Define Idolatry

[Thinkingstuff]

The Bible says what it says and HOW it says it conveys the meaning. Isaiah 8:20 is the direct INSPIRED claim by the Prophet Isaiah that "THIS WORD" stands as the final authority to judge the trustworthiness for supposed knowledge coming from other sources other than "THIS WORD."

Yes The bible is the inspired word of God

Very simply stated and very simple to understand unless you have blinders on. Take your blinders off!

No one argues inspiration. We are arguing sole authority which the passage does not say. Its something you added to the word of God.

2

Tim. 3:16-17 both explicitly and implicitly demands that "scriptures" and scriptures ALONE are sufficient for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL" good works when it comes to doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof, etc. Can't get it much clearer! Paul could not use the terms "throughly furnished" and "all" if doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof depended upon ANOTHER source in addition to "scriptures."

Nothing in that passage that suggest scriptures alone are the sole authority. Look what Paul says just before that passage.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it

suggesting that young Timothy remember the oral tradition Paul and his mother and grandmother taught him as well as scriptures. Nothing about scriptures being the sole authority.

 

[DaChaser1]

Yes The bible is the inspired word of God


No one argues inspiration. We are arguing sole authority which the passage does not say. Its something you added to the word of God.

2
Nothing in that passage that suggest scriptures alone are the sole authority. Look what Paul says just before that passage. suggesting that young Timothy remember the oral tradition Paul and his mother and grandmother taught him as well as scriptures. Nothing about scriptures being the sole authority.

Again, the very traditions thatyou speak of were oral intil put down into written form...

Once down in sacred texts, NOTHING else is revelation from God/Period...

 

[DHK]

Nothing in that passage that suggest scriptures alone are the sole authority. Look what Paul says just before that passage. suggesting that young Timothy remember the oral tradition Paul and his mother and grandmother taught him as well as scriptures. Nothing about scriptures being the sole authority.

What precisely do you believe was "the oral tradition" that Paul taught Timothy?

 

[The Biblicist]

Further, nowhere in scripture do we find the words scripture alone. If scripture were the only authority, then one would expect to find it explicitly stated in scripture. It isn’t, therefore, Sola Scriptura (ironically by your own standard) is not scriptural.

Well... there you go!

WM

You have eyes but cannot see. I repeatedly point it out and you repeatedly ignore and never directly deal with it!

"THROUGHLY FURNISHED...unto ALL good works"

Can you see those words? I think not! If your position were correct, if the scriptures were not SOLELY SUFFICIENT for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction for the man of God, Paul could not say "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works." Because if TRADITION or a MAJESTERIUM in addition to the Word was essential for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works" in regard to doctrine, correction, instuction, reproof he would have said "All scripture and tradition is given by inspriration and is profitable....." but he did not. He did not include tradition!!!

Thus the "scritpures" ALONE are sufficient for doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof OR ELSE he could not say that the man of God is "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works"!!

 

[The Biblicist]

Nothing in that passage that suggest scriptures alone are the sole authority. Look what Paul says just before that passage. suggesting that young Timothy remember the oral tradition Paul and his mother and grandmother taught him as well as scriptures. Nothing about scriptures being the sole authority.

You have eyes but cannot see. I repeatedly point it out and you repeatedly ignore and never directly deal with it!

"THROUGHLY FURNISHED...unto ALL good works"

Can you see those words? I think not! If your position were correct, if the scriptures were not SOLELY SUFFICIENT for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction for the man of God, Paul could not say "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works." Because if TRADITION or a MAJESTERIUM in addition to the Word was essential for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works" in regard to doctrine, correction, instuction, reproof he would have said "All scripture and tradition is given by inspriration and is profitable....." but he did not. He did not include tradition!!!

Thus the "scritpures" ALONE are sufficient for doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof OR ELSE he could not say that the man of God is "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works"!!

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me simplify this a little...

For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. It does.

For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it. It does not.

Here is how one of your own Catholic websites defines it:

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.

Perhaps you better correct your Catholic theologions, huh? hmmmm.....

You've repudiated nothing - there's the imagination factor.

WM

The Bible is not a collection of a bunch of loose bricks that some outside intellegence needs to formulate into a formal expression. The Bible is God's Word that sets forth in simple precepts the doctrinal truths that any child of God having the INTERNAL Intelligent Author inside him can read and understand. Indeed, no external intelligence can teach a child of God ANYTHING because all understanding is accomplished by the Indwelling Spirit INSIDE the child of God (1 John 2:29). A man can sit in the Catholic Church and learn everything the preist can teach him and still remain lost, blind and unable to see the simplest of truths because ONLY the Holy Spirit can really open the eyes of the understanding and He does it in connection with the Word of God as the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit and the light the Spirit uses to guide His children.

 

[WestminsterMan]

What is the RCC "proof" that their extra biblical sources are any different from what Mormons claim though?

This is the slippery slope!

Bible IS said and confirmed by god to be a revelation from Himself, what proof can credit extra biblical claims and sources though?

His word shows you:

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

You have eyes but cannot see. I repeatedly point it out and you repeatedly ignore and never directly deal with it!

"THROUGHLY FURNISHED...unto ALL good works"

Can you see those words? I think not! If your position were correct, if the scriptures were not SOLELY SUFFICIENT for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction for the man of God, Paul could not say "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works." Because if TRADITION or a MAJESTERIUM in addition to the Word was essential for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works" in regard to doctrine, correction, instuction, reproof he would have said "All scripture and tradition is given by inspriration and is profitable....." but he did not. He did not include tradition!!!

Thus the "scritpures" ALONE are sufficient for doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof OR ELSE he could not say that the man of God is "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works"!!

The term translated "throughly furnished" is the Greek term "exaritzo" and means to be COMPLETED, to FINISH or SUFFICIENT.

"Scripture" and "Scripture" ALONE is all that is necessary to make the man of God "SUFFICIENT" COMPLETE" "FINISHED" for "ALL" good works in regard to doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof - NOTHING MORE NEEDED!

 

[DHK]

His word shows you:

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

WM

Paul is writing to Timothy, who is the pastor of the church at Ephesus.
The church referred to is the local church of Ephesus.
It is this church that is the pillar and ground of the truth, as is every Bible-believing church, or as they should be.

They are the pillar of the truth in that they uphold the truth--the truth being the Word of God. This teaches that the Bible is our sole authority. The local church upholds the truth of the Bible.

They are the ground of the truth--the foundation. Every local church has as its foundation the Word of God. This also teaches that the Bible is our sole authority, our authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It is our foundation; that which we are built upon. Every Bible-believing church is built this way. This is what Paul was teaching Timothy as a pastor of the church at Ephesus.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Here is how one of your own Catholic websites defines it:

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.

Perhaps you better correct your Catholic theologions, huh? hmmmm.....

1) It's not "...my Catholic website"
2) They're not my "...Catholic theologi[a]ns"
3) Not citing your sources, makes you a plagiarist.

The Bible is not a collection of a bunch of loose bricks that some outside intellegence needs to formulate into a formal expression. The Bible is God's Word that sets forth in simple precepts the doctrinal truths that any child of God having the INTERNAL Intelligent Author inside him can read and understand. Indeed, no external intelligence can teach a child of God ANYTHING because all understanding is accomplished by the Indwelling Spirit INSIDE the child of God (1 John 2:29).

You're pretty good at standing up that straw man aren't you. I mean - considering the fact that your "loose bricks" analogy didn't even come from me. Man - I think you need a rest.

A man can sit in the Catholic Church and learn everything the preist can teach him and still remain lost, blind and unable to see the simplest of truths because ONLY the Holy Spirit can really open the eyes of the understanding and He does it in connection with the Word of God as the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit and the light the Spirit uses to guide His children.

Well how do you know that the "man" in the Catholic Church doesn't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Clearly - you don't. More garbage.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Paul is writing to Timothy, who is the pastor of the church at Ephesus.
The church referred to is the local church of Ephesus.
It is this church that is the pillar and ground of the truth, as is every Bible-believing church, or as they should be.

They are the pillar of the truth in that they uphold the truth--the truth being the Word of God. This teaches that the Bible is our sole authority. The local church upholds the truth of the Bible.

They are the ground of the truth--the foundation. Every local church has as its foundation the Word of God. This also teaches that the Bible is our sole authority, our authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It is our foundation; that which we are built upon. Every Bible-believing church is built this way. This is what Paul was teaching Timothy as a pastor of the church at Ephesus.

No dispute. The true Church has as its foundation the Word of God. Yet, that does nothing toward proving that Scripture is the SOLE authority. Scripture doesn't even say that about itself.

WM

 

[DHK]

No dispute. The true Church has as its foundation the Word of God. Yet, that does nothing toward proving that Scripture is the SOLE authority. Scripture doesn't even say that about itself.

WM

It is not "The Church", but rather a church, or the church at Ephesus. Therefore the instructions are only applicable to local churches, not the RCC organization or even an organization as the Anglican Church. Those churches who are grounded in the word, and preach the word, not tradition, are what is being referred to here. There is no hint of tradition anywhere here.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You have eyes but cannot see. I repeatedly point it out and you repeatedly ignore and never directly deal with it!

"THROUGHLY FURNISHED...unto ALL good works"

Using large font bold text does nothing to prove your position. Anyway...

Having been given a rifle, a helment, ammo, and all of the accoutrements, a soldier can be said to be "thoroughly furnished" for combat. Yet without training, he is useless.

Yep... still no reference to the SOLE authority of scripture. Try again...

Can you see those words? I think not! If your position were correct, if the scriptures were not SOLELY SUFFICIENT for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction for the man of God, Paul could not say "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works." Because if TRADITION or a MAJESTERIUM in addition to the Word was essential for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works" in regard to doctrine, correction, instuction, reproof he would have said "All scripture and tradition is given by inspriration and is profitable....." but he did not. He did not include tradition!!!

Neither did I include tradition - that's another straw man belonging to you.

Thus the "scritpures" ALONE are sufficient for doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof OR ELSE he could not say that the man of God is "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works"!!

Again for your perusal:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Taking the verse apart we see the following:
1. Scripture is inspired by God.

2. Scripture is profitable (yielding advantageous results) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

3. Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative.

However, nowhere does the verse state that scripture is sufficient. The words "sufficient and alone" are your additions.

Again...
Nowhere in scripture do we find the words scripture alone. If scripture were the only authority, then one would expect to find it explicitly stated in scripture. It isn’t, therefore, Sola Scriptura (ironically by your own standard) is not scriptural.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

1) 3) Not citing your sources, makes you a plagiarist.

Better understand the meaning of the charge "plagiarist" before opening your mouth and embarassing yourself. My post fully noted that I was quoting from another source INSTEAD OF PRESENTING IT AS MY OWN THOUGHTS. Plagiarism is quoting from another source and claiming the credit for yourself.

Shall I call you a plagiarist when you cited a version of Isaiah 8:16 but did not give the credit to NIV until later after I demanded the source??? Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black if that be the case.

Here is the source:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/09/sola-scriptura-formal-versus-material.html

You're pretty good at standing up that straw man aren't you. I mean - considering the fact that your "loose bricks" analogy didn't even come from me. Man - I think you need a rest.

Great! One Catholic apoligist repudiating another Catholic apoligist - Oh blessed harmony of the One True Church. hmmmmmm......

I just love how Romanist apologists are their own best enemies!

 

[WestminsterMan]

It is not "The Church", but rather a church, or the church at Ephesus. Therefore the instructions are only applicable to local churches, not the RCC organization or even an organization as the Anglican Church. Those churches who are grounded in the word, and preach the word, not tradition, are what is being referred to here. There is no hint of tradition anywhere here.

Your analogy is flawed. Simply because the Church of Ephesus was named doesn't extrapolate out to "Therefore the instructions are only applicable to local churches..." That's only your idea and one not support by the verse.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Better understand the meaning of the charge "plagiarist" before opening your mouth and embarassing yourself. My post fully noted that I was quoting from another source INSTEAD OF PRESENTING IT AS MY OWN THOUGHTS. Plagiarism is quoting from another source and claiming the credit for yourself."

Go look up the word plagiarism and get back to me. You didn't cite your source! Try that in academic settings.

Shall I call you a plagiarist when you cited a version of Isaiah 8:16 but did not give the credit to NIV until later after I demanded the source??? Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black if that be the case.

I don't recall that event in this thread. Can you give me the post number?

Here is the source:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/09/sola-scriptura-formal-versus-material.html

Oh right - This is just a lay person's Blog.

Great! One Catholic apoligist repudiating another Catholic apoligist - Oh blessed harmony of the One True Church. hmmmmmm......

I'm not a Catholic apologist as in the meaning of a lawyer presenting the case of his client. Hmmm....

I just love how Romanist apologists are their own best enemies!

Well, I wouldn't know about that.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Having been given a rifle, a helment, ammo, and all of the accoutrements, a soldier can be said to be "thoroughly furnished" for combat. Yet without training, he is useless.

Poor analogy! The text says the very opposite of your analogy. The text says that the man of God is THROUGHLY FURNISHED - complete, sufficient unto ALL good works as doctrine, instruction, correction, and reproof ARE THE ELEMENTS OF TRAINING.

Training is being furnished sufficient doctrine, teaching, correction and reproof as that is the very essence of training.

Guess what? No Tradition needed for this training as the "scritpures" ALONE are sufficient for DOCTRINE, INSTRUCTION, CORRECTION and REPROOF. The Holy Spirit is the Trainer and the Bible is the completed and finished and sufficient training manual (I Jn. 2:29).

Again for your perusal:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Taking the verse apart we see the following:
1. Scripture is inspired by God.

2. Scripture is profitable (yielding advantageous results) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

3. Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative.

Great up to this point and then you fall flat on your face when you say:

However, nowhere does the verse state that scripture is sufficient. The words "sufficient and alone" are your additions.

Wrong, the Greek term "exartizo" translated "thoroughly furnished" means complete, sufficient and it is the Scriptures and what they provide that makes the man of God "complete, sufficient" unto ALL good works. If the Scritpures were not SUFFICIENT ALONE for doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof then the man of God would not be sufficient for "ALL" good works but he would need Rome, Tradition, counsels, church fathers and the list goes on.

Rome hates the Word of God and so do you!

 

[DHK]

Your analogy is flawed. Simply because the Church of Ephesus was named doesn't extrapolate out to "Therefore the instructions are only applicable to local churches..." That's only your idea and one not support by the verse.

WM

It is supported by context.
Paul was writing to Timothy, the pastor of the church.
It was the church in Ephesus, a local church.
The word for church, every time in the NT, is ekklesia meaning "assembly."
It has no other meaning but assembly or congregation. It cannot refer to a denomination, a universal church, an invisible church or any other such thing. It simply means "assembly." For a more literal translation consult either Darby or Young's translation where the word is translated consistently "assembly" throughout the NT.

He was writing to the assembly at Ephesus, and in application to local assemblies modeled after it.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Poor analogy! The text says the very opposite of your analogy. The text says that the man of God is THROUGHLY FURNISHED - complete, sufficient unto ALL good works as doctrine, instruction, correction, and reproof ARE THE ELEMENTS OF TRAINING.

Training is being furnished sufficient doctrine, teaching, correction and reproof as that is the very essence of training.

Guess what? No Tradition needed for this training as the "scritpures" ALONE are sufficient for DOCTRINE, INSTRUCTION, CORRECTION and REPROOF. The Holy Spirit is the Trainer and the Bible is the completed and finished and sufficient training manual (I Jn. 2:29).



Great up to this point and then you fall flat on your face when you say:



Wrong, the Greek term "exartizo" translated "thoroughly furnished" means complete, sufficient and it is the Scriptures and what they provide that makes the man of God "complete, sufficient" unto ALL good works. If the Scritpures were not SUFFICIENT ALONE for doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof then the man of God would not be sufficient for "ALL" good works but he would need Rome, Tradition, counsels, church fathers and the list goes on.

Rome hates the Word of God and so do you!

Sufficent? Materially so. Yet... nothing you have quoted shows that scripture is the SOLE authority. Nothing. Try again...

Oh...and please stop with your snarky attitude. I don't hate God's Word.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Go look up the word plagiarism and get back to me. You didn't cite your source! Try that in academic settings.



I don't recall that event in this thread. Can you give me the post number?

You are right! It was Thinkingstuff that quoted from a translation and did not give cite the source. So Thinkingstuff is the plagiarist according to your defintion. Plagiarism is not failing to cite the proper source but rather using it as though it originated from you and not from someone else.

Here is the Cambridge Dictionary on line defintion:


to use another person's idea or a part of their work and pretend that it is your own
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/plagiarize?q=plagiarism

Oh right - This is just a lay person's Blog.

If you would have read it carefully you would have noted that it was a definition taken from a Roman Catholic apologist (Dr Michael Liccione) in his debate with a Professor of Theology of a protestant seminary.

Dr. Liccione received his PhD in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania and has taught at a number of Catholic colleges, including Catholic University of America and the University of St. Thomas (Houston).

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/07/welcome_michael_liccione.html

Of course I am sure you are more knowledgable then this Roman Catholic Doctor and Professor who regularly defends Roman Catholicism as a Roman Catholic apologists in debates with other Professors??? Right? Since you claim "I am not a Catholic apologists" but He is?????? hmmmmmm.......