proclaims that they have sinned.

Is that your position?

Really?

And these guys have sinned, too?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...J3hTrHSGjIgWdyMAHzvbossthED4eunL1jsogyEIxIR1w

As well as these little folks?
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...zZm_-ByA8fcL2leZLzTlcbezVtPVihqqtKPuUYPSoIELy

Does “all have sinned” really mean “all, without a single exception”?

 

[PRmerger]

I guess the other option is to call them sub-human, I am sure that that will offend people.

Or, another option would be to say that a lot of people cannot sin. Like those who are severely impaired, and cannot willfully decide anything.

I am not an expert in weird scenarios, but I am sure that God deals with it somehow.

I don’t identify people with Down Syndrome or any other syndrome in which they have challenges in their abilities to be fully culpable for their decisions as “weird scenarios.”

How odd for you to think so!

 

[PRmerger]

Actually what is the definition per CC ?

We don’t have an official definition, as it’s not our paradigm.

We profess and proclaim that Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture are the Word of God, and therefore, Sola Scriptura is implicitly rejected.

…“Sola Scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, it demands that only those doctrines be admitted or confessed that are found directly within Scripture or are drawn indirectly from it by valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning. Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God”. from Wiki…

.

That is one definition. But after being on the CAFs here I have learned that there are as many definitions as there are churches.

Is there one succint defintion ?

Who would you recommend make that definition? If it’s a Baptist pastor, will the SDAs have to submit to that definition?

If it’s a SDA pastor, will the Westboro Baptist Church have to submit?

Haven’t read all posts but most have stuck to the same definition but perhaps i haven’t read posts that made you say she’s been “sliced and diced”.

The main refutation is this:

philvaz.com/DENOMS.php

And that’s just a list of 5000 denominations.

Clearly, going by the Bible Alone doesn’t lead to Truth and Unity but rather to Chaos and Confusion.

And another refutation is: please give me the Bible verse that says that the Bible Alone is the Word of God.

Note: that Scripture is the inspired Word of God is NOT the same as saying that the Bible Alone is the Word of God.

Therefore, it is a self-refuting doctrine/hermeneutic principle.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, a key belief in Sola Scriptura is that written scripture is a benchmark; if something that is taught is contrary to written scripture, we know the teaching is false.

The CC would have no problem with that “key belief” in SS.

 

[PRmerger]

The notion that everything necessary for salvation can be found in the Bible is absurd; the two things necessary are the person who needs to be saved, and the Saviour. A book cannot save anyone.

Indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

And more importantly - who determines which doctrines are consistent with Scriptures?

'zactly.

Those who have rejected the authority of the CC can’t decide whether…

-Baptism–is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Do we baptize infants or adults only? Is it done by sprinkling, immersion or in a river? Is it in Jesus’ name only or using the Trinitarian formula?

-Salvation–are we OSAS or can we lose our salvation?

-God–is His Holy Name Jehovah?

-Jesus–Is Jesus the reincarnation of Michael the Archangel?

-Death–is it soul sleep or do we have eternal life?

-Hell–does it exist or is it only figurative?

-Humanity–are we totally depraved or ontologically deprived?

All of the fundamental questions about God and our relationship with him…now no one knows for sure what’s true and what’s the offspring of the Father of Lies.

THAT’s what happens when people embrace the SS paradigm.