Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

Apparently no one ever taught you to use the word you are defining in your definition. Anyway, here you go. Pssst, language actually means something.

Definition of infallible

incapable of error : unerring

.

OK Sean.

St. Peter erred and said he did not know Jesus.

Does this mean you can “chuck” 1st Peter as Scripture?

Is 2nd Peter now passe’?

How about St. Mark’s Gospel which history tells us came from St. Peter via St. Mark?

After all if “infallible” insists upon ALL THE TIME (as YOU invented), and St. Peter DENIED Jesus, HOW can St. Peter write infallible truth?

(Please give me your answer from Scripture if possible)

 

[Sean77]

First of all, your attempt to use scripture as a theological dictionary only demonstrates the depth of your ignorance regarding the doctrine you are attempting to argue against.

And your answer can be found in 2 Peter 1:21.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 said . . .

Apparently no one ever taught you to use the word you are defining in your definition. Anyway, here you go. Pssst, language actually means something.

Definition of infallible

incapable of error : unerring

.

I responded . . .

.

OK Sean.

St. Peter erred and said he did not know Jesus.

Does this mean you can “chuck” 1st Peter as Scripture?

Is 2nd Peter now passe’?

How about St. Mark’s Gospel which history tells us came from St. Peter via St. Mark?

After all if “infallible” insists upon ALL THE TIME (as YOU invented), and St. Peter DENIED Jesus, HOW can St. Peter write infallible truth?

(Please give me your answer from Scripture if possible)

.

Sean77 replied . . . .

First of all, your attempt to use scripture as a theological dictionary only demonstrates the depth of your ignorance . . . .

.

OK Sean. I admit it. I am ignorant.

There we go!

Now let’s go on.

.

Sean77 ALSO said . . . .

And your answer can be found in 2 Peter 1:21.

OK Sean77.

Let’s look at that (I’ll add in verse 20 for more context).

.

2nd PETER 1:20-21 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

.

But Sean. This is mere circular reasoning. (More on THAT later)

You ADMIT infallibility (at least according to YOUR definition) is CONSTANT.
If you are infallible, you are infallible 24 hours a day, seven days a week with the Sean77 motif presumably.

.

Sean77 . . . .

Definition of infallible . . . incapable of error : unerring

.

Yet you are appealing to Peter! And you KNOW he erred (when he denied Jesus).

Now you seem to be saying, well THAT’S AN EXCEPTION!

Why?

Presumably because it is “Scripture”. (Thus your appeal to 2nd Peter 1:21)

OR you seem to be saying St. Peter did NOT ERR?

Which one do you mean (or is it something else?) and then I will go on.

 

[Sean77]

Nope. I am appealing to the word of God. You keep trying to confuse the two as if I should assume anything Peter said or did was of the Holy Spirit. The issue is you keep trying to assume that Peter is not a sinful creature, capable of being disobedient to the word of God. We see elsewise in Galatians 2 where Paul actually has to rebuke Peter for his practices which were inconsistent with the word of god.

So as an example, at the Council of Constance we see Jan Hus condemned for teaching that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law (Biblical truth proclaimed by the Holy Spirit), then in violation of its oath to provide Hus safe conduct he is handed over to the secular courts with the directive to kill him, resulting in him and several followers being burned at the stake, precipitating the Hussite wars. All of which Rome tried to justify under the guise of being led by the Holy Spirit, even as she herself was denying the word of God provided through that spirit. So again, you keep drawing category errors making the Church equivalent to the Holy Spirit, when the church is supposed to be submissive to that spirit by obeying the word of god provided through that spirit. I don’t have to grant infallibility to fallible men to uphold the infallibility of God. The correcting agent which brings one to repentance, which you have removed from the equation is the revelation of god (the word of god) to which we submit for the simple fact that God is creator and we obey his word.

 

[guanophore]

The same way the Jews were certain that the Tanakh was from God. Only they didn’t claim that the priests were infallible.

Clearly Jesus affirmed this, by stating that “Salvation is from the Jews”, and by instructing the disciples to do what the teaching authority tells them.

But the CC does not claim that priests are infallible either.

 

[guanophore]

Except for the fact that Jesus explicitly called out the oral tradition you keep referring to as aberrations of God’s word several times.

On the contrary, He made the distinction between human tradition (customs) and the Sacred Tradition (teaching from God). You don’t seem to recognize that there is a difference. The Apostle would not bother to command the disciples to preserve human customs and make it equal to the Word of God!

Again, was Jewish tradition infallible?

The Sacred Tradition is infallible - the teachings of God.

Not Jewish customs, or Catholic customs, or any other human customs.

Infallible means infallible. Not sometimes. All the time. Otherwise you offer a meaningless anachronistic definition.

I agree, but you are lumping the two together, which is an error.

 

[Sean77]

Clearly Jesus affirmed this, by stating that “Salvation is from the Jews”, and by instructing the disciples to do what the teaching authority tells them.

Insofaras they are teaching the word of god rightly instead of twisting it with traditions that subverted the word of god to their own sinful desires as clearly Jesus did in places such as the sermon on the mount.

 

[guanophore]

Jan Hus condemned for teaching that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law

I think you are missing some substantial portions of this story, Sean.

It was related to criticizing authorities and aligning himself with Wycliffe.

The Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith, not of works.

The reason this is found in Scripture is because the New Testament is a set of Catholic writings. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

then in violation of its oath to provide Hus safe conduct he is handed over to the secular courts with the directive to kill him

I am not sure what safe conduct violation you are speaking of here, but Hus was in jail for the better part of a year before he was executed. Did you expect him to be safely conducted home after he was found guilty of heresy?

All of which Rome tried to justify under the guise of being led by the Holy Spirit, even as she herself was denying the word of God provided through that spirit.

I am looking forward to seeing the original documents from “Rome” regarding this. Do you have a source or a link?

which you have removed from the equation is the revelation of god (the word of god) to which we submit for the simple fact that God is creator and we obey his word.

If this were true you would still be following the apostolic command to preserve the Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

Insofaras they are teaching the word of god rightly instead of twisting it with traditions that subverted the word of god to their own sinful desires

But we see from the Gospels this is not the case. In fact, in the very context of enjoining obedience, He also tells them not to do as 'they" do, since they are hypocrites.

 

[jlhargus]

The same way the Jews were certain that the Tanakh was from God. Only they didn’t claim that the priests were infallible.

That’s because they were not infallible, they were not promised to be lead into all truth as Christ promised the apostles.

[Jn16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.]

 

[jlhargus]

guanophore:

Clearly Jesus affirmed this, by stating that “Salvation is from the Jews”, and by instructing the disciples to do what the teaching authority tells them.

Insofaras they are teaching the word of god rightly instead of twisting it with traditions that subverted the word of god to their own sinful desires as clearly Jesus did in places such as the sermon on the mount.

Point out those so called twistings with traditions so we can see them? Also post the name of your faith group so we can verify their teaching is in line with the Word of God.

Which of the following Protestants have clearly understood and followed the Word of God?

OSAS/can lose salvation, OSAS if sin never saved/OSAS if murder still saved. Must speak in tongues/Don’t need to speak in tongues. Trinity/no Trinity, Holy Spirit God/Holy Spirit not God. Christ bodily resurrected/not bodily resurrected. Consubstantiation/no consubstantiation. Bible alone, community interpretation/bible alone, individual interpretation, bible alone/bible and Tradition, all oral Tradition now in scripture/all tradition not in scripture. Sunday worship/Saturday worship.

Baptism washes away sin/baptism does not wash away sin. Believer’s baptism only/infant baptism. Baptize in the name of Jesus/baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism necessary/Baptism not necessary. Saved the instant believe/saved when baptized. Secret rapture/no secret rapture, dispensationalist/no dispensationalist. Christ still heals today/no healing today. Women pastors/no women pastors. Ok to ordain active gays/not ok to ordain active gays. Same sex marriage/no same sex marriage, smoking and drinking a sin/smoking and drinking not a sin. Irresistible grace/resisible grace, no free will/free will etc., etc…

 

[Sean77]

Apparently you missed the entire point of Ezekiel 36 and 37, and Jeremiah 31:31-34. And the author of Hebrews would definitely disagree with you when he cites Jeremiah in Chapters 8 and 10 speaking to believing Jews.

 

[Sean77]

I find it interesting that you would bring up issues of adiaphora to make your point. How often do we see people in your own forums asking which is the correct posture to assume when praying the Lord’s prayer, if communion should be provided in one or two kinds, etc. Also, given the schismatic nature of the early church over matters of adiaphora (proper dates to celebrate Easter, whether the Bishop of Rome has a claim to supremacy of all bishops, whether the term filoque should be contained in the Nicene Creed, etc.), the Roman Catholic history doesn’t line up with your claim that somehow “apostolic tradition” has prevented the church from fracturing. What we actually have seen is that your non-verifiable “apostolic traditions” have been the source of schism. However, we do have a source of legitimate apostolic tradition, and that’s what they wrote with their own hands.

 

[jlhargus]

The same way the Jews were certain that the Tanakh was from God. Only they didn’t claim that the priests were infallible.

JL: That’s because they were not infallible, they were not promised to be lead into all truth as Christ promised the apostles.

[Jn16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.]

Apparently you missed the entire point of Ezekiel 36 and 37, and Jeremiah 31:31-34. And the author of Hebrews would definitely disagree with you when he cites Jeremiah in Chapters 8 and 10 speaking to believing Jews.

JL: I missed them because you didn’t post them and I notice you didn’t post them this time.

 

[jlhargus]

Insofaras they are teaching the word of god rightly instead of twisting it with traditions that subverted the word of god to their own sinful desires as clearly Jesus did in places such as the sermon on the mount.

Point out those so called twistings with traditions so we can see them? Also post the name of your faith group so we can verify their teaching is in line with the Word of God.

Which of the following Protestants have clearly understood and followed the Word of God?

OSAS/can lose salvation, OSAS if sin never saved/OSAS if murder still saved. Must speak in tongues/Don’t need to speak in tongues. Trinity/no Trinity, Holy Spirit God/Holy Spirit not God. Christ bodily resurrected/not bodily resurrected. Consubstantiation/no consubstantiation. Bible alone, community interpretation/bible alone, individual interpretation, bible alone/bible and Tradition, all oral Tradition now in scripture/all tradition not in scripture. Sunday worship/Saturday worship.

Baptism washes away sin/baptism does not wash away sin. Believer’s baptism only/infant baptism. Baptize in the name of Jesus/baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism necessary/Baptism not necessary. Saved the instant believe/saved when baptized. Secret rapture/no secret rapture, dispensationalist/no dispensationalist. Christ still heals today/no healing today. Women pastors/no women pastors. Ok to ordain active gays/not ok to ordain active gays. Same sex marriage/no same sex marriage, smoking and drinking a sin/smoking and drinking not a sin. Irresistible grace/resisible grace, no free will/free will etc., etc…

I find it interesting that you would bring up issues of adiaphora to make your point. How often do we see people in your own forums asking which is the correct posture to assume when praying the Lord’s prayer, if communion should be provided in one or two kinds, etc. Also, given the schismatic nature of the early church over matters of adiaphora (proper dates to celebrate Easter, whether the Bishop of Rome has a claim to supremacy of all bishops, whether the term filoque should be contained in the Nicene Creed, etc.), the Roman Catholic history doesn’t line up with your claim that somehow “apostolic tradition” has prevented the church from fracturing. What we actually have seen is that your non-verifiable “apostolic traditions” have been the source of schism. However, we do have a source of legitimate apostolic tradition, and that’s what they wrote with their own hands.

All of the above I posted are considered essential doctrine not adiaphora to those who hold them. You dodged the questions;

Which of the following Protestants have clearly understood and followed the Word of God? Point out those so called twistings with traditions so we can see them? Also post the name of your faith group so we can verify their teaching is in line with the Word of God.

 

[Sean77]

If you are devoid of a Bible to look up the references I mentioned I can recommend some very fine apps and online resources. I frequently and purposefully mention a reference without posting it to force the person who is actually serious about studying God’s revealed word to actually look it up and interact with it, and actually look at the entire passage rather than a specific proof text so that the context of the passage is examined. Obviously interacting with the Word was not your intent.

 

[Sean77]

All of the above I posted are considered essential doctrine not adiaphora to those who hold them. You dodged the questions;

I would disagree. First of all, your characterization of the perseverance of the saints as OSAS is a straw-man argument that a knowledgeable Reformed theologian would debunk pretty quickly (I do not identify with the reformed movement, but am very familiar with their tenets). Also, most knowledgeable reformed theologians who hold to the TULIP principles would admit that these are important doctrines, but not necessary for salvation. So yes, I would categorize it as Adiaphora. Your view of justification by faith and works though Paul did not consider to be adiaphora however, so you might try reading through Galatians a time or two before you start poking at doctrines you misrepresent.

 

[jlhargus]

If you are devoid of a Bible to look up the references I mentioned I can recommend some very fine apps and online resources. I frequently and purposefully mention a reference without posting it to force the person who is actually serious about studying God’s revealed word to actually look it up and interact with it, and actually look at the entire passage rather than a specific proof text so that the context of the passage is examined. Obviously interacting with the Word was not your intent.

Sorry I’m not buying it. You purposefully mention a reference without posting it because you simply had no evidence otherwise you would have posted it.

 

[jlhargus]

All of the above I posted are considered essential doctrine not adiaphora to those who hold them. You dodged the questions;

I would disagree. First of all, your characterization of the perseverance of the saints as OSAS is a straw-man argument that a knowledgeable Reformed theologian would debunk pretty quickly (I do not identify with the reformed movement, but am very familiar with their tenets). Also, most knowledgeable reformed theologians who hold to the TULIP principles would admit that these are important doctrines, but not necessary for salvation. So yes, I would categorize it as Adiaphora. Your view of justification by faith and works though Paul did not consider to be adiaphora however, so you might try reading through Galatians a time or two before you start poking at doctrines you misrepresent.

JL: Again you have dodged the questions.

 

[guanophore]

Also, given the schismatic nature of the early church over matters of adiaphora (proper dates to celebrate Easter, whether the Bishop of Rome has a claim to supremacy of all bishops, whether the term filoque should be contained in the Nicene Creed, etc.), the Roman Catholic history doesn’t line up with your claim that somehow “apostolic tradition” has prevented the church from fracturing. What we actually have seen is that your non-verifiable “apostolic traditions” have been the source of schism. However, we do have a source of legitimate apostolic tradition, and that’s what they wrote with their own hands.

Actually the opposite is true, and you have demonstrated it here. The split between Rome and EO was political and related to human customs, not Apostolic traditions. The fourth crusade had nothing to do with Apostolic Tradition, and everything to do with economics and political power and land aquisition.