I should have been clearer. My point is that God's revelation to mankind (Adam and Eve) occured long before Moses wrote the Torah. The rest of the OT was written by men. Now comes Jesus. The first writings that we have indication of occured at least 20 years after the Ascension. In both cases, the Revelation significantly preceded Scripture; we do not consider a conversion to Judaism in light of the NT. Without the NT, a conversion to Judaism is the only option.
You have use this sophistry before. Divine revelation certainly came first, and but the fact is that written Divine revelation preceded the birth of the church, and substantiates it.
Not the Christian Church in relation to the NT. The Church began with the calling of the Apostles. The NT tells of the Church's beginnings and the teachings of Jesus.
Your argument is simply in-credible. You reject that their church would not exist apart from the foundation, and then marginalize the Old Testament as basically being that of God just trying to get the Jews to pay attention for more than a day or two and failing! Of course, you have prior expressed that the NT does not have its foundation in the Old, which is patently absurd, and i would be surprised if any Catholic agreed with you (any here?)
Are you saying that the NT does not have its foundation in Jesus Christ? Without Jesus, the NT does not stand; in fact it could not exist at all. The NT cannot be found in the OT except in oblique or occasional references. Without Jesus, there is no way that the NT could be written. However, the NT could exist without the OT, given that God Almighty chooses His revelation to men in the manner which He chooses.
I wish you were negative here, but as you must know, “Rome” refers to the Roman Catholic church, and to disagree you must deny that the Roman Catholic church in particular is the only assuredly infallible interpreter “since the Church wrote and chose Scripture under the authority of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.”
Refer all you want. The fact is that the Latins are one branch of the Church and the Roman Catholics are under the Latin branch. There are five bishops who are pares. The Pope is one of the pares. Patriarch Kirill is another.
So you hold that i can be sure the Rome is the OTC and infallible interpreter of Scripture based upon Scripture? This is well. The condescending attempts to establish such i have seen, which fail, and effectively rest upon her infallible declaration that she is infallible, when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined formula.
Nice try. I do not say Rome. I say that since the Church wrote Scripture, chose Scripture and has kept Scripture throughout these millennia, they also have the authority to interpret Scripture. Not any of Luther's milkmaids.
Again, if the New Testament church was not the church which is now called the Roman Catholic church then what is your argument? Even if you were Orthodox, then the refutation would is still be valid by application.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Could you please restate?
Only your assertions have been negative so far, and continuing. The point here, which i think is obvious, is not that there are functional differences among ecclesiastical offices, and between rulers and “laity,” but that pastors are not a separate class of sacerdotal priests which uniquely offer up expiational sacrifices, and this title (priests) is never used distinctly for them; rather they are called bishops/elders, which refer to the same office, regardless of scope, and belong to the class called pastors/shepherds.
I never said that pastors are a separate class. I said that priests are. The early Church found that only two separate functions were necessary - deacon and bishop - but even that changed in Scripture. Paul found it necessary to ordain bishops under him and there are indications that there were individuals who took care of a specific church location versus a territorial jurisdiction. Scripture is not as specific as the early Church Fathers as to that separation and distinction of duties. St. Irenaus is an early indicator of the levels of the Church during the late 1st and early 2nd Centuries.
We have been here before, while ordination of elders and deacons was carefully given and examopled, the issue is that of replacing apostle, who were sovereignly chosen for a special purpose. If your example of Judas being replaced is to establish a perpetuation, then, as said before, we should have manifestly seen a successor for the martyred apostle James, (Acts 12:2) the brother of John, son of Zebedee, one of the sons of thunder, (Mt. 4:21; Mk. 3:17) but we do not. In addition, the selection of Matthias in Acts 1 was due to maintaining the number of apostles, which seems to have a special significance, (Rev 21:14) while Paul was purely sovereignly chose to be an apostle.
That is where we rely on Church and Apostolic Fathers documentation for proofs. Scripture is not entirely specific; the early Church records are much more complete. However, Paul appointed a number of bishops and instructed the parishioners to receive them as they did him.
Your assertion relies upon a SS strawman, for which cause i often posted this. Day after day noted evangelicals which hold to SS use historical accounts in their exegesis of Scripture, and for hundreds of years the most famous evangelical scholars and commentators have done likewise. Many staunch proponents of SS also often invoke the church fathers. What SS holds is that all such sources are not infallible, and so must be proved in the light of that only objective authority which is affirmed to be 100% inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:16)
This is a word game. In other words, if something can be considered to be authoritive from Scripture or through Scripture or by some logic from Scripture, then by extension, other things can be as well. No sir. If you claim sola, then sola it is. If not sola, then not sola. We have been honest with each other so far. I can debate you on either level.
Judge not by appearances. What the church says (interprets) is one thing, the real basis for its interpretation being authoritative is another. If it affirms that doctrinal certainty can be realized by the Scriptures, then it has just shot itself in the foot. Instead, as it affirms that it alone is the assuredly infallible magisterium, we must accept this, Scriptural contentions notwithstanding, and thus its authority relies upon its infallible declaration that it is (conditionally) infallible, based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and her nebulous oral tradition.
The Church's interpretation is built on 2000 years of Magisterial authority, based upon the Holy Spirit's inspiration. We believe that the Bible is inspired. We also believe that, since Jesus Created the Church and made promises of protection, of the possession of the Keys of Heaven and the attendance of the Holy Spirit, that the Church possesses all that Jesus promised.
Since you have no strawman, your matches are of no use, while you cannot establish otherwise. We can, however, provide evidence that the Holy Spirit can expand or recast Jesus words to provide a fuller revelation.
A fascinating statement. Please provide that evidence.
And how did the noble Bereans examine the apostles? (Acts 17:11) You have men being held infallible because they claim to be selected by the Holy Spirit, and this is not allowed to be doubted, while we see the preaching of holy men who added to Scripture being substantiated by Scripture, (Mt. 22; Lk. 24:27:45; Acts 2:13-40; 17:2; 18:28; 28:23), and often attested to by overt supernatural Divine power, with their apostolic authority manifested thereby. (Rm. 15:18,19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12)
We come back to this: are the words of Jesus Christ, the Lord God Almighty subordinate to the words of men?
Preaching and teaching of truth in this age thus must also conflate with the class of revelation which has been established as inspired by God due to its unique and enduring qualities, with its regenerative fruits.
What does this mean?
The Bible evidences that it presumes honest souls can reason and believe salvific truth and true faith, (Acts 17:2,11; 2Cor. 4:2) but materially provides for teachers as well, and that some truths are more primary, (1Cor. 15:1-6; Gal. 1:6-9; 1Jn. 4:2,3) and that not all things are equally evident, (and full doctrinally unity was ever a goal) and some souls will wrest some less evident things in the Scriptures to their own damnation. (2Pet. 3:16)
Are you saying that if you are honest and reasonable you are saved? I would ask you to explain this further as well.
Thus the New Testament church never used physical force in order to subdue her spiritual enemies and or expand her dominion, though it suffered such from them, nor did it use such in order to chastise its members, but invoked a spiritual rod, besides disfellowshipping. (1Cor. 4:21; 5:5,11) Nor did it rule over those without, or want to, (1Cor. 5:13) yet sanctioned the just use of the Sword by the State. (Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pet. 2:14,15)
No, in fact, the Church was extremely pacifist. But 1 Corinthians 5:13 says nothing about ruling outside. And Romans 13 says nothing about the use of force by the State. Neither does 1 Peter 2. What are you getting at here? Your Scriptural references are oblique to your statements.
I know of the context of the first amendment, and the Baptist who were for it, nor it is not the use of the sword that is the issue, but by whom and for what. And the fact that some Protestants used it early on does not impugn upon my statement of Rome's reliance upon it, while the greatest growth of the evangelical church has been after discarding it and as they relied upon prayer and preaching. Even so that in the U.S, during the years between the inaugurations of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, historians see "evangelicalism emerging as a kind of national church or national religion."
Some do. But the enactment of the 1st Amendment is still justified completely and only by the inhumanity of the strong Calvinist state religions of the early colonies and the conduct of those Calvinists who ran them.
“Come up with” is not the best wording, as da Vinci code theorists imagine this was unsubstantiated, rather than it being a doctrine which is Scripturally derived and basically demanded in order to reconcile all that is said on the subject. But holding to the supremacy of Scripture does not mean that one cannot receive what is or was taught by others, from the Jews to Trent, as long as it is indeed warranted by the wholly inspired Scriptures.
It may not be the best wording, but it is accurate enough. The Church was under attack by yet another set of heretics and had to formulate the Trinity to repudiate them. The problem with your statement about teachings warrented by Scripture is that is a weasel. It simply dilutes the idea of Scriptural proofs to those of 'warrented' by Scripture while still trying to maintain the semblence. No, sir, I must insist the sola means only. If not only, then abandon the sola.
Thus those who in do hold to the supremacy of Scripture and salvation by grace through faith not only uphold the foundational truths which we both agree on, but are among, or the, foremost contenders against those who deny such core truths such as the Deity of Christ. And which types of aberrations are typically part of groups which effectively hold to an authority as supreme over the Bible, from the Watchtower headquarters to the LSD living prophet to manifestly wild fire elitist “prophets” and teachers.
There are many that we agree upon; there are many we do not. I suspect that Transubstantiation is one. Yet that is a fundamental Truth of Christianity, held from the beginning. The Church Fathers write extensively on it.
But Rome's teachings on such things as praying to saints in glory is part of such.
Also Scriptural (Maccabees) as well as practiced by the Church Fathers. Again, a practice of the fledgling Church. Again, another objection by the Reformation 1500 years later.
No, you fail to understand the use of “yet,” which denotes that the faulty premise refers to something besides the premise that Scripture came first, this something being the the logic behind your question, which presumes that those through whom Scripture was written, and entrusted, are the assuredly infallible interpreters of it, but which would require us all to convert to Judaism.
I should have been clearer. My point is that God's revelation to mankind (Adam and Eve) occured long before Moses wrote the Torah. The rest of the OT was written by men. Now comes Jesus. The first writings that we have indication of occured at least 20 years after the Ascension. In both cases, the Revelation significantly preceded Scripture; we do not consider a conversion to Judaism in light of the NT. Without the NT, a conversion to Judaism is the only option.
No clarification is needed, except (again) that of the actual contention which you are missing or avoiding. I did not disagree that revelation preceded any writing of it, but the fact remains that my statement (in response to your question) that their bulk of Scripture preceded the church is true.
As for Judaism, the point was that your logic, that since the church was the instrument of Holy Writ, and the discerners and preservers of it, the it is the assuredly infallible interpreters of all Divine revelation, would compel us to accepts the interpretation of the Jewish magisterium, as the Jews were explicitly stated to be such.
You have use this sophistry before. Divine revelation certainly came first, and but the fact is that written Divine revelation preceded the birth of the church, and substantiates it.
Not the Christian Church in relation to the NT. The Church began with the calling of the Apostles. The NT tells of the Church's beginnings and the teachings of Jesus.
Again, the Christian Church's relation to the NT was not my contention. The statement which you pronounced was wrong was that “Scripture came first, but not in its complete form,” which is true, despite your rejection of it. And the NT tells of the Church's beginnings and the teachings of Jesus, enabling the fulfillment of what was written beforehand, which it abundantly refers to, despite your marginalization.
Your argument is simply in-credible. You reject that their church would not exist apart from the foundation, and then marginalize the Old Testament as basically being that of God just trying to get the Jews to pay attention for more than a day or two and failing! Of course, you have prior expressed that the NT does not have its foundation in the Old, which is patently absurd, and i would be surprised if any Catholic agreed with you (any here?)
Are you saying that the NT does not have its foundation in Jesus Christ? Without Jesus, the NT does not stand; in fact it could not exist at all. The NT cannot be found in the OT except in oblique or occasional references. Without Jesus, there is no way that the NT could be written. However, the NT could exist without the OT, given that God Almighty chooses His revelation to men in the manner which He chooses.
Affirming that the New Testament has its basis in the Old Testament does not mean that all truth does not have its foundation in Jesus Christ, the Word of God. But your contention that the NT does not have its basis in the OT is still absurd, compounded by your statement that the NT could exist without the OT, which is true, but with multitudes of references (as to what was written) to nowhere.
But all of your responses misses the real issue which is behind “which came first,” which is that being the instruments as well as the interpreters and preservers of Holy Writ does not confer assured infallibility to all that they state is infallible, based upon their formula.
I wish you were negative here, but as you must know, “Rome” refers to the Roman Catholic church, and to disagree you must deny that the Roman Catholic church in particular is the only assuredly infallible interpreter “since the Church wrote and chose Scripture under the authority of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.”
Refer all you want. The fact is that the Latins are one branch of the Church and the Roman Catholics are under the Latin branch. There are five bishops who are pares. The Pope is one of the pares. Patriarch Kirill is another.
Being more ecumenical will not solve the problem, for your premise is faulty.
So you hold that i can be sure the Rome is the OTC and infallible interpreter of Scripture based upon Scripture? This is well. The condescending attempts to establish such i have seen, which fail, and effectively rest upon her infallible declaration that she is infallible, when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined formula.
Nice try. I do not say Rome. I say that since the Church wrote Scripture, chose Scripture and has kept Scripture throughout these millennia, they also have the authority to interpret Scripture. Not any of Luther's milkmaids.
The issue is actually not restricted to Rome, but can apply to any church which claims to assured infallibility, after the manner of Rome does, and using different language, the Orthodox (while affirming far fewer councils as ecumenical), and which many cults effectively do.
And when implicit faith in an assuredly infallible magisterium is fostered then we end up with statements like this:
“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question.” “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, p. 35, 1904; Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
Again, if the New Testament church was not the church which is now called the Roman Catholic church then what is your argument? Even if you were Orthodox, then the refutation would still be valid by application.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Could you please restate?
Regardless of which church you affirm was the instrument of Holy Writ, and the discerners and preservers of it, this does not confer assured infallibly, as Rome has most manifestly has infallibly defined itself to conditionally be.
Only your assertions have been negative so far, and continuing. The point here, which i think is obvious, is not that there are functional differences among ecclesiastical offices, and between rulers and “laity,” but that pastors are not a separate class of sacerdotal priests which uniquely offer up expiational sacrifices, and this title (priests) is never used distinctly for them; rather they are called bishops/elders, which refer to the same office, regardless of scope, and belong to the class called pastors/shepherds.
I never said that pastors are a separate class. I said that priests are. The early Church found that only two separate functions were necessary - deacon and bishop - but even that changed in Scripture. Paul found it necessary to ordain bishops under him and there are indications that there were individuals who took care of a specific church location versus a territorial jurisdiction. Scripture is not as specific as the early Church Fathers as to that separation and distinction of duties. St. Irenaus is an early indicator of the levels of the Church during the late 1st and early 2nd Centuries.
Priests are also pastors, though the term can be used more broadly, and thus the point is that a separate class of sacerdotal priests does not exist in the New Testament church. And there is no change in titles, though the scope of the pastorate of some bishops/elders was broader than others.
We have been here before, while ordination of elders and deacons was carefully given and exampled, the issue is that of replacing apostle, who were sovereignly chosen for a special purpose. If your example of Judas being replaced is to establish a perpetuation, then, as said before, we should have manifestly seen a successor for the martyred apostle James, (Acts 12:2) the brother of John, son of Zebedee, one of the sons of thunder, (Mt. 4:21; Mk. 3:17) but we do not. In addition, the selection of Matthias in Acts 1 was due to maintaining the number of apostles, which seems to have a special significance, (Rev 21:14) while Paul was purely sovereignly chose to be an apostle.
That is where we rely on Church and Apostolic Fathers documentation for proofs. Scripture is not entirely specific; the early Church records are much more complete. However, Paul appointed a number of bishops and instructed the parishioners to receive them as they did him.
Again, the issue is not bishops/elders, but successors to the apostles and their function, which is not established in Scripture.
Your assertion relies upon a SS strawman, for which cause i often posted this. Day after day noted evangelicals which hold to SS use historical accounts in their exegesis of Scripture, and for hundreds of years the most famous evangelical scholars and commentators have done likewise. Many staunch proponents of SS also often invoke the church fathers. What SS holds is that all such sources are not infallible, and so must be proved in the light of that only objective authority which is affirmed to be 100% inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:16)
This is a word game. In other words, if something can be considered to be authoritive from Scripture or through Scripture or by some logic from Scripture, then by extension, other things can be as well. No sir. If you claim sola, then sola it is. If not sola, then not sola. We have been honest with each other so far. I can debate you on either level.
This is not a word game. “Sola” here, as only” refers to Scripture alone being the supreme doctrinal authority on earth, versus “sola ecclesia.” To hold that SS rejects any use of history, etc., is a strawman. Your logic is also incorrect, as Scripturally substantiated teaching rests upon Scripture being established as the wholly inspired objectively authority of God, and is uniquely affirmed therein to be so, while other sources do not enjoy that, though their testimony can help understanding it.
Judge not by appearances. What the church says (interprets) is one thing, the real basis for its interpretation being authoritative is another. If it affirms that doctrinal certainty can be realized by the Scriptures, then it has just shot itself in the foot. Instead, as it affirms that it alone is the assuredly infallible magisterium, we must accept this, Scriptural contentions notwithstanding, and thus its authority relies upon its infallible declaration that it is (conditionally) infallible, based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and her nebulous oral tradition.
The Church's interpretation is built on 2000 years of Magisterial authority, based upon the Holy Spirit's inspiration. We believe that the Bible is inspired. We also believe that, since Jesus Created the Church and made promises of protection, of the possession of the Keys of Heaven and the attendance of the Holy Spirit, that the Church possesses all that Jesus promised.
Proclaim what you will, but all of your preceding lofty affirmations do not make them so, but as they do not supremely depend upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant, they rely on her infallible declaration which makes her declarations infallible, and thus incontestable by Scriptural or historical challenges.
Since you have no strawman, your matches are of no use, while you cannot establish otherwise. We can, however, provide evidence that the Holy Spirit can expand or recast Jesus words to provide a fuller revelation.
A fascinating statement. Please provide that evidence.
All one has to do is examine word for word the duplicate accounts of the words of certain souls and note the variations, and ask whether such happened more than once, which is often possible, or whether the Holy Spirit somewhat recast what was said in the interest of His application and a fuller revelation by way of complementary accounts. It seems certain that Jesus (the judge of all) stood trial before the Sanhedrin only once, but see the examination of the differences between accounts at the bottom of this page:
Another example would be the reference to Is. 6:8-10 (cf. Is. 44:18) in Mat. 13:13-15 and Jn. 12:39-41 (and which strongly attests to Jesus Divinity).
This is not a liberal interpretation, but recognizes that the Holy Spirit can reveal more truth by somewhat reiterating or recasting it in slightly different ways, which was typical in ancient communication, but without actual contradiction.
Nor is this aspect some radical Protestant doctrine. The officially approved (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, reflecting “what is generally accepted as sound doctrine in the Catholic tradition”) commentary in your own New American Bible (the official Roman Catholic Bible for America) asks, “Did Jesus “answer exactly as as related in the Bible” and answers, “It is not certain,” and that “it is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Him are written exactly as He spoke them.” But it further states that the writers took put theological elaboration into original words, and took “narratives and frequently even remolded and refashioned them to bring out the lessons which they wanted to teach.”
Yet it even goes beyond this and speculates that some of the miracle stories of Jesus in the New Testament (the fulfillment of of the Hebrew Bible) may be adaptations of similar ones in the Old Testament,” (St. Joseph edition, 1970; How to read your Bible, 6f, 13e, f, g. and i)
It additionally conveys such things as that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus was like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai.
Even more, it also relegates Old Testament stories of supernatural events such as Gn. cps 2-4; 6-8; 11 (creation, the Flood, Tower of Babel) to being allegorical folk tales, and stories such as Num. 22 (Balaam's vocal donkey) to being a fable, and Gn. 12-50 (records of Abraham and Joseph) to being "historical novels!" (“6, Literary Forms")
Pertinent quotes:
"Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional."
"The Bible is God’s word and man’s word. One must understand man’s word first in order to understand the word of God." ((NAB published by the Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1986. Nihil Obstat, and the Imprimatur from the Archbishop of Washington.)
However, as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such accounts which Rome delegates as fables as being factually literal. “The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and Balaam's donkey did indeed speak (2Pet. 2:16), and Jonah did indeed spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale (Mt. 12:40), and Israels history is always and inclusively treated as literal. And it is a slippery slope when historical statements are made out to be literary devices.
Rather than being an amalgam of God's words and man's, the whole of Scripture is God's word, and while it was written through men, in which, like a wind orchestra, each has its own distinctive sound and human instrumentation, yet the breath is of God, and the conductor is the Holy Spirit, and together they play the complex but complementary revelatory hymn of God, and to His glory.
And how did the noble Bereans examine the apostles? (Acts 17:11) You have men being held infallible because they claim to be selected by the Holy Spirit, and this is not allowed to be doubted, while we see the preaching of holy men who added to Scripture being substantiated by Scripture, (Mt. 22; Lk. 24:27:45; Acts 2:13-40; 17:2; 18:28; 28:23), and often attested to by overt supernatural Divine power, with their apostolic authority manifested thereby. (Rm. 15:18,19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12)
We come back to this: are the words of Jesus Christ, the Lord God Almighty subordinate to the words of men?
False dilemma (and shallow logic). The issue is one of discernment, and examining doctrine that is claimed to be from that which is established as being from God actually manifests that men are subject to God, while presuming to be assuredly infallible, and unreprovable, based upon one's declaration and definition, effectively places one in their temple declaring that he is as God (which at least one pope claimed).
The question is, what means has God provided that we may know what the words of God versus men are? For men like Moses and the apostles, who wrote written revelation and affirmed that which was, God made that manifestly evident by overt attestation, and such became the standard which other revelation would be examined by. (Is. 8:20; 2Tim. 3:14-17; 2Pet. 1:19-21; 3:16, etc.) And like such men, the writings which were Scripture became established as of God, due to their unique accompanying and enduring qualities, with the selection of those are having become progressively more universally established due to their qualities, and the quickening of their Holy Spirit.
As Scripture has been established as such, and it attests that even being instruments and stewards of Scripture did not confer assured infallibility to the magisterium (though God yet preserved true faith), it commends those who examine preaching by it, and abundantly invokes it in attesting to are the words of Jesus Christ, the Lord God Almighty.
Preaching and teaching of truth in this age thus must also conflate with the class of revelation which has been established as inspired by God due to its unique and enduring qualities, with its regenerative fruits.
What does this mean?
That class being the Scriptures, which ecclesiastical decrees do not make inspired of God, nor can they, as helpful as they may be, be essentially responsible for its enduring acceptance, but rather this is due to the inherent qualities of this Divine classic, which qualities include their accompanying (think Moses and the apostles) supernatural attestation, (Ex. 20:18-22) and enduring resultant transforming power, (Ps. 19:7-11) predictive accuracy, (Dan. 9:2; Josh._23:14-15) wisdom virtue and doctrine, (Ps. 119; Rm. 2:17-20; 15:4), with further revelation being consistent with that which was already established, (see under marginalized” in prior post) and attestation by those whose virtue and power was supremely attested to.
The Bible evidences that it presumes honest souls can reason and believe salvific truth and true faith, (Acts 17:2,11; 2Cor. 4:2) but materially provides for teachers as well, and that some truths are more primary, (1Cor. 15:1-6; Gal. 1:6-9; 1Jn. 4:2,3) and that not all things are equally evident, (and full doctrinally unity was ever a goal) and some souls will wrest some less evident things in the Scriptures to their own damnation. (2Pet. 3:16)
Are you saying that if you are honest and reasonable you are saved? I would ask you to explain this further as well.
It means that by appealing to souls to reason, rather than require implicit trust in men who claim to be assuredly formulaically infallible, then presumes that Berean-type souls will be convinced by Scriptural preaching, and that God looks to those who are of a poor and contrite spirit which deeply reverence His words, (Is. 66:2) and saves such, (Ps. 34:18) as such as those of Jn. 3:21, while the proud resist God and vice versa, (1Pt. 5:5) and whom he devil blinds, (2Cor. 4:4) and that good and honest hearts bring forth much fruit. (Lk. 8:15)
I hope the rest is comprehensible to you.
Thus the New Testament church never used physical force in order to subdue her spiritual enemies and or expand her dominion, though it suffered such from them, nor did it use such in order to chastise its members, but invoked a spiritual rod, besides disfellowshipping. (1Cor. 4:21; 5:5,11) Nor did it rule over those without, or want to, (1Cor. 5:13) yet sanctioned the just use of the Sword by the State. (Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pet. 2:14,15)
No, in fact, the Church was extremely pacifist. But 1 Corinthians 5:13 says nothing about ruling outside. And Romans 13 says nothing about the use of force by the State. Neither does 1 Peter 2. What are you getting at here? Your Scriptural references are oblique to your statements.
May God help you to see. (1 Cor 5:12-13) "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? {13} But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
The context here is that of discipline, and Paul's words are that it is not his job to govern those without the church, while believers are exhorted to be in subjection to civil powers outside the church, (1Pt. 2:13,14) versus the church being Caesar.
As for Rom 13:4: "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil", and
1 Pet 2:13-14: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; {14} Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well,"
You must either presume that the sword refers to a spiritual one, used by the church, or that the latter is to use the sword of men. The Catholic NAB commentary itself interprets Rom 13:1-7 are referring to obedience to Caesar, and 1Pet. 2:13,14 to being the subjection to human government. And the weapons of the church are spiritual.
I know of the context of the first amendment, and the Baptist who were for it, nor it is not the use of the sword that is the issue, but by whom and for what. And the fact that some Protestants used it early on does not impugn upon my statement of Rome's reliance upon it, while the greatest growth of the evangelical church has been after discarding it and as they relied upon prayer and preaching. Even so that in the U.S, during the years between the inaugurations of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, historians see "evangelicalism emerging as a kind of national church or national religion."
Some do. But the enactment of the 1st Amendment is still justified completely and only by the inhumanity of the strong Calvinist state religions of the early colonies and the conduct of those Calvinists who ran them.
Indeed it is justified, rightly contextually understood (versus the ACLU), and evangelicals requested and supported it over the more institutionalized counterparts. The issue was that of Rome's more predominate unScriptural use of the sword of men to expanding its rule, which still stands condemned.
“Come up with” is not the best wording, as da Vinci code theorists imagine this was unsubstantiated, rather than it being a doctrine which is Scripturally derived and basically demanded in order to reconcile all that is said on the subject. But holding to the supremacy of Scripture does not mean that one cannot receive what is or was taught by others, from the Jews to Trent, as long as it is indeed warranted by the wholly inspired Scriptures.
It may not be the best wording, but it is accurate enough. The Church was under attack by yet another set of heretics and had to formulate the Trinity to repudiate them. The problem with your statement about teachings warrented by Scripture is that is a weasel. It simply dilutes the idea of Scriptural proofs to those of 'warrented' by Scripture while still trying to maintain the semblence. No, sir, I must insist the sola means only. If not only, then abandon the sola.
While you must insist upon your straw man as it is critical to your defense of the church as the sole supreme doctrinal authority, “solo scriptura,” which refers to the Bible as the only admitable source for doctrinal truth (i.e. nothing outside scripture) and which is held only by a few fringe groups, is not the same as sola scriptura, which accepts that history, tradition, creeds, etc., have their place, as long they are subject to the Scriptures, that being alone (sola) the assuredly infallible supreme authority on earth. As Sproul notes, “The great councils of Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople receive much honor in Protestant tradition. The Reformers themselves gave tribute to the insights of the church fathers. Luther's expertise in the area of Patristics was evident in his debates with Cajetan and Eck. He frequently quotes the fathers as highly respected ecclesiastical authorities. But the difference is this: For the Reformers no church council, synod, classical theologian, or early church father is regarded as infallible. All are open to correction and critique. We have no Doctor Irrefragabilis of Protestantism.
As for what is “warranted,” it is not surprising that you would reject this provision, as while the Bible presupposes such is a realty by its many references in support of doctrine, and examples how such can be, it is support for an assuredly infallible magisterium after the manner of Rome which fails of warrant, with the contrary being exampled.
Thus those who in do hold to the supremacy of Scripture and salvation by grace through faith not only uphold the foundational truths which we both agree on, but are among, or the, foremost contenders against those who deny such core truths such as the Deity of Christ. And which types of aberrations are typically part of groups which effectively hold to an authority as supreme over the Bible, from the Watchtower headquarters to the LSD living prophet to manifestly wild fire elitist “prophets” and teachers.
There are many that we agree upon; there are many we do not. I suspect that Transubstantiation is one. Yet that is a fundamental Truth of Christianity, held from the beginning. The Church Fathers write extensively on it.
Transubstantiation is indeed a most fundamental doctrine if you make it necessary for salvation, which many do by invoking Jn. 6:53 in support of it. In which case the apostle's should have been preaching it as necessary for regeneration. And while if you looked you my linked page, you would have known that i hold that the Roman Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine actually become Jesus corporeal flesh and blood is contrary to what is best evidenced, yet i allow one can hold to this aspect itself and yet be saved, if they believe the Biblical gospel of grace, versus one that fosters faith in one's works of faith or that of their church as being meritorious for salvation.
As for the “fathers” on this, contrary to the “ unanimous consent of the Fathers which Rome claims and requires for such, (Vatican 1, Session III, April 24, 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith: pgs. 222-223, confirming the decree of the Council of Trent--Fourth Session, April, 1546) this is not what this or many other doctrines enjoy (including Mt. 16:18), to varying degrees. As regards the Eucharist, Schaff, states: “…we distinguish three views: the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen…(History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, ch.7, part 95)
But Rome's teachings on such things as praying to saints in glory is part of such.
Also Scriptural (Maccabees) as well as practiced by the Church Fathers. Again, a practice of the fledgling Church. Again, another objection by the Reformation 1500 years later.
Including Maccabees itself as canonical can be considered an objection, as it chose to follow a tradition which is arguably the weaker within Catholicism in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired. And as shown before, it is praying to such is without any support, but it contrary to what is stated on prayer as to the object of its address.
1. provide just one example, among the multitude of prayers in the Bible, where any believer prayed to anyone else in heaven but the Lord.
2. provide one place where exhortations, commands or instruction on prayer directed believers to pray to the departed. "i.e. "Our mother, who art in heaven...")..
3. show where believers cannot have direct access to Christ in heaven, or where any insufficiency exists in Christ that would require or advantage another intercessor in heaven between Christ and man, besidwes the Holy Spirit.
4. show where departed souls in heaven are hearing prayers.
5. provide where any communication that took place between earthlings and heavenly beings besides God took place Apart from a personal visitation.
6. provide where making supplication to beings in heaven besides God is sanctioned.
7. show where anyone else is called "Queen of heaven" other than Jer 44:17 (But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven) who is a heavenly object of devotion and prayer.
8. show where any believer has already been crowned in heaven, or why everyone else has to wait until Jesus appearing to receive his. (2Tim. 4:8; 1Pt. 5:4)
9. show that earthly relations always correspond to heavenly ones, so that just as we may feed each other, and married people have sexual relations, so we are to spiritually do so with the departed now. Or where directly praying telepathically to each other on earth is promoted.