Posted on 07/16/2009 12:27:42 AM PDT by GonzoII
Bible Only is a just misnomer made by Catholics. I am never sure what the point is except to try to prove some false premise.
You wrote:
“Since the church was before the New Testament, why do the sermons and letters of the Apostles differ so much from later church teaching?”
They don’t. What differs is your Protestant interpretation from reality.
“Can you reconcile wht is taught in ROMANS (the bible within a bible)with the early and later church fathers?”
Yes, without any difficulty whatsoever. It’s already been done (by Protestants no less): http://www.amazon.com/Romans-Ancient-Christian-Commentary-Scripture/dp/083081356X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247775587&sr=8-1
“Bible Alone” and “Faith Alone” are two cornerstone, and faulty, principles of the Reformation, proclaimed by Luther.
You wrote:
“You can either take that interpretation or you can be consistent with the rest of the Bible and conclude Matt 16:18 is referring to the confession of Peter that Christ is the son of the living God is the cornerstone/foundation.”
That’s not consistent at all since that’s not what Christ said.
“Peter is a small rock, like the rest of believers, who make up the Church.”
No, that old, tired and erroneous argument is known to be wrong even according to reputable Protestant scholars such as D.A. Carson.
“The self-serving Catholic interpretation ignores many passages throughout the Bible including 1 Peter 2:5-6, Acts 4:11, and 1 Cor 3:11. Christ is the cornerstone.”
Nope. It doesn’t ignore anything. It just gets it all right.
You wrote:
“My Church started when Jesus came to the earth.”
Nope. If you were to state the name of your sect we could prove that easily enough.
“The only requirement is that you accept Jesus as the son of the living God who died for your sins. The NT serves as a testimony for that. It doesn’t matter when the NT was written or when the NT was first printed for the masses or any other random date you come up with. Any of that is irrelevant.”
No, it matter for what we’re talking about. You have to insist it doesn’t because that false line of reasoning is all you have.
Hardly, I said that the Bible Only contains the inspired words of God.
Those words affirm the authority of the church and of true guidance from the Holy Spirit.
Hardly, I said that the Bible Only contains the inspired words of God.
As in, "only the Bible contains the inspired words of God?" If so, then I don't see how you could square it with this:
Those words affirm the authority of the church and of true guidance from the Holy Spirit.
But if the Holy Spirit "provides guidance," then that's God providing information from a Source other than the Bible.
So ... what is your definition of "Bible Only?" It seems not to match the way the authors use it.
The Bible Only means that no other source is the repository of the Word of God.
That the Bible affirms the authority of a faithful Church or of times when true promptings of the Holy Spirit are made evident does not diminish the authority of the Bible.
How do you see me using it differently?
There are many true affirmative statements that can be made with “Bible only” in them. The article presents arguments against certain specific propositions, 565-581 that are characteristic of the principle “Bible Only”, widely adopted by the Protestants since Luther. It makes no argument against any other statement that points to the unique character of the Bible. Do you have a disagreement with the article on its substance?
It could be interpreted as you saying it's the only source of the Word of God ... whereas the Holy Spirit is obviously not "the Bible," and yet still expresses the Word of God.
And to be honest, I'm not really sure even what you mean by "repository."
Not exactly. It does not mean what is claimed. Sola Scripture just means the Bible is the authoritative source for the Word of God. Not that there aren't others, but other sources must line up with the Bible to be accepted. Bible only is a misnomer.
You don’t know anyone who heard Paul teach. They are long dead.
However, God would not fail to include all his necessary teaching in the Bible, or as you say, “It is impossible for Christ to have failed to keep all his truth available to the world.”
For me, the “Church” is merely the body of believers and all believers are “saints” by definition.
Honestly, your inflammatory language is kind of tiresome and unnecessary. I don't put myself in a box defined by any man-made doctrine. I seek the Kingdom of God, not blindly accept a doctrine whether it be Baptist, Pentecostal, or Catholic. Denominations tend to put works and obedience over the Grace of God.
Very well. I don't argue over words. Indeed there are other inspired and authoritative sources of Christian doctrine.
Do you have objections to the article on substance, points 565-581?
The Holy Spirit is not a “repository” of God. The HS is God. At least, we trinitarians believe that. I’m assuming you are a trinitarian.
God, however, has seen fit to speak through His servants, the prophets, and the NT contains instances of prophets still being prompted to deliver specific messages to God’s people, none of which rises to the level of Holy Scripture.
Just off the top of my head, I would take issue with #’s 567, 569, and 571. I have heartburn with some of the other bold print statements, and some of the regular print explanations.
I do not consider that list to be a clear representation of historic Christianity or of the ideas of the medieval reformers.
OK, and what is wrong with these replies?
Are you referring to the numbers I listed?
Yes.
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.