[annalex]

The passage form Timothy does not support sola scriptura for a variety of reasons I gave you right there. It includes the books Luther excluded; it says that the scripture is profitable, but it does not say it is sufficient (the context of the letter speaks highly of oral teaching as well); it is addressed not to a layman but to a bishop of the Church Timothy, and the passage speaks of the perfection of the "man of God", not of a layman. These were arguments I gave you and you did not refute them. If you now want to address them, let us go back tot he thread where the original argument was made, and I'll be happy to talk.

The moment you admit that "wiggle room" exists you disprove the sola scriptura, because now it is my Church of 2000 years' interpretation versus Luther's 500 years interpretation, if that long.

"Binding and loosing" is one passage where no wiggle room exists: it is given St. Peter, the scriptural example of fallibility, and then repeated to the rest of the apostles, also far form perfect all of them. Christ meant what He said: corruptibility of men does not invalidate the Church as a whole.

[William Terrell]

he passage form Timothy does not support sola scriptura for a variety of reasons I gave you right there. It includes the books Luther excluded; it says that the scripture is profitable, but it does not say it is sufficient (the context of the letter speaks highly of oral teaching as well); it is addressed not to a layman but to a bishop of the Church Timothy, and the passage speaks of the perfection of the "man of God", not of a layman. These were arguments I gave you and you did not refute them. If you now want to address them, let us go back tot he thread where the original argument was made, and I'll be happy to talk.

The Bible is not sufficient, so a council of fallible men may add to it what it doesn't say? Sorry. You have to do better than that. Just one evil man on that council leaveneth the whole lump.

Assure me there wasn't one.

Timothy was a bishop of the Catholic church? Timothy may have been a bishop, but of one of many churches spread all over the place admitting to no central authority. The churches were at that time decentralized, else Paul wouldn't have written to each, but to the central authority.

The scripture stands by itself and says clearly what it means. It does not say it is insufficient. It is, of course, "insufficient" for those who want more than it gives fro their own purposes.

Interpretation is not needed. Scriptures cited by the church are clear as crystal, and any man of reasonable intelligence which reads any given passage the church cites for its interpretation would not have a clue where the church got it.

The wiggles room is thine, and the churches. If the scriptures can't be trusted as they stand, you have no church at all. You may as well create one out of whole cloth. You may as well use a Donald Duck comic book.

I can't see any reference to your interpretation of the passage that what is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven and vice versa. There is no mention of the Catholic church.

Matter of fact, there is no mention of centrally commanded church anywhere that I can fine. They were all groups scattered about worshiping the same God and revering the same savior.

The verse simply describes the relationship of the individual to the Godhead, and the individuals choices effect on the non-material realm, whence they will go when they discard their bodies. It has nothing to do with the infallibility of the church in spite of the evil therein.

Where do you get these ideas?