Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock
Paul used the OT as the foretelling of Christ. This is what the Bereans recognized.
But no, I don’t see this as proof for the doctrine of sola scriptura.
I think you are conflating sola scriptura with the final authority of scripture - nothing contrary to scripture. If this is what you mean by sola scriptura then your belief is the same as the Church.
And under the alternative, sola ecclesia, churches effectively or formally infallibly say tradition and or Scripture and or history says this or that. Whether it be the EOs, Rome or the LDS, etc.
Rome for her part has infallibly declared that she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which thus renders her declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus Tradition, Scripture and history mean what ever she infallibly says they mean, as it is impossible that she could be wrong. If she does say so herself.
So how is assurance of truth realized? Are you arguing that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of Divine promises, and having historical decent makes you the infallible interpreter of Scripture, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority?
No, but dueling verses is poor exegesis. The whole of the epistles and Acts show an organized visible Church with hierarchy and authority. E.g., Paul writes to correct the Church in Rome, which did not die with Paul. He had authority, he corrected those in authority at the congregation of the Church which existed in time and place and continues to this day.
Sola ecclesia is not the only alternative. The Church recognizes the authority of Scripture, scripture is the work product of the Church. But without any authority to both determine the canon or interpret it according to the faith given by Christ to His Apostles, you end up with.. well what we have outside the Church.
So how is assurance of truth realized?
As Christ determined: by the Church He established as His body guided by the Holy Spirit to be the pillar and foundation.
When Christ returns to set up His Kingdom, where will that be? Rome? Jerusalem?
Welcome, smvoice. Always happy to hear the Dispensationalist view.
Thank you. Now, where will Jesus Christ return to set up His Kingdom? Rome? Jerusalem?
I have a feeling you’re gonna tell us where. And why and how.
:)
I know what I believe. I’m asking you what Rome teaches. ROme? Or Jerusalem? ANd if I do tell you, you can bet it will be according to the Scriptures.:)
I think I remember David Koresh claiming something like that...
:)
If I haven't made my point yet, I'm not gonna. I really appreciate your patience and discussion. My sincere thanks. May God bless you and yours.
There is nothing in scripture that puts Mary as a queen. There is however in paganism the belief of a “queen of heaven” and condemned by God.
Honesty, I dunno. And, I’m a bit too tired to look at eschatology right now.
I am concerned with personal judgement and I do, with prayers for His mercy, look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Blessings to you.
Still don’t dare answer the question ey?
If we believe Mary were God there’d be a problem. We don’t so there’s not. It’s a title given the mother of our Lord, the king of Heaven.
Rome may provide her teaching with some Scripture references, but the only authoritative meaning these have is that which she gives them, based upon her premise of authority. Thus as regards what is the only supreme authority, Sola ecclesia is the alternative and the reality under Rome.
But without any authority to both determine the canon or interpret it according to the faith given by Christ to His Apostles, you end up with.. well what we have outside the Church.
So your premise is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is required for truth to be preserved, and writings to be established as Scripture, and for souls have assurance that men of God really are?
So how is assurance of truth realized? As Christ determined: by the Church He established as His body guided by the Holy Spirit to be the pillar and foundation.
And which is (conditionally) infallible. Asserting Rome is the answer avoids the problem of its basis. Most argue that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of Divine promises, and having historical decent makes you the infallible interpreter of Scripture, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority. Is that your position?
I answered it further down: no, it’s not proof for sola scriptura unless your version of sola scriptura is the same as the Church’s position on scripture.
Do you think the Church would have a canon that disagrees with the Church? :) This is tautology.
So your premise is that an assuredly infallible magisterium
My premise is the Church established by Christ with Him as the head and guided by the Holy Spirit to be the pillar and foundation of truth. You want something more? :)
Is that your position?
See above. It's also in Holy Scripture.
Are you of the belief, via the pagans, that Easter is verboten?
Easter is a pagan practice and holiday. Show from scripture that is was instituted by Christ or the apostles. I can show where it was practiced by pagans as far back as the Babylonian feast of Easter and the 40 day period of maurning for Tamuz.
Ironically (hypocritically) the whole support for tradition is appeal to Scripture.
It is by default, recognition of the final and absolute authority of Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.