Sola Scriptura vs Sola Scriptura

No, I am just stating what I've heard Catholics say. </font>[/QUOTE]Then tell them for me (and for the Holy Father) that they are ignorant of their faith, and they need to get properly catechized.

 

You have obviously never suffered from their soft cushions, much less in their Comfy Chair, or you would not be so blithe!

The Comfy Chair!

 

So what does this have to do with Sola Scriptura vs Sola Scriptura?

 

The factions among the RCC gave rise to Protestantism JUST as the faction among the Jews - "the sect known as Christian" arose out of orthodox Judaism.

The Protestant claim has never been "there are never any factions among the Catholics" since all of history clearly refutes that idea.

The Protestant claim has never been "all Protestants agree on all things since they don't have the Papacy to mislead them".

However these are examples of straw-men argued at one time or another by our RC bretheren.

The aggregious errors of the Episcopal church - in recent days (as affirmed by Rev Joshuah on this board) simply demonstrate the "lengths" to which a faction within the Episcopal church may go once it adopts humanism over exegesis.

As Joshuah exemplifies - this problem is not limited to Episcopalians. Anyone that starts of trashing the first 3 chapters of scripture - and selecting "humanism over God's Word" is heading down a road - very much "consistent" with views of "humanism over scripture" expressed by the Episcopalian church in America today.

May God forgive them and turn them from their darkness - before they infest this country with compromised Christianity - of the highest order.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The connection of the errors of the Episcopal church today - and slander against "sola scriptura" is of the form "You can't believe the Bible when IT declares sin clearly in Lev 18 and Romans 1 AND you can't believe your OWN clergy when THEY condemn the errors of the Episcopal church in recent weeks - RATHER you must seek to hear and believe MY RC priest alone otherwise you are confused by the Bible as it condemns the actions of the Episcopal church".

But of course - such a line of reasoning - would hold about as much water as .... well as "Purgatory". You have to "already BE RC" to believe in it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Or better yet! What about Paul telling NON-Christian JEWS to "Search the Scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul are SO" Acts 17:11. Yeah!! That is real funny??

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have to give Joshua credit for one point - he argues that voting for a Bishop that is practicing that perversion - is not "worse" than voting to accept priests openly promoting the same perversion so utterly condemned by Lev 18 and Romans 1.

And that is at least "one" point that he has made regarding his views on humanism - that holds water.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The question was asked.
What is “Scripture”?
“Scripture” renders the original word graphe, found about 51 times in the Greek New Testament. The term always refers to a sacred writing. Most commonly it denotes the holy writings of the Old Testament, but the absence of a Greek article in conjunction with graphe in this passage “leaves room for other writings that have a right to be called divinely inspired Scriptures” (Hiebert, p. 100). Without question, the term “scripture” embraces both Old and New Testaments. See 1 Timothy 5:18 and in 2 Peter 3:16 where the term is used comprehensively of both Testaments.

The Purpose of “Scripture”
The Scriptures are described as having been intended to make the “man [person] of God complete,” and “furnished completely” for the accomplishment of “every good work.” The two terms “complete” (artios) and “furnished completely” (exartizo – an intensified verbal form of the previous word) suggest the idea of that which is “well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient,” the equivalent of, “able to meet all demands” (Danker, p. 136; Balz & Schneider, Vol. 1, p. 159). The compound form, exartizo, carries two ideas, “to finish” or “complete” (cf. Acts 21:5), and to “connect perfectly, fit to perfection” (Spicq, Vol. 2, p. 18).
The point being made relative to the matter at hand is this. If the Scriptures are capable of making a person complete, and furnishing him completely for every righteous activity, then it cannot be argued that the Bible is but a “dead letter,” inadequate for one’s religious instruction. It must not be contended that the “voice of the church” is imperative, both traditionally and currently, to complete the Christian’s source of knowledge.

 

JFS:
The idea one cannot learn divine truth independently from the Roman Catholic Church or any other self proclaimed authority is FOOLISHNESS. Consider the following:

This excerpt is taken from the Chrisitan Courier by Wayne Jackson.

“The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura,” by James Akin. Mr. Akin identifies himself as the “Senior Apologist,” for Catholic Answers.
The gentleman disputes the proposition that all matters pertaining to the “faith and practice” of the Christian system must be derived from the Scriptures alone. Similarly, Akin (who converted to Catholicism some ten years ago, and wrote the essay referenced above only four years following his attachment to the Roman Church), denies that the individual Christian has the right of “private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures.”
In his ambitious effort to disprove the principle of sola scriptura (only the Scriptures), Mr. Akin offers seven points that he believes establish the validity of “Tradition” authority, or what also is called “Magisterium” (teaching authority), as opposed to the exclusive authority of the Scriptures. Incredibly, in the gentleman’s essay there is not a solitary appeal to the Bible. Rather, the argument is based altogether upon factors which, it is contended, from the very nature of the case, negate the concept of sola scriptura.
In summary fashion, here are his seven points, along with appropriate response.
1.Most Christians had no access to the Scriptures before the invention of the printing press, hence, the idea of sola scriptura cannot obtain where there is no widespread availability of the New Testament documents.
RESPONSE: Just because gospel teaching was not circulated originally, in the precise format in which the Scriptures now exist, constitutes no argument at all to negate the undisputed fact that in those early centuries multiplied thousands of people became Christians, grew in the faith, and died with the hope of heaven, upon the basis of the simple gospel message. And all of this was achieved without the alleged interpretative skills or authority of popes, cardinals, arch-bishops, synods, or human credos – which conglomeration, in fact, did not exist for centuries following the establishment of primitive Christianity.
One must also remember that in earlier times, when printed materials were not so readily available, people relied upon the memory faculty of the human mind much more than is the case today. Sufficient gospel truth for redemption, therefore, was spread abroad – even before the New Testament records were completed. As the New Testament documents were produced, and began to be circulated, numerous copies were made, and vast quantities of those were committed to memory. To suggest, then, that the pattern for New Testament belief and practice was unknown in those early ages is to contradict known historical facts.
But reflect upon on the following data which suggest a widespread distribution of the Scriptures.
· Polycarp, who lived in Smyrna (Asia Minor) around A.D. 70-155/60, in his small epistle to the Philippians, quoted from, or alluded to, no fewer than thirteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.
· Origen (A.D. c. 185-254), whose work was done principally in Alexandria and Caesarea, produced hundreds of writings pertaining to the Bible. In his various works there are more than 5,700 quotations from the New Testament.
· Tertullian (A.D. c. 160-220), who lived in Africa, quoted the New Testament more than 3,000 times in his various writings.
This sort of evidence could be multiplied many times over. Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost textual critics of our time, has observed that the New Testament quotations from the “church fathers” are so extensive that if the New Testament were destroyed entirely, it could be reconstructed from these sources alone (Metzger, 86).
Even more dramatic than the above is the fact that even infidel writers (e.g., Celsus – mid-second century, and Porphyry – early fourth century) quoted profusely from the Scriptures in their vain attempts to discredit Christianity. How did they come to have access to the sacred writings if these documents were so scarce and so expensive in those days, as to be beyond the grasp of almost everyone?
The truth is, the early Christians copied the Scriptures extensively, and translated them into many different languages (in an age when literary translation was extremely rare). This constitutes powerful evidence for the reality that the biblical documents were perceived by the early saints as divine entitlements for the masses, and not merely a deposit to be hoarded by a select clerical elite who then would convey “official dogma” to the people.
2.Even when the Bible became available, copies were so expensive that few could afford them.
RESPONSE:This assertion is answered by the data chronicled above.
3.In those early days, few could read; and so the Scriptures alone would do them little good. The voice of the Church thus was needed additionally.
RESPONSE:This argument is seriously flawed – both logically and historically. The fact that one may not be able to read does not mean he cannot be taught the gospel by trustworthy people. Many who are not literate technically have obeyed gospel truth and enjoyed the benefits of salvation.
The objection which our “senior apologist” friend makes in this regard could be lodged against his own position. How would an illiterate Catholic learn of the official dogma of the Roman clergy if he is unable to read his catechism? And how would the “voice” of the papacy be “heard” by the masses in those times when there were no media outlets of rapid and universal communication?
It is quite incorrect to imply that the masses of people generally have been unable to read. An archaeological artifact, the Gezer Calendar, which dates from the tenth century before Christ, is a schoolboy’s exercise. It demonstrates that reading and writing were a part of ancient Israel’s culture, even among the youth (Archer, 52). The fact is, archaeology has demonstrated the existence of schools going back at least 2,500 before the birth of Christ (Kramer, pp. 1ff). Archaeological and literary evidence have shown than in first-century Palestine most folks were conversant with three languages – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Gundry, 21).
Even Jesus could read and write (Lk. 4:16ff; Jn. 7:15; 8:6, 8), though he raised in a very impoverished family environment (cf. Lk. 2:24, with reference to the “poor” offering; see also 2 Cor. 8:9) and, early-on followed the trade of a carpenter (Mk. 6:3). Peter and John, who were only humble fishermen – not scholastics (see Acts 4:13), could read and write – as demonstrated by their respective contributions to the New Testament collection. The “illiterate” argument is much ado about nothing.
4.Unlearned people do not have access to “scholarly” sources, thus whatever knowledge they have is most likely flawed.
RESPONSE:By the same token, a Catholic “lay” person could hardly know of the reliability of the dogma received from their clergy. They have no access to the countless volumes of decisions that have been handed down from the various Councils. How could they possibly assess the numerous controversies that have raged across the centuries in the very bosom of the Roman Church itself?
The truth is, however, one does not need to have “scholarly” sources to ascertain God’s plan of redemption and submit thereto. An honest consultation of the New Testament provides adequate information for instruction regarding how to obtain salvation, the fundamentals of church government, worship procedure, godly living, and such like. While grammatical and historical minutia may be of value in honing the finer points of doctrine, it is not essential to attaining heaven.
5.Hardworking folks have little time for study, and so they need someone to tell them what to believe.
RESPONSE: It requires no more time to study the New Testament than it does to peruse a catechism or listen to a priest recite dogma from some pope or council. Such a line of argumentation is embarrassingly impotent.
6. Through much of Christian history, people have had improper diets. This lack of nutrition resulted in their brains being unable to function critically. Hence, they could not draw rational deductions from studying the Bible alone.
This argument, quite frankly, is pathetic. If it applies to those who desire to study the Scriptures, but cannot think clearly because of unnourished brains, it applies equally to the instruction received from the Catholic clergy.
Why, pray tell, would it be more difficult to comprehend the teaching of the inspired New Testament writers, than it would be to ingest the teachings of uninspired Roman Catholic instructors? However, if Mr. Akin’s argument has any merit, might it not explain why Catholicism has made its greatest inroads in the most impoverished nations of the world?
7.Since a high level of critical skill is necessary for interpreting the Scriptures, and, as most folks do not possess such skill, common sense would dictate that Church officials do their thinking for them.
RESPONSE: This final quibble is in the same vein as the previous three, and responses to those matters need not be reiterated here.
In conclusion, this discussion with a reference to George Salmon’s masterful volume, The Infallibility of the Church – a book so powerful in its exposure of Catholic claims, that it has never been answered by papal apologists. In fact, noted Catholic scholar P.J. Toner, who authored the article on “Infallibility” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, described Salmon’s work as “the cleverest modern attack on the Catholic position” of this issue (Toner, p. 800). “Cleverest” is an understatement; it is a devastating exposure of Catholic propaganda relative to the “authority” of the Roman Church.
Salmon points out that it is an undeniable historical fact that as the Roman ecclesiastical system evolved, the time came when Catholic clerics surrendered the idea that the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church could be defended by the Scriptures. Hence, by default, the notion arose that “the Bible does not contain the whole of God’s revelation, and that a body of traditional doctrine existed in the Church equally deserving of veneration” (Salmon, 28). This is precisely the point that we made earlier, in noting Mr. Akin’s total absence of scriptural argumentation.
Ambitiously-driven lusts for release from the authority of the Holy Scriptures has given birth to numerous heretical claims of special revelation from God. Sola Scriptura remains as the valid procedure for pursuing the Mind of the Lord.

SOURCES
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1964), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody).

Balz, Horst & Schneider, Gerhard (1978), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Conway, Bertrand (1929), The Question Box (San Francisco: Catholic Truth Society).

Danker, F.W., et al. (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago).

Gundry, Robert H. (1970), Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Hiebert, D.E. (1958), 2 Timothy (Chicago: Moody).


Kramer, Samuel Noah (1959), History Begins At Sumer (New York: Doubleday).

Metzger, Bruce (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press).

Salmon, George (1959 Reprint), The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Spicq, Celsus (1994), Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Toner, P.J. (1910), The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Co.), Vol. VII.

 

Wow. I slandered sola scriptura? As Catholics we argue that you as an individual cannot come up with the truth about God on your own by reading the Bible. Protestants use the arguement "Yes we can because we are guided by the Holy Spirit." "The Holy Spirit will lead us into all Truths." (John 16)
</font>[/QUOTE]True enough - John 16 does promise that.

And so EACH of the Protestant groups has NOT ONLY the Holy Spirit "teaching" as the Bible promises BUT they ALSO have the Clergy.

As already pointed out ALL division arose from the RCC itself. It was Catholic theologians that instituted the reformation. By your OWN reasoning - that is "impossible".

And - the Protestant reformation never stated that "two people can not differ" - as the straw man you put forward would argue. Rather the protestant position is that the same principle that gives rise to the errors of the RC church (the flying apostles coming to Mary at her death would be "one example") - are the principles that can plague any group if they too reject God's Word.

In this case the Episcopal church and the RCC both reject God's Word on the subject of Creation. A vote for "humanism" over "God's Word". An Episcopal church sect is now simply taking another step along the path of humanism ALREADY started with prvious decisions.

You will find some threads showing Catholic ENDORSEMENT of Sola Scriptura "as if" Catholics actually practiced it. I usually point them to threads like this one - where open rejection of it is "the norm" by RC members. And certainly that is "the norm" when posting this type of debate on a truly RC message board (as I have learned the hard way).

I appreciate your confession.

In the mean time - "They studied the Scriptures DAILY to see IF the things told to them by Paul Were So" Acts 17:11.

"Though WE or an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN should preach to you a gospel OTHER than has already been given - Let them Be Accursed!" Gal 1:6-11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The wholesale rejection of the principle of Sola Scriptura embraced by Roman Catholicism has opened the floodgates of confusion with its resultant infidelity. What is the legacy of the RCC's denial of the sole authority of God's word? This:

1.)The elevation of a mortal, sinful man (the Pope) as Christ's vicegerent with the powers of divine infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra.
2.)The elevation of the Pope, a mere mortal, sinful man - just as much in need of Christ's grace as anyone else, as a temporal as well as a spiritual sovereign.
3.)The arrogance in re-writing God's ten commandments as written in the book of Exodus; deleting the second commandment forbidding the worship of images and dividing the tenth commandment forbidding coveting into two separate commandments in order to maintain the count of ten.
4.)The substitution of God's seventh day Sabbath for the pagan day of the Sun.
5.)The veneration-worship of dead "saints".
6.)The elevation of Mary, the mother of Jesus as co-redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, and mother of God.
7.)The introduction the unBiblical triune God.
8.)The introduction of holy days and feast days which are merely "christianized" pagan holidays. Like Christmas - the pagan winter solstice in honor of the sun god. Like easter, the pagan tribute to the god of fertility, Ishtar - ever wondered what easter eggs and bunny rabits have to do with the resurrection of Jesus?
9.)The introduction of the idolatrous worship of the wafer or communion host which we're told is the real, authentic presence in body, blood, soul and spirit of the very risen Christ made possible by the utterance of certain consecratory words of a priest - a mortal, sinful man.
10.)The introduction of the confessing of sins to a mere mortal, sinful man - a priest as mediator instead of going directly to Christ, the true mediator between God and man for the confessing of and obtaining the forgiveness of sin.

All of these things are NOT taught in God's word. Not a one of them. So here you have an organization which claims to follow Jesus Christ that has in actual fact set themselves above Christ by making of none effect the word of God. So there should be no real surprise when we see other religious organizations who claim to follow Christ actually place their own lusts as true doctrine above the word of God and become so deluded as to think that this sinful perversion is God's gift to the human race.

The Catholic Church is not alone in denying Sola Scriptura. Obviously the Episcopal Church does the same. For they certainly cannot cite the word of God in defense of their promotion of homosexuality. So, in place of the authority of the Bible alone, the RCC has the Pope and the magisterium. The Mormons have Joseph Smith and his book of Mormon. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible the New Word Translation. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has the writings of Ellen G. White as their authority plus their own version of the Bible, the Clear Word Bible. They claim that the Bible is their sole authority but they do more EGW quoting to substantiate their doctrines than they do Bible quoting. So, the RCC should in no wise be singled out as the only christian denomination that has abandoned the sole authority of the Bible for Catholocism and many in Protestantism have done the same thing.

The bottom line is that God's true church is NOT any specific denomination. The RCC is in no way the true church of Jesus. Neither is the SDA church or the Mormon Church or the JW's. In actuality, all of these organizations are false in that every single one of them are teaching something that is extra-Biblical. Notwithstanding that fact, God's true church are to be found in ALL of these denominations, these organizations that are upholding different heresies. There are true Christians in the RC church. There are true Christians in the JW's. There are true Christians in the Mormon Church, the Episcopal Church, etc. God has His people in ALL of those communions. They weren't saved by those churches. But they were saved IN SPITE of those churches and the falsehoods that they promote. For God is able to save His people regardless of their circumstances. These various church bodies speaking different things are just babbling a bunch of gibberish. That's why God refers to them in the book of Revelation as "Babylon" - denoting confusion. God makes it very plain that He has people in ALL of those false churches of "Babylon" that are truly His and who truly love Him and His Son. That's why He makes the call "Come out of her MY PEOPLE...."

Consequently, the true church of Jesus Christ is NOT any specific denomination. The true church of Jesus Christ are ANYONE who believes that Christ is the Son of God and is trusting in Him for the forgiveness of sin and the cleansing of sin. The true church is composed of people who have a close, personal, loving, intimate, real, living, vibrant relationship with God through His Son. And these folks may be found scattered throughout ALL of the various conflicting christian organizations. This, my friends, is what constitutes God's true people, His true church.

God Bless.

Ricky

 

Ah, so then God's Word in only to be found in Scripture? Where does it say that in Scripture?

The Catholic Church, of course, does not deny the sole authority of God's Word, but embraces it! All of it!

 

Any non-Catholics want to defend the Trinity to Ricky using sola Scriptura?

 

Any non-Catholics want to defend the Trinity to Ricky using sola Scriptura? </font>[/QUOTE]One need not look further than Jesus' baptism by John, which is a clear example of the triune Godhead as it shows clearly that the Father was a witness to the baptism of HIS Son, who was blessed by the Holy Spirit which descended upon him in a manner similar to the Holy Spirit descending upon the heads of those at Pentacost.

It is recorded that the Voice of the Father clearly stated that Jesus is His Son. Can the Son of God be anything other than God? Can your son be anything but human? So it is that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit appeared to man, all at the same time in the same place, and there were many witnesses. What conclusion other than a Triune Godhead or Trinity can one arrive at?

 

It is recorded that the Voice of the Father clearly stated that Jesus is His Son. Can the Son of God be anything other than God? Can your son be anything but human? So it is that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit appeared to man, all at the same time in the same place, and there were many witnesses. What conclusion other than a Triune Godhead or Trinity can one arrive at?

That record does NOT define the one God as a Trinity! That is merely a human spin being put on those verses of Scripture. It doesn't say that the one God was composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The record simply states that GOD's voice was heard at Jesus' baptism and GOD'S Spirit was GIVEN to GOD's Son, Jesus. There's only ONE GOD brought to view in those verses of Scripture, not two, not three.

You make a good point that as the son of a human cannot be anything but human, in like manner then the Son of God cannot be anything but God (Divine) - for that's what the word "God" means. And in like manner the spirit of a human man cannot be anything but a human spirit. Consequently in like manner, the Spirit of God cannot be anything other than God's Divine Spirit. As the spirit of man is NOT a separate being apart from the man that possesses it, neither is the Spirit of God a separate Deity than the one God, the Father who possesses it. Therefore, your analogy is well spoken and well taken. But NONE of what you stated in any way, shape or form defines God as a composite of THREE separate, individual deities. Scripture never teaches that. You must go to the council of Nicea for that one.

In any case, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that the Spirit of God is related to God in the same way that the spirit of man is related to man:

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Sola Scripture knows NO TRINITY.

God Bless

 

Stick to your guns, Ricky!

 

What do you say is meant by the pronoun "our" in "our image" of verse 26?

I think God is indicating that Man must be spirit. Jesus told us the Father is spirit! No weakness at all in what Jesus said.
Jesus is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, therefore man is like unto a member of the species identified by goats and lambs, but I believe this refers to our nature because we are not God, and therefore not self sufficient. we require others and collectively we require leadership by a shepherd.

Alas, we are spirit that is held captive to a body of flesh. When our flesh dies, our spirit is set free from it and lives on. Paul told us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. We spirits in flesh become spirits freed from flesh in order to be in the presence of God.

In the flesh our spirit cannot "see" God in all his Glory because our spirit is limited to be compliant with the flesh. However, once our spirit is set free from the flesh, we then can see God as He is because we are what He made us to be through out eternity. We leave the natural realm with all of its constraints on us, and live in the spiritual world with our creator. Those who do not believe in God or Jesus are judged immediately and cast into the lake of Fire. Those who believe in Jesus who is God, are not judged!

There is recent evidence that our flesh can live for a while without a spirit. The Mary Ann Quinlan story indicates that the body can live after the spirit has departed, but not for an eternity. Mary Ann's body continued to live for some time after the life support machines that "sustained her life" were turned off. This indicates that two of the three elements that comprise man were at work. The flesh and that "soul", for lack of a better term, that quickens the flesh continued to function which made Mary Ann's body equal to any number of animals. Her spirit had departed the flesh.

We humans are triune beings in the same manner that God is a triune being. We are therefore made in the image of God. God identified Himself as "our", He is called "Elohim" meaning plural or multiplicity of being.

Does the scripture say that there are three separate beings that make up God? No, but Jesus claimed "I and the Father are one"...Divine man! God gave us the Holy Spirit to live in us to quicken our human spirit by means of His own spirit. I cannot give my spirit to anyone, but my spirit can certainly influence another. When a man and woman marry, they become one flesh, but more importantly, they become one in spirit. Their two spirits co-mingle and become one over time. When either dies in the flesh, the other is completely lost for a long time without his/her soul mate, and many never regain their singleness, choosing instead to remain faithful to their departed mate.

My God is a trinity! I am made in the image of God, therefore I too am a trinity, a three aspect person, Body, Soul, and Spirit! Heart, Mind, and Body, heart being spirit, mind being soul, and body being flesh.

 

What do you say is meant by the pronoun "our" in "our image" of verse 26?

What I have to say my friend is inconsequential. But what the Bible says is what I believe. The Word of God assures us that God created all things by His Son.

Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.

The "our" that's being referenced is God the Father talking to His Son, directing Him in the creation by saying "Let us make man in our image...."

We humans are triune beings in the same manner that God is a triune being.

We are triune? God is triune? How so? Where does the Bible teach us that? Are we humans composed of three separate individual beings all rolled up into one? When your body is asleep at night, is your spirit up and about watching the Fox News Channel or something? You know what I mean. Do you believe that your existence is composed of three individual independent beings??? Didn't they make a movie some years back called "Multiplicity". That's pretty neat for the carnal man whose one entity is at home with his wife while his other self is out trollin' for babes! If that were true then Bill Clinton would have beat that adultery rap, don't ya think? Now, you mentioned two parts of the man, the body and the soul. That would only make the human a biune entity. But you said that the human being is triune. What's the third entity?

My God is a trinity! I am made in the image of God, therefore I too am a trinity, a three aspect person, Body, Soul, and Spirit! Heart, Mind, and Body, heart being spirit, mind being soul, and body being flesh.

You say that your God is a trinity and so are you. But the Bible teaches that neither God nor you are a trinity. So, I must ask you. By whose authority do you make the claim that both God and human beings are a trinity? Having a body, soul, and spirit doesn't make for a trinity. Because your body, soul and spirit are not three separate, individual independent human beings rolled up into one. That's what the Trinity doctrine asserts that God is - a three-fold collection of three perfectly united deities living individual and independent of one another yet form one. Its nonsense, my friend. Total nonsense.

Again, Sola Scriptura knows no Trinity.

God Bless.

Ricky

 

Ah, so then God's Word in only to be found in Scripture? Where does it say that in Scripture?

The word of God is that which is in agreement with God's councel as revealed in Scripture. Isaiah 8:20 states it plainly. Any word in disagreement with God's law and His testimony are deemed darkness. Before the Bible was written, God's word was communicated by God to inspired men. When His word was recorded on parchment it was the same word. Timothy informs us that ALL Scripture is inspired of God and is sufficient to perfect or complete the saints in their faith. There's no room for a supreme magisterium or teaching authority in addition to what God has already gave us.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Sola Scritpura only knows ONE teaching authority - The Spirit of God - which is in agreement with and the inspirer of the Holy Scriptures.

God Bless.

Ricky