Define Idolatry

[WestminsterMan]

No, its still Sola Sciptura, as one who holds to that view would be saying the Bible ALONE if authority as regarding ALL practices/doctrines, but also would say that other books/authors can be used/consulted, but that ONLY Bible is a revelation/inspired Book, and SOLe authority to consider to validity of ANY practice/doctrine!

Well, since the Bible never says that about itself, I cannot agree.

WM

 

[DaChaser1]

Well, since the Bible never says that about itself, I cannot agree.

WM

starnge, as the prophets/Apostles, and jesus HIMSELF all affirms that it is!

 

[The Biblicist]

But that presupposes a belief that your interpretations are correct. I've shown that prayer in the religious sense does have multiple applications. Thus, your so called proof is nothing more than white wash built on a false premise. There's an old saying in my field of higher education that seems appropriate here:

Facts are still facts whether you agree or disagree with them. The facts are:

1. Proseuchomai is NEVER directed toward anyone but God

2. Prosechomai is always used for RELIGIOUS PRAYING

3. No other term is ever used to address ANYONE in heaven but prosechomai.

4. All other terms have multiple uses.

Hence, it is a technical term for "religious praying" and religious praying is ALWAYS WORSHIP.

Here is your problem. No other tem but "proseuchomai" is EVER used for prayer by humans on earth toward heaven. This term is NEVER used toward other humans on earth - NEVER! Every other term has mulitiple uses and therefore none are strictly religious terms at all. Moreover, NONE OF THESE OTHER TERMS are ever used by men on earth toward anyone in heaven - NEVER!

Therefore, your position has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOVER that ANY KIND OF PRAYER except "proseuchomai" is EVER offered by ANYONE on earth to ANYONE in heaven!!!


Thus you cannot prove that any other term directed by men to other men on earth is really a religious prayer at all! For example, when I say to you, "pray tell, is that all the evidence you have got?" To claim this is evidence that I am using the term "pray" as a religious prayer is ludricous and yet that is the very kind of evidence you base your whole theory upon!!!!

Moreover, Jesus is in heaven and the statement by Paul that there is but "ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN" must have some restriction to Christ alone or it is meaningless verbage!! If men on earth and spirits in heaven were MEDIATORS between men and God then this verse is meaningless verbage.

The Scriptures make it clear that Jesus as the Mediator INTERCEDES in behalf of men unto God:

Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Roman Catholicism teaches that OTHER created beings on earth and in heaven can actually assume your responsibility to pray directly to God and they call this intercessory prayer. The Bible teaches no such thing! No created being can assume your own responsibility to directly address God in prayer. Intercessory prayer is simply asking others to pray WITH you in equally addressing God alone in prayer. It is blasphemy to address any creature as the object of your prayers other than God.

No created being on earth or in heaven can do your praying for you unto God!!!! They can intercede WITH you but not take your place or take the place of God as the addresse of prayer.

 

[DaChaser1]

Facts are still facts whether you agree or disagree with them. The facts are:

1. Proseuchomai is NEVER directed toward anyone but God

2. Prosechomai is always used for RELIGIOUS PRAYING

3. No other term is ever used to address ANYONE in heaven but prosechomai.

4. All other terms have multiple uses.

Hence, it is a technical term for "religious praying" and religious praying is ALWAYS WORSHIP.

Here is your problem. No other tem but "proseuchomai" is EVER used for prayer by humans on earth toward heaven. This term is NEVER used toward other humans on earth - NEVER! Every other term has mulitiple uses and therefore none are strictly religious terms at all. Moreover, NONE OF THESE OTHER TERMS are ever used by men on earth toward anyone in heaven - NEVER!

Therefore, your position has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOVER that ANY KIND OF PRAYER except "proseuchomai" is EVER offered by ANYONE on earth to ANYONE in heaven!!!


Thus you cannot prove that any other term directed by men to other men on earth is really a religious prayer at all! For example, when I say to you, "pray tell, is that all the evidence you have got?" To claim this is evidence that I am using the term "pray" as a religious prayer is ludricous and yet that is the very kind of evidence you base your whole theory upon!!!!

Moreover, Jesus is in heaven and the statement by Paul that there is but "ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN" must have some restriction to Christ alone or it is meaningless verbage!! If men on earth and spirits in heaven were MEDIATORS between men and God then this verse is meaningless verbage.

The Scriptures make it clear that Jesus as the Mediator INTERCEDES in behalf of men unto God:

Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Roman Catholicism teaches that OTHER created beings on earth and in heaven can actually assume your responsibility to pray directly to God and they call this intercessory prayer. The Bible teaches no such thing! No created being can assume your own responsibility to directly address God in prayer. Intercessory prayer is simply asking others to pray WITH you in equally addressing God alone in prayer. It is blasphemy to address any creature as the object of your prayers other than God.

No created being on earth or in heaven can do your praying for you unto God!!!! They can intercede WITH you but not take your place or take the place of God as the addresse of prayer.

This illustrates for all of us who are not RCC WHY the RCC HAS to have their false views of Apostolic succession and tradition equal to the Bible, as since they cannot find their beliefs inthe Bible, use those extra biblical sources to confirm it!

Still wondering just WHY we should accept their extra biblical sources, as others like Mormons say exact same things as regarding Bible and other sources for doctrines and practices?

 

[The Biblicist]

Still wondering just WHY we should accept their extra biblical sources?

I don't! I believe Rome preserved what they call the "ante-Nicene" and "Nicene" and "Post-Nicene" Fathers while destroying the history of their enemies because it provides a logical development of what the Scriptures predicted to be the departure from the faith once delivered.

Hence, I view it as the secular historical record of apostasy! Look at the horrendous apostate teachings in the Post-Nicene records! They are the logical development from the Nicene Records and the Nicene the logical development of the mass of confusion found in the Ante-Nicene records and the Ante-Nicene records are the logical development of minor errors found in the Apostolic Fathers.

Bible believers do not accept the Post-Nicene apostate teachings, then, why accept the predecessors?

When I use it and quote it, I only do so to show the inconsistencies in their own records and the developmental processes in their apostasy.

 

[DaChaser1]

I don't! I believe Rome preserved what they call the "ante-Nicene" and "Nicene" and "Post-Nicene" Fathers while destroying the history of their enemies because it provides a logical development of what the Scriptures predicted to be the departure from the faith once delivered.

Hence, I view it as the secular historical record of apostasy! Look at the horrendous apostate teachings in the Post-Nicene records! They are the logical development from the Nicene Records and the Nicene the logical development of the mass of confusion found in the Ante-Nicene records and the Ante-Nicene records are the logical development of minor errors found in the Apostolic Fathers.

Bible believers do not accept the Post-Nicene apostate teachings, then, why accept the predecessors?

When I use it and quote it, I only do so to show the inconsistencies in their own records and the developmental processes in their apostasy.

Agree that you are using their own sources and beliefs as reason why NOT biblically to be considered a Christian church, just was wondering why we should accept at face value their extra sources, why not groups as Mormons also?

Why catholicss would OK their church for using those others sources and not Mormons for example?

 

[The Biblicist]

Agree that you are using their own sources and beliefs as reason why NOT biblically to be considered a Christian church, just was wondering why we should accept at face value their extra sources, why not groups as Mormons also?

Why catholicss would OK their church for using those others sources and not Mormons for example?

I don't know if I understand your question. I don't accept the extra-biblical sources of either.

Why Rome would not accept the Mormon's extrabiblical sources is because they don't accept the Mormon's as Christian or their books.

Why Rome's accepts the so-called Early Church Father's is because they believe that the New Testament promised that the disciples of the apostles would perpetuate their oral teachings and that is what they consider the Early Church Father's to be - the written perpetuation of apostolic oral teachings.

Of course we do not believe the Scriptures promised that the disciples of the Apostles would perpetuate their oral teachings as a parallel source of authority to interpret the scriptures. The New Testament is the perpetuation of their oral teachings and only promised authorized source for doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

 

[WestminsterMan]

Facts are still facts whether you agree or disagree with them. The facts are:

1. Proseuchomai is NEVER directed toward anyone but God

2. Prosechomai is always used for RELIGIOUS PRAYING

3. No other term is ever used to address ANYONE in heaven but prosechomai.

4. All other terms have multiple uses.

Hence, it is a technical term for "religious praying" and religious praying is ALWAYS WORSHIP.

Here is your problem. No other tem but "proseuchomai" is EVER used for prayer by humans on earth toward heaven. This term is NEVER used toward other humans on earth - NEVER! Every other term has mulitiple uses and therefore none are strictly religious terms at all. Moreover, NONE OF THESE OTHER TERMS are ever used by men on earth toward anyone in heaven - NEVER!

Therefore, your position has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOVER that ANY KIND OF PRAYER except "proseuchomai" is EVER offered by ANYONE on earth to ANYONE in heaven!!!

Here's your problem... I am not limited to scripture alone. Asking for the intercession of the saints goes back to the beginnings of the Church. Like I said before, one need only look at the many inscriptions in the Catacombs that date back to the early church to see the historical facts. Naturally, you only look to scripture for the history of the Church which, by the way, is an insufficient historical source. That's why your "proseuchomai" argument, being based on scripture alone, must itself necessarily be insufficient.

I don't have the limitations that you incur upon yourself. Not holding to the Sola Scriptura an all...

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

starnge, as the prophets/Apostles, and jesus HIMSELF all affirms that it is!

Scripture never states that is the SOLE authority.
And by SOLE (ALONE) I mean....

1: separated from others : isolated
2: exclusive of anyone or anything else : only
3a : considered without reference to any other <the children alone would eat that much> b : incomparable, unique <alone among their contemporaries in this respect>

Synonyms exclusive, single, unshared
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alone

Nowhere does scripture make that claim about itself.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Here's your problem...

I beg to differ! This is not my problem at all. I really thank you for admitting Rome's teaching has no Biblical support. It originates with demonic activities behind paganistic practices which were adopted and Christianized in the developmental stages of Roman Catholicism.

I am not limited to scripture alone. Asking for the intercession of the saints goes back to the beginnings of the Church.

If it did you could cite scriptural examples and precepts to support it but you cannot or I would not be answering this kind of post that begins with the concession that you are not limited to scriptures.

Like I said before, one need only look at the many inscriptions in the Catacombs that date back to the early church to see the historical facts. Naturally, you only look to scripture for the history of the Church which, by the way, is an insufficient historical source.

Secular history is not an inspired source for faith or practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17). No one in scriptures ever looked to UNINSPIRED or secular sources for faith and practice but rather that is condemned in scriptures (Jer. 10:1-5; Isa. 8:20; etc.).

That's why your "proseuchomai" argument, being based on scripture alone, must itself necessarily be insufficient.

Therefore the INSPIRED Bible is an insufficient book unless it is additionally supported by UNINSPIRED sources??? Now that is a Jewel of argument stuck in a swine's snount!

I don't have the limitations that you incur upon yourself. Not holding to the Sola Scriptura an all...

Yeah, you make good "Mormon" material!

 

[DaChaser1]

I don't know if I understand your question. I don't accept the extra-biblical sources of either.

Why Rome would not accept the Mormon's extrabiblical sources is because they don't accept the Mormon's as Christian or their books.

Why Rome's accepts the so-called Early Church Father's is because they believe that the New Testament promised that the disciples of the apostles would perpetuate their oral teachings and that is what they consider the Early Church Father's to be - the written perpetuation of apostolic oral teachings.

Of course we do not believe the Scriptures promised that the disciples of the Apostles would perpetuate their oral teachings as a parallel source of authority to interpret the scriptures. The New Testament is the perpetuation of their oral teachings and only promised authorized source for doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Why would we be willing to accept at face value what RCC hold concerning extra biblical sources for doctrines and practices, and not the <or,oms?

Why is one held to be from God, other not?

Why not BOTH false churches, as both say from "God" receive their teachings?

Onus on RCC followers to show they are right, Mormons wrong!

 

[DaChaser1]

Scripture never states that is the SOLE authority.
And by SOLE (ALONE) I mean....

1: separated from others : isolated
2: exclusive of anyone or anything else : only
3a : considered without reference to any other <the children alone would eat that much> b : incomparable, unique <alone among their contemporaries in this respect>

Synonyms exclusive, single, unshared
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alone

Nowhere does scripture make that claim about itself.

WM

It considers itself to ONLY revelation from God, only inspired by the Holy Spirit, and ONLY source God Himself claims that His word can be found!

Where else does God grant inspired revelation to us apart from His word?

 

[The Biblicist]

Scripture never states that is the SOLE authority.
And by SOLE (ALONE) I mean....

1: separated from others : isolated
2: exclusive of anyone or anything else : only
3a : considered without reference to any other <the children alone would eat that much> b : incomparable, unique <alone among their contemporaries in this respect>

Synonyms exclusive, single, unshared
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alone

Nowhere does scripture make that claim about itself.

WM

No individual or corporate whole of The ECF ever claim their writings are inspired of God or equal an equal source for faith and practice.

Here is YOUR problem. Your beleif that other extra Biblical sources are equally valid for faith and doctrine is based entirely upon a false interpretation of the scriptures.

Here is YOUR problem. The Scriptures NOWHERE promise that the memory of the disciples of the Apostles would be inspired to preserve their oral teachings. The oral teachings of the Apostles are preseverd by the Apostles inspired writings not by their followers.

The scripture does make that claim about itself - Isa. 8:20/ 2 Tim. 3:16. Any other sources must be verified by scriptures and agree with it (Isa. 8:20). Scriptures are completely SUFFICIENT for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL" good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It does not say "scriptures and oral traditions" are completely sufficient for the man of God to be throughly furnished unto all good works. If you position were correct Paul could not have said "ALL good works" just some! For example, you doctrine on intercessory prayer as ROME DEFINES it is by your own admission not supported by Scriptures.

 

[DaChaser1]

No individual or corporate whole of The ECF ever claim their writings are inspired of God or equal an equal source for faith and practice.

Here is YOUR problem. Your beleif that other extra Biblical sources are equally valid for faith and doctrine is based entirely upon a false interpretation of the scriptures.

Here is YOUR problem. The Scriptures NOWHERE promise that the memory of the disciples of the Apostles would be inspired to preserve their oral teachings. The oral teachings of the Apostles are preseverd by the Apostles inspired writings not by their followers.

the Lord Jesus promised that the HS would bring remembrence to His Apostles of ALL things that he told them, NOT a direct promise that the HS would be granting any additional revelation/traditions apart and in addition to that!

Also, since the Lord Himself thru Apostle John promised ALL of us would have the anoiting and to be able to know all things spiritual, Illumination of/from HS, why would we need the church to determine just how to decipher the Bible today?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No individual or corporate whole of The ECF ever claim their writings are inspired of God or equal an equal source for faith and practice.

Here is YOUR problem. Your beleif that other extra Biblical sources are equally valid for faith and doctrine is based entirely upon a false interpretation of the scriptures.

Here is YOUR problem. The Scriptures NOWHERE promise that the memory of the disciples of the Apostles would be inspired to preserve their oral teachings. The oral teachings of the Apostles are preseverd by the Apostles inspired writings not by their followers.

The scripture does make that claim about itself - Isa. 8:20/ 2 Tim. 3:16. Any other sources must be verified by scriptures and agree with it (Isa. 8:20). Scriptures are completely SUFFICIENT for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL" good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It does not say "scriptures and oral traditions" are completely sufficient for the man of God to be throughly furnished unto all good works. If you position were correct Paul could not have said "ALL good works" just some! For example, you doctrine on intercessory prayer as ROME DEFINES it is by your own admission not supported by Scriptures.

No it doesn't.

look at your verses

Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

There is nothing in either verse to suggest anything about scriputres ALONE being the sole authority. NOTHING. However there are scripture which refer to traditions that have been taught.

 

[DaChaser1]

No it doesn't.

look at your verses

There is nothing in either verse to suggest anything about scriputres ALONE being the sole authority. NOTHING. However there are scripture which refer to traditions that have been taught.

Again, ALL and ANY "traditions" would have been those recorded down for us from the Apostles of Christ, and Those ALONE would be inspired/revelation from God!

NO tradition/doctrine is true UNLESS it can be found within the Inspired Scriptures, those of the Biblical canon of 66 Bolks ALONE!

 

[WestminsterMan]

I beg to differ! This is not my problem at all. I really thank you for admitting Rome's teaching has no Biblical support. It originates with demonic activities behind paganistic practices which were adopted and Christianized in the developmental stages of Roman Catholicism.

If you are limiting yourself to scripture, then it most certainly is your problem. Don't you understand that not everything is IN scripture?

If it did you could cite scriptural examples and precepts to support it but you cannot or I would not be answering this kind of post that begins with the concession that you are not limited to scriptures.

Concession? Hardly!

Secular history is not an inspired source for faith or practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17). No one in scriptures ever looked to UNINSPIRED or secular sources for faith and practice but rather that is condemned in scriptures (Jer. 10:1-5; Isa. 8:20; etc.).

Therefore the INSPIRED Bible is an insufficient book unless it is additionally supported by UNINSPIRED sources??? Now that is a Jewel of argument stuck in a swine's snount!

Nope! I said that scripture is an insufficient source regarding the history of the Church. Quote me correctly please.

Yeah, you make good "Mormon" material!

Calling me a Catholic or a Mormon doesn't really bother me. That's such a childish tactic.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

No it doesn't.

look at your verses

You better look at the verses you quoted as in substance they say exactly what I said:

20 (AV) To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
20 (ASV) To the {1} law and to the testimony! {2} if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them. {1) Or teaching 2) Or surely according to this word shall they speak for whom there is no morning}
20 (BBE) Then say to them, Put your faith in the teaching and the witness. …If they do not say such things. …For him there is no dawn. …
20 (Douay) To the law rather, and to the testimony. And if they speak not according to this word, they shall not have the morning light.
20 (WEB) Turn to the law and to the testimony! If they don’t speak according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.
20 (WEY)
20 (YLT) To the law and to the testimony! If not, let them say after this manner, ‘That there is no dawn to it.’

God's Word - "THIS WORD" stands as the final authority over all other sources! If they do not harmonize with "THIS WORD" it is because the source being examined has no clue, no light or is without light. That makes "THIS WORD" alone the final authority against all new sources.

Even common sense should tell you that the Word you know is from God should be the test for any NEW authority. God is not the author of confusion and therefore it should be obvious that any NEW source should be tested by a source confirmed already as God's Word! Only Mormon's and RCC don't have enough common sense to see that!


If your false theory were true then Paul could not have said that "the man of God" is "THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL good works" as that is a denial of any dependency upon NON-SCRIPTURES for faith and practice as "scriptures" ALONE provide for "ALL" good works and "scriptures" ALONE are sufficient for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY furnished"!

 

[WestminsterMan]

Again, ALL and ANY "traditions" would have been those recorded down for us from the Apostles of Christ, and Those ALONE would be inspired/revelation from God!

NO tradition/doctrine is true UNLESS it can be found within the Inspired Scriptures, those of the Biblical canon of 66 Bolks ALONE!

Well... the First Ed. 1611 King James Version had 80 books in it. Are you implying that the 1611 KJV did not contain the "Inspired Scriptures"?

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

If you are limiting yourself to scripture, then it most certainly is your problem. Don't you understand that not everything is IN scripture?

Who said EVERYTHING was in the Scripture. However, EVERYTHING in the scripture is sufficient for the man of God to be "THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL good works" in regard to doctrine, teaching, instruction, correction and reproof whereas your false teaching denies that! Your false teaching would demand Paul saying, "all scriptures" ARE NOT sufficient to be "THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL good works" for the man of God concerning doctrine, teaching, correction and reproof WITHOUT or APART FROM the traditions.

Nope! I said that scripture is an insufficient source regarding the history of the Church. Quote me correctly please.

The Bible makes no claim to be a complete source "regarding the history of the church" but it does make the claim to be a complete and sufficient source that the man of God may be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works" in regard to doctrine, teaching, correction and reproof!

Calling me a Catholic or a Mormon doesn't really bother me. That's such a childish tactic.

WM

Child like simplicity and child like TRUTH!