sola scriptura

namvietnv002 · Jan 18, 2013

bygsunflower poster 2012
Dang tin,up tin t? d?ng nhanh chÃ³ng lÃªn hon 5300 di?n dÃn, qu?ng cÃ¡o.
Vu?t qua cÃ¢u h?i b?o m?t vÃ mÃ£ an ninh captcha khi dang tin, up tin
Dang tin qu?ng cÃ¡o b?ng nhi?u tÃi kho?n m?t lÃºc
T?o nick hoÃn toÃn t? d?ng, t?c d? nhanh, 1000 nick 1 gi?, t? d?ng vu?t qua captcha vÃ cÃ¢u h?i ng?u nhiÃªn
LÃªn l?ch up tin t? d?ng lÃªn forum di?n dÃn rao v?t
Don gi?n, d? s? d?ng v?i ngu?i m?i b?t d?u.
T?o tÃi kho?n nick di?n dÃn t? d?ng
T? thÃªm, b?t cÃ¡c di?n dÃn dang tin.
Auto post bÃi nhanh 500 di?n dÃn ch? m?t 10 phÃºt.
T? d?ng dÃ² box link d? dang tin.
TÃch h?p Auto Reply + Pageview Hack.
Xu?t bÃ¡o cÃ¡o dang tin.
Nh?p tÃi kho?n di?n dÃn qua file excel
T?o/d?i ch? kÃ½ t? d?ng
T?o/d?i Avatar t? d?ng
T?o/d?i thÃ´ng tin cÃ¡ nhÃ¢n c?a account
H? tr? spin content (spintax, spyntax) trÃªn tiÃªu d? vÃ n?i dung nh?m t?o ra n?i dung khÃ¡c nhau khi dang tin
Hu?ng d?n s? d?ng bygsunflower poster
Mu?n dang l?i tiÃªu d? cu ho?c chuyÃªn m?c mÃ* tiÃªu d? cu ( vui lÃ²ng vÃo BYG–> XÃ³a d? li?u h? th?ng–>XÃ³a cÃ¡c topic dÃ£ post) xong dÃ³ng tab t?t m? d? c?p nh?t ( luu Ã½ dÃ¹ng d? trÃ¡nh thu?t toÃ¡n chim cÃ¡nh c?t)
20/5/2012 tr? di cÃ³ nhi?u di?n dÃn bÃ¡o mail v? r?t ch?m vÃ* d? ta reg dc 600 mail, d? 30 phÃºt - 4 ti?ng s? mail reg nh?ng di?n dÃ*n g?i v? >900 mail ( tuong duong > 1500 nick)

Fix l?i c?p nh?t 12/7 thu?t toÃ¡n Penguin 1.0

Mu?n dang l?i tiÃªu d? cu ho?c chuyÃªn m?c mÃ* tiÃªu d? cu ( vui lÃ²ng vÃo BYG–> XÃ³a d? li?u h? th?ng–>XÃ³a cÃ¡c topic dÃ£ post) xong dÃ³ng tab t?t m? d? c?p nh?t vÃ thay d?i proxy . CÃ³ nhi?u chuyÃªn m?c hon ,data trÃªn 10.000 ->dang 1 l?n theo chuyÃªn m?c t? 60- 300 bÃi + seo blacklink trÃªn 1000 bÃi
12/7/2012 tr? di reg 1 l?n dc 750 mail, d? 30 phÃºt - 4 ti?ng s? mail reg nh?ng di?n dÃn g?i v? >900 mail ( tuong duong > 1600 nick)
Luu Ã½ : khi th?y reg nick b? l?i 100 vÃ 301 nhi?u vÃ* reg mail du?c 100mail vui lÃ²ng xoÃ¡ profile t?o l?i profile m?i nha (cÃ¡i dÃ³ nÃ³ bÃ¡o trÃ¹ng profile nÃªn ch? reg dc nhiu dÃ³)

Fix l?i c?p nh?t 15/8 thu?t toÃ¡n Penguin 1.4 thÃªm spam blog
*
1/10/2012 tr? di tang lu?ng 100 hay vÃ¬ 50 lu?ng , tang timeout t? 50 lÃªn 100 , thÃªm thu?t toÃ¡n , tang boxlink
*

Luu Ã½ : khi th?y reg nick b? l?i 100 vÃ 301 nhi?u vÃ reg mail du?c 100mail vui lÃ²ng xoÃ¡ profile t?o l?i profile m?i nha (cÃ¡i dÃ³ nÃ³ bÃ¡o trÃ¹ng profile nÃªn ch? reg dc nhiu dÃ³)**

****Fix l?i c?p nh?t 29/11/2012 *thu?t toÃ¡nPenguin ***2.0

Ph?n m?m dang tin post 2013 HQForumPoster

********- H? tr? forum **********VBB, **XenForo, phpBB3, IPB3

- Ch?c nang dang tin RONGBAY t? d?ng

- Ph?n m?m d?u tiÃªn vÃ duy nh?t t?i Vi?t Nam hi?n nay h? tr? Forum Xenforo*

- T?o tÃi kho?n forum (KhÃ´ng dang kÃ½ l?i khi trÃªn Profile dÃ£ cÃ³ user/pass)*

- T?o tÃi kho?n forum b?ng tay*

- T?o tÃi kho?n Email Yahoo bÃ¡n t? d?ng.*

- Ki?m tra tÃi kho?n s?ng hay ch?t*

- KÃch ho?t mail t? d?ng*

- Dang tin ->**** Up tin → ****Up tin theo l?ch

- Spam ki?m bÃi- SEOKeywords*

- Spam khÃ¡ch tham ( trang profile)

- T?o ch? kÃ½;**** ****Thay d?i avatar

- H? tr? gi?i mÃ£ deathbycaptcha.com, captchatrader

- H? tr? spintax ( cÃ¡ch dÃ¹ng a ho?c a )

- H? tr? g?i tÃªn ( cÃ¡ch dÃ¹ng namvietnv002, forums.catholic-questions.org, 03:00:04, 18-01-2013 )

- Luu l?i cÃ¢u h?i ng?u nhiÃªn

CHNN Server - Online
Nh?p xu?t d? li?u d? dÃng*

- C?i ti?n thu?t toÃ¡n T?o nick cho VBB, tang t? l? dang kÃ½ thÃnh cÃ´ng thÃªm 20%***

*- ThÃªm kh? nang t? d?ng tr? l?i CHNN th? 2 cho VBB *
**

- ThÃªm ch?c nang “*XÃ³a forum khÃ´ng ph?i lÃ VBB” ? "T?o tÃi kho?n", giÃºp b?n l?c forum d? dÃng hon.

- ThÃªm kh? nang t? phÃ¡t hi?n forum Xenforo trong danh sÃ¡ch VBB->VBB-D

- Fix ch?c nang nh?p vÃo forum VBB-A ->VBB-D (khÃ´ng nh?p vÃ*o du?c)

- C?i ti?n thu?t toÃ¡n T?o nick cho VBB, tang t? l? dang kÃ½ thÃnh cÃ´ng thÃªm 20%*

*- ThÃªm kh? nang t? d?ng tr? l?i CHNN th? 2 cho VBB
*

- ThÃªm ch?c nang “*XÃ³a forum khÃ´ng ph?i lÃ VBB” ? "T?o tÃi kho?n", giÃºp b?n l?c forum d? dÃng hon.

- ThÃªm kh? nang t? phÃ¡t hi?n forum Xenforo trong danh sÃ¡ch VBB->VBB-D

- Fix ch?c nang nh?p vÃo forum VBB-A ->VBB-D (khÃ´ng nh?p vÃo du?c)
*

[phan mem dang tin (http://www.bygsunflower.net/) | [ph?n m?m dang tin (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)[** ** (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)| [phan mem seo (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)** | [ph?n m?m seo (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)[ ** (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)
bygsunflower.net
LiÃªn h? :mr :Vu 092.295.2095

PRmerger · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes they do. They. cannot demonstrate so.

Yes, the church making such statements is good. In your paradigm, its not beneficial unless its infallible. I dont share that view.

I don’t think anyone is making the claim that unless something is infallible it has no benefit.

The point is: God *did *give us an infallible authority. You believe in what this infallible authority has discerned for you, and trust it implicitly. At least as it applies to the canon.

You are deriving benefit from this infallible authority, yet not acknowledging this charism because of what it would mean for you in your faith journey.

stewstew03 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes. Inerrant means without error. Infallible means not capable of error. Anything infallible will always be inerrant, but the reverse is not true. You are not infallible in mathematics. You could score 100% on a math test, making you inerrant on that test.

Your inerrancy must be affirmed by someone who is infallible; otherwise, you could never know for certain whether you are without error. In other words, your inerrancy is not self-evident (unless you can point out book/chapter/verse where I may affirm your inerrancy).

stewstew03 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Your analogy is a fair one, Denise, and I can respect it. The Scriptures say that we have been given evangelists, teachers, etc., to instruct us in the faith. As with your analogy, your professor does presumably know more about mathematics than you…he is not infallible at it though. Nor does he have to be in order to instruct you. He is still subject to the science that is his profession. In the same way, those who have been put over us as elders and deacons are stil subject to the God-breathed Scriptures.

What did “elders” and “deacons” do before the canon was established?

stewstew03 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Your analogy is a fair one, Denise, and I can respect it. The Scriptures say that we have been given evangelists, teachers, etc., to instruct us in the faith. As with your analogy, your professor does presumably know more about mathematics than you…he is not infallible at it though. Nor does he have to be in order to instruct you. He is still subject to the science that is his profession. In the same way, those who have been put over us as elders and deacons are stil subject to the God-breathed Scriptures.

The math analogy only goes so far because this isn’t a quest for knowledge but a quest for Truth. The Truth will only set us free when we can be certain that we have it.

However, getting back to the analogy… you mentioned that the math teacher is subject to his profession. But if he possesses greater knowledge, then you would be none the wiser if he instructed you incorrectly. I could instruct my sons that the earth is flat and they would take my word for it (maybe not now, but when they were younger). To be sure, anything I tell them is easily verifiable in this day and age, so eventually they would call me out on it after googling it in their iPhones. But if we lived in rural Germany in 300 AD, and I told my sons that Jesus had two natures - one divine, one human - how are they to verify my instruction?

Denise1957 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Your analogy is a fair one, Denise, and I can respect it. The Scriptures say that we have been given evangelists, teachers, etc., to instruct us in the faith. As with your analogy, your professor does presumably know more about mathematics than you…he is not infallible at it though. Nor does he have to be in order to instruct you. He is still subject to the science that is his profession. In the same way, those who have been put over us as elders and deacons are stil subject to the God-breathed Scriptures.

Since your the Gaelic Bard, I’ll bid you good morning in Gaelic - madainn mhath!

I’m not sure if I can explain this very well, but would I be correct in thinking that in the field of mathematics, there is a unified body of what is considered the proper method of math? Aren’t there particular formulas that are used in order to arrive at a particular outcome which are considered as a standard practice, and who or what is it that determines these standards? I have to wonder if Math instructors are allowed to invent their own formulas and outcomes

JonNC · Jan 18, 2013

Denise1957 said:
Since your the Gaelic Bard, I’ll bid you good morning in Gaelic - madainn mhath!

I’m not sure if I can explain this very well, but would I be correct in thinking that in the field of mathematics, there is a unified body of what is considered the proper method of math? Aren’t there particular formulas that are used in order to arrive at a particular outcome which are considered as a standard practice, and who or what is it that determines these standards? I have to wonder if Math instructors are allowed to invent their own formulas and outcomes

I believe that, typically, formulas and outcomes don’t “develop” over time, either.

Jon

Gaelic_Bard · Jan 18, 2013

Denise1957 said:
Since your the Gaelic Bard, I’ll bid you good morning in Gaelic - madainn mhath!

I’m not sure if I can explain this very well, but would I be correct in thinking that in the field of mathematics, there is a unified body of what is considered the proper method of math? Aren’t there particular formulas that are used in order to arrive at a particular outcome which are considered as a standard practice, and who or what is it that determines these standards? I have to wonder if Math instructors are allowed to invent their own formulas and outcomes

Go mbeannaí Dia duit!

Yes, absolutely. To move the analogy to that of the church, the early church possessed a unified body of knowledge as a regula fidae of teaching, preaching and doctrine. This expressed itself in the form of the early creeds, confessions, and proclamations of the church (one thinks here of the early baptismal creeds, which developed into the Apostles and Nicene Creeds), and also in the liturgy. These became bodies of knowledge of apostolic doctrine to which elders were held accountable. They were authoritative in that, in simpler forms, they taught about God, Christ, the Spirit, etc. to what apostolic revelation taught. They were not authoritative simply because elders drafted them but because they conformed to what revelation teaches. They were and are derivative. It was heresy to go against these creeds because to go against them is to go against what Scripture teaches.

Is that a form of tradition? Yes, absolutely. I am not objecting to this whatsoever. I apologize if I gave that impression! What I am opposed to are doctrines and teachings which are not in apostolic revelation. When you mention math instructors inventing formulas and outcomes on their own, that is precisely what I would contend did in fact happen in the church over the centuries.

Gaelic_Bard · Jan 18, 2013

stewstew03 said:
Your inerrancy must be affirmed by someone who is infallible;

Yes, God the Holy Spirit, in God-breathed Scripture.

Gaelic_Bard · Jan 18, 2013

stewstew03 said:
What did “elders” and “deacons” do before the canon was established?

Do you believe the church did not possess Scripture before the canon was “established?”

Gaelic_Bard · Jan 18, 2013

stewstew03 said:
The math analogy only goes so far because this isn’t a quest for knowledge but a quest for Truth. The Truth will only set us free when we can be certain that we have it.

Well yes, analogies always break down at some point. I grant that.

However, getting back to the analogy… you mentioned that the math teacher is subject to his profession. But if he possesses greater knowledge, then you would be none the wiser if he instructed you incorrectly. I could instruct my sons that the earth is flat and they would take my word for it (maybe not now, but when they were younger). To be sure, anything I tell them is easily verifiable in this day and age, so eventually they would call me out on it after googling it in their iPhones. But if we lived in rural Germany in 300 AD, and I told my sons that Jesus had two natures - one divine, one human - how are they to verify my instruction?

Well, assuming that such a situation did exist (rural Germany in 300 AD), your description would pose a problem for both sola scriptura and the 3 legged stool model, since the rural peasant would have had no way to know that what he was being taught was sacred apostolic tradition, either. He hardly would have had access to documents of the magisterium in order to verify this.

However, he would had access to both the teaching of the church within his local context and he would have had access to the bulk of the New Testament. The idea that simply because the Bible was not, at that time, together and bound in a leather volume called the Greek Standard Version, people did not have access to Scriptural teaching is simply a myth. The churches possessed various documents from the New Testament from the post-apostolic period onward (with nearly 6000 copies in circulation). The vast majority of what is today the NT was accepted almost universally. As early as the 80s and 90s A.D., Paul’s letters were considered Scripture (see Clement of Rome). The NT teaching was also expressed in the creeds, the liturgy, etc. There would have readily been means to check what they were being taught against apostolic revelation, which is why so many fathers stressed that in their writings (Athanasius, Irenaeus, et al.).

Denise1957 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Go mbeannaí Dia duit!

Yes, absolutely. To move the analogy to that of the church, the early church possessed a unified body of knowledge as a regula fidae of teaching, preaching and doctrine. This expressed itself in the form of the early creeds, confessions, and proclamations of the church (one thinks here of the early baptismal creeds, which developed into the Apostles and Nicene Creeds), and also in the liturgy. These became bodies of knowledge of apostolic doctrine to which elders were held accountable. They were authoritative in that, in simpler forms, they taught about God, Christ, the Spirit, etc. to what apostolic revelation taught. They were not authoritative simply because elders drafted them but because they conformed to what revelation teaches. They were and are derivative. It was heresy to go against these creeds because to go against them is to go against what Scripture teaches.

Is that a form of tradition? Yes, absolutely. I am not objecting to this whatsoever. I apologize if I gave that impression! What I am opposed to are doctrines and teachings which are not in apostolic revelation. When you mention math instructors inventing formulas and outcomes on their own, that is precisely what I would contend did in fact happen in the church over the centuries.

God bless you, too. I see that’s it’s Irish Gaelic that you have, rather than Scottish, but that’s okay!

thanks for the further explanation. You mention above you are opposed to doctrines and teachings which are not in apostolic revelation. Could you explain what apostolic revelation is to you?

Gaelic_Bard · Jan 18, 2013

Denise1957 said:
God bless you, too. I see that’s it’s Irish Gaelic that you have, rather than Scottish, but that’s okay!

thanks for the further explanation. You mention above you are opposed to doctrines and teachings which are not in apostolic revelation. Could you explain what apostolic revelation is to you?

Sure. Apostolic revelation is the teaching of Christ, which was given to the apostles, which they entrusted to their disciples through their teaching and preaching. These teachings were inscripturated. When the question is asked, is not oral tradition also the word of God, I respond yes! The content of that oral tradition is the same as what we have in Scripture.

Denise1957 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Sure. Apostolic revelation is the teaching of Christ, which was given to the apostles, which they entrusted to their disciples through their teaching and preaching. These teachings were inscripturated. When the question is asked, is not oral tradition also the word of God, I respond yes! The content of that oral tradition is the same as what we have in Scripture.

What you seem to be saying is that the content of oral tradition is the same as what is in scripture. I take this to mean that you believe that everything in oral tradition must also be in scripture. Which seems to bring us back again to sola scriptura (if I’m understanding you correctly).

Gaelic_Bard · Jan 18, 2013

Denise1957 said:
What you seem to be saying is that the content of oral tradition is the same as what is in scripture. I take this to mean that you believe that everything in oral tradition must also be in scripture. Which seems to bring us back again to sola scriptura (if I’m understanding you correctly).

Yes, I would say that’s an accurate understanding.

Denise1957 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes, I would say that’s an accurate understanding.

Where in scripture is it said that teaching is based on scripture alone?

stewstew03 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes, God the Holy Spirit, in God-breathed Scripture.

So… the Holy Spirit was never with the Church, or left the Church in the 16th century…?

[PS - again, you trust the Church’s authority on this matter of God-breathed Scripture, as PR has demonstrated].

stewstew03 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Do you believe the church did not possess Scripture before the canon was “established?”

Of course Scripture existed before the canon was established - do you deny that there were other “gospels” and “inspired” letters (not included in the canon) used as scripture by certain Christian communities?

stewstew03 · Jan 18, 2013

Gaelic_Bard said:
Well yes, analogies always break down at some point. I grant that.

Well, assuming that such a situation did exist (rural Germany in 300 AD), your description would pose a problem for both sola scriptura and the 3 legged stool model, since the rural peasant would have had no way to know that what he was being taught was sacred apostolic tradition, either. He hardly would have had access to documents of the magisterium in order to verify this.

However, he would had access to both the teaching of the church within his local context and he would have had access to the bulk of the New Testament. The idea that simply because the Bible was not, at that time, together and bound in a leather volume called the Greek Standard Version, people did not have access to Scriptural teaching is simply a myth. The churches possessed various documents from the New Testament from the post-apostolic period onward (with nearly 6000 copies in circulation). The vast majority of what is today the NT was accepted almost universally. As early as the 80s and 90s A.D., Paul’s letters were considered Scripture (see Clement of Rome). The NT teaching was also expressed in the creeds, the liturgy, etc. There would have readily been means to check what they were being taught against apostolic revelation, which is why so many fathers stressed that in their writings (Athanasius, Irenaeus, et al.).

Okay - what was the literacy rate for European rural peasants in the 4th century?

Arizona_Samson · Jan 18, 2013

stewstew03 said:
The math analogy only goes so far because this isn’t a quest for knowledge but a quest for Truth. The Truth will only set us free when we can be certain that we have it.

We can be “certain we have it” by believing the words of the One who commanded John to **“Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” **(Rev 21:5)

sola scriptura

namvietnv002

Guest

PRmerger

Guest

stewstew03

Guest

stewstew03

Guest

stewstew03

Guest

Denise1957

Guest

JonNC

New member

Gaelic_Bard

Guest

Gaelic_Bard

Guest

Gaelic_Bard

Guest

Gaelic_Bard

Guest

Denise1957

Guest

Gaelic_Bard

Guest

Denise1957

Guest

Gaelic_Bard

Guest

Denise1957

Guest

stewstew03

Guest

stewstew03

Guest

stewstew03

Guest

Arizona_Samson

Guest