Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
You don't want anything to do with that guy
There is an ambiguity in this phrase. It can mean either "when we enter Heaven we are (already) glorified" or "when we enter Heaven (no matter how sinful we are when we enter), we are at that moment and not before then, automatically glorified".
= = = =
I don't think that there is Scriptural justification for emphatically believing either one conclusively.
We can conjecture all we want.
We can speculate all we want.
We can extrapolate all we want.
We can infer all we want.
We can pontificate all we want.
We can stand all puffed up on however many centuries of TRADITIONS OF MAN that we want . . .
but the jury will be decidely out unless and until we get there or unless and until God clarifies it further with emphatic signs following such as a loud booming voice from Heaven heard round the world or some such.
Don't you think it shows great understanding as well as humility on Peter's part? He's come a long way at this point.
= = = =
Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
2 Thessalonians:2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
= = = =
Exceedingly true. But what has this to do with the price of tea on this thread? Did I miss something? . . . checking referent post . . . checked.
I still have no clue why that was posted.
Where did you outline it? In some particular post? I don't see a post where you outlined the essence of the derivation of "sola scriptura" from Scripture.
there's tons more evidence for some flavor of Scripture alone
Where is it? Where are all these "tons [of] evidence"? Which verses?
-A8
Dueling verses for extremely biased perspectives are not a high priority for me at present.
Those seriously wanting to prayerfully consider the Scriptures can search:
word; the Word; My Word;
and
Scripture; The Scripture; The Scriptures
at BIBLEGATEWAY.COM
The outline I gave was:
My word is true.
My word is truth.
Both sentiments are in Scripture.
Both verses are sufficient.
WHERE, OH WHERE
ARE THE VERSES ASSERTING
that TRADITION--ESPECIALLY TRADITIONS OF MEN
Are to take any ranking at all in the search for truth?
I can think of a number of Scriptures saying the opposite.
It is becoming quite apparent that you don't know of any Scriptural evidence for 'sola scriptura'.
-A8
If there is a living Magesterium, then there need not be any verses to support a doctrine.
But those supporters of 'sola scriptura' better be able to show that 'sola scriptura' is in Scripture, or they have a serious contradiction on their hands.
-A8
It is becoming quite apparent that you don't know of any Scriptural evidence for 'sola scriptura'.
= = = =
WRONG.
I haven't cited any to specifications demanded.
I haven't read from the Romanist side, even a tiny shred of a Scripture supporting TRADITIONS OF MEN as reliable sources of truth.
Correct, apparently because you don't know any verses that support 'sola scriptura'.
-A8
That is because the Catholic Church has a living Magesterium and therefore has no need to find Scripture verses to support its Tradition. Supporters of 'sola scriptura', however, do not have a "living Magesterium", and therefore must back everything up with Scripture. Unfortunately for them, 'sola scriptura' is itself *not* in Scripture. 'Sola scriptura' fails its own test.
-A8
If there is a living Magesterium, then there need not be any verses to support a doctrine.
= = =
Another inference built on an extrapolation built on an assumption built on a long list of successful political power plays . . .
Hardly anything remotely in keeping with God's Word; God's Spirit; God's priorities; God's values.
Doesn't sound remotely safe or kosher, to me.
Doesn't sound Remotely Biblical, to me.
Doesn't sound remotely Christ-like, to me.
Doesn't even sound reasonable, to me.
Doesn't sound Remotely Biblical, to me.
Doesn't sound remotely Christ-like, to me.
Doesn't even sound reasonable, to me.
Whether or not it *sounds* like all those things to you does not take away from its truth, or show it to be false. It stands quite unscathed by your descriptions of how it *sounds* to you.
-A8
WRONG.
I know dozens more than are even in the same galactic cluster . . . of even Scriptures remotely fantasized to support TRADITIONS OF MEN.
Unfortunately for them, 'sola scriptura' is itself *not* in Scripture. 'Sola scriptura' fails its own test.
= = = =
WRONG.
The essence of the Scriptures supporting God's Word alone as a RELIABLE AND SUFFICIENT foundation, source of God's truth are fairly straight-forwardly written.
There are NONE supporting TRADITIONS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN AND SEVERAL SCRIPTURES SCREAMINGLY HOSTILE TO THE WHOLE IDEA OF VALUING TRADITIONS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN IN THE SLIGHTEST POSITIVE LIGHT.
-A8
That is unintelligible.
-A8
I'm confident that most of those . . . truly seeking Biblical truth had little to no trouble understanding it.
Name one such verse or I will be forced to conclude that you simply are bluffing, and that you have no such verses.
-A8
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.