Define Idolatry

[WestminsterMan]

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"!

You do understand the difference between formal sufficiency and material sufficiency?

WM

 

[DaChaser1]

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

ONLY the 66 Bible Books of the Canon of scriptures were/are the inspired word of God to us...

ANY other books in bible useful for historical backgrounds, but NOT for teaching/doctrines/practices!

 

[DaChaser1]

You do understand the difference between formal sufficiency and material sufficiency?

WM

Do you understand that for ALL things concerning doctrines/practices/teachings of the Christian faith, the Bible is ONLY inspired revelation from God, and is ONLY divinely inspired authority in such things?

And that in regards to history, scientific etc Whatever the Bible discusses, it is without any mistakes in it, at least none barring ocassional scribal addition/revision etc that was done and added in while copying off the original text, that was fully without ANY errors in it!

 

[The Biblicist]

You do understand the difference between formal sufficiency and material sufficiency?

WM

Wrong! I believe the proper Majesterium for scripture is built into the scripture itself by what we call "context" and what the Scriptures commands to "compare spiritual things with spiritual" in connection with the Spirit of God that indwells every believer (1 Jn. 2:19).

Jesus demonstrated this principle by NEVER quoting Jewish Majesterium as final authority for doctrine or practice but always "it is written" in reference to scripture not tradition.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Do you understand that for ALL things concerning doctrines/practices/teachings of the Christian faith, the Bible is ONLY inspired revelation from God, and is ONLY divinely inspired authority in such things?

I do understand that. However, that's a far stretch from claiming that the Bible is the SOLE authority.

And that in regards to history, scientific etc Whatever the Bible discusses, it is without any mistakes in it, at least none barring ocassional scribal addition/revision etc that was done and added in while copying off the original text, that was fully without ANY errors in it!

No disagreement here. But again, being error free doesn't bolster the claim that Scripture is the SOLE authority.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Wrong! I believe the proper Majesterium for scripture is built into the scripture itself by what we call "context" and what the Scriptures commands to "compare spiritual things with spiritual" in connection with the Spirit of God that indwells every believer (1 Jn. 2:19).

Jesus demonstrated this principle by NEVER quoting Jewish Majesterium as final authority for doctrine or practice but always "it is written" in reference to scripture not tradition.

I asked you if you know the difference between formal and material sufficiency and this is your response? Go figure....

WM

 

[DaChaser1]

I do understand that. However, that's a far stretch from claiming that the Bible is the SOLE authority.



No disagreement here. But again, being error free doesn't bolster the claim that Scripture is the SOLE authority.

WM

When God Himself declaring that ONLY the Bible can claim to be such, it does!

 

[WestminsterMan]

ONLY the 66 Bible Books of the Canon of scriptures were/are the inspired word of God to us...

Says who? Is there a list in the Bible that I overlooked describing what those 66 books are?

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

When God Himself declaring that ONLY the Bible can claim to be such, it does!

Well, please show me where scripture states that scripture is the SOLE/ONLY authority.

WM

 

[DaChaser1]

Well, please show me where scripture states that scripture is the SOLE/ONLY authority.

WM

Any verses to support that it is not?

What other sources did God say was in addition to His own Word?

 

[DaChaser1]

Says who? Is there a list in the Bible that I overlooked describing what those 66 books are?

WM

Botht the Jews of time of Christ, jesus and the Apsotles, and early church fathers recognised ONLY the 66 books as being inspired revelations of/from God!

RCC added in others, in order to support the validity of some of their false doctrines!

reformers recognised those extra books as being useful toread for historical data, NOT inspired as the 66 were though!

Historical facts intermixed with fables and legends, authors NOT inspired as Apostles/prophets were!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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!

How do you know? Where you there? The didache was written as early as the Gospel of mark and by it we see Christian practicing Liturgical worship. Which historically makes sense because the apostles attending Temple liturgical worship as well as synagogues as the gospels attest to. So how do you know?

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

Not only do you have problems with your canon (should be 73) Never does the bible make the claim of itself that you make.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Any verses to support that it is not?

What other sources did God say was in addition to His own Word?

I'm not claiming anything so I don't really need to use scripture to prove the absence of something. That's an argument from silence.

Look - you are claiming that scripture is the SOLE/UNIQUE authority in scriptural matters. Thus it is incumbent upon you to provide scripture stating that very thing. One would think that if scripture IS the SOLE authority, it would certainly say that about itself.

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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

Look at your sentence structure. You are basically claiming: "The bible says what I said it says" Which is the problem with protestantism. Why can't the bible just say what it says without your imput? I quoted from the NIV btw. And looking at your quotes its still doesn't say anything about it alone being the sole authority.

 

[The Biblicist]

I asked you if you know the difference between formal and material sufficiency and this is your response? Go figure....

WM

Sorry I was over your head. Let me break it down in smaller bites for you. Material sufficiency as Rome defines it is that the Bible supplies the sufficient materials for doctrine and practice but does not give any formal expression and was not designed to but such formal presentation is supplied by the Roman Catholic Church as guided by counsels and traditions or the Majesterium.

Now, go back to my first response and you will see I am repudiating this fabricated non-Biblical distinction that Rome has imagined. The precepts of scripture give formal expression to doctrine, so that correction and instruction can be administered to those who do not conform to "this word" - Isa. 8:20

 

[WestminsterMan]

Botht the Jews of time of Christ, jesus and the Apsotles, and early church fathers recognised ONLY the 66 books as being inspired revelations of/from God!

Church Fathers? Can you provide these references?

RCC added in others, in order to support the validity of some of their false doctrines!

Hmmm.... Just when did that happen and what are your sources?

reformers recognised those extra books as being useful toread for historical data, NOT inspired as the 66 were though!

Yes! Luther wanted to pull out James and Revelation and probably Hebrews.

Historical facts intermixed with fables and legends, authors NOT inspired as Apostles/prophets were!

And that means absolutely nothing.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Look at your sentence structure. You are basically claiming: "The bible says what I said it says" Which is the problem with protestantism. Why can't the bible just say what it says without your imput? I quoted from the NIV btw. And looking at your quotes its still doesn't say anything about it alone being the sole authority.

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."

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

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."

 

[WestminsterMan]

Sorry I was over your head. Let me break it down in smaller bites for you. Material sufficiency as Rome defines it is that the Bible supplies the sufficient materials for doctrine and practice but does not give any formal expression and was not designed to but such formal presentation is supplied by the Roman Catholic Church as guided by counsels and traditions or the Majesterium.

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.

Now, go back to my first response and you will see I am repudiating this fabricated non-Biblical distinction that Rome has imagined.

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

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

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."

Taking the verse apart we see the following:
1.Scripture is inspired by God Amen! The CC agrees with this.

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

Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative. However, nowhere does the verse state that scripture is sufficient. 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

 

[DaChaser1]

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.



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

WM

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?