Define Idolatry

If I'm not mistaken God's Word is in public domain.

Copying another's work and not citing them as your source is in effect pretending "...that it is your own." From where did you get your degree?

Well, if you had cited it correctly to start with I would have read it. Your link led to the Blog home page. I'm not going to spend my time searching a blog just for this.

I may not be as smart as Dr. Liccione, but I know enough to turn you inside out now and again - which is as it should be.

WM

 

You know that is an absolute lie since I clearly stated that I was citing a source! So get off your little intellectual pride trip!

What utter arrogance! First you claim you know the proper meaning of "plagiarism" and then when proven wrong by the Dictionary you intentionally pervert the meaning to save your ego.

Second you claim you are no apologist so I quote an Roman Catholic apologist that agrees with my definitions of formal versus material sufficiency which disagrees with your definition. So arrogantly proud you won't even admit your wrong when caught red handed by a Roman Catholic Apologist in your error of definition.

There is no use to discuss anything we disagree about because you are demonstrating even when you are flatly wrong you are too pround to admit it. So what is the point of wasting time with you. Go get educated and then come back.

 

No - I am an academician, so I know what it means. Further, if you were to try that in Higher Ed you would be fired and rightly so. Just sayin...

The reason I don't admit to it is that there isn't any difference. I didn't address the majesterium because I was trying to simplify it for you.

Man Biblicist - are we cross? Let's see - so far you have called me arrogant, proud, and a liar. Education? Right....

WM

 

No you don't know what it means. You don't even know the dictionary defintion of it! Even in college and Seminary they make a distinction between incorprating a quote into the body of your work as though it is your own thougths versus setting it apart spaced and offset from the body as a quote but failure to provide the reference cited. They charge you with plagirism with the former but not with the latter. I explicitly denied it was my thoughts by admitting that I was quoting it from another source. To respond that it is the same thing is sheer arrogance coupled with ignorance.

Anyone who has gone through four years of college and four years of Seminary has done so many term papers and probably a couple of thesis knows you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh yeah? Then why respond to my citation that it was wrong and tell me to go back and try again?????

 

I addressed this in post #130. Go back and read it.

WM

 

Absolute complete hogwashy!!! I corrected Post #130 by post #134 and if you are going to cite your post to #134 then all you are doing is arrogantly justifying your errors based wholly upon your ignorance followed by arrogance.:laugh::BangHead::laugh:

 

Oh my... You might consider counseling. I don't think this is healthy for you at all.

WM

 

It is not healthy to discuss with a person what he is in denial about. :tonofbricks:

 

Ummm... Just for the record post #134 is YOUR post - not mine.

WM

 

Just for the record that is exactly what I said. Post #134 is my response to your post #130! It was my correction of your post!

 

Oooohhh Kkkkk...

WM

 

The entirety of the Gospel including those items referred to in these passages.

And those things taught not spoken of in scripture. Such as how to properly understand the context in which scripture is writen.

 

You must be using Joseph Smith's Glasses because Throughly Furnished and All good works do not mean sole authority. It means scripture can furnish you to accomplish all good works, which btw you avoid because according to you living out faith by doing good works is a works based theology. But nowwhere in that passage does it say its soley sufficient authority about God. It certainly says its suffiecnt in furnishing someone to do good works which again you avoid because that means good works is what God wants you to do according to scripture.

 

Wrong! Try again! Don't you ever interpret words by their context? What it throughly furnishes is what he just previously listed "doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof. Scriptures provide all that and all that is TOTALLY SUFFICIENT ALONE for the man of God to define and accomplish all good works. THIS MEANS HE DOES NOT NEED TRADITIONS TO DEFINE AND ACCOMPLISH ALL GOOD WORKS BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURES FURNISH THE COMPLETE LAUNDRY LIST!!!!!!!!! Hence, nothing more is needed as the Greek term "exartizo" means COMPLETE or FINISHED, therefore scriptures ALONE is all that is necessary to equip the man of God unto all good works!!!

So easy, so simply to see! Perhaps you would do better with Joseph Smiths "spectacles" because you are making a spectacle out of your self.

You are demonstrating, broadcasting and advertising your complete ignorance of Baptist Theology! Try again! Baptists do no deny good works but preach good works. We just don't preach they justify us before God but we do preach they are the consequences of regeneration "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works...." - Eph. 2:10.

I don't recall anyone claiming that the actual term "solely sufficient authority" is found in the text?

However, it does use the Greek term "exartizo" translated "throughly furnished" which in context does demand that the Scriptures ALONE are completely sufficient for doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof so that a man of God needs nothing more than scriptures alone for "all good works."

Try again!

 

Absolutely, and that is what it means furnish the believer to complete all good works.

Those aren't good works those are the items which bring about the good works or instruction to do so.

It doesn't say that in that passage at all. Certainly doens't say it for doctrine. but maybe good works.

it means it enables the man with what he needs to do Good works which you teach against.

Yes to good works not all doctrine not all teaching. But works which you say we don't need.

JThen why don't you see it?

So now you support mormonism?

I'm not speaking to baptist theology but yours based on your statements.

Good because the text does not say that nor can you insist that it does. Therefore that text does not say Scriptures are the sole authority on all matters of Doctrine.

only to do good works not for everything else. The passage means that the scriptures speach on doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof etc is to give the man what he needs to do good works. Works which you teach against because works in your verbage have no effect on your salvaton thus they don't need to be done. So why use scripture for something you will never use?

 

Dah! Who said those things are good works? Not I! But what you are missing is that it is those very things that scriptures throughly furnish the man of God "UNTO" good works! Do you get the preposition "unto"? Meaning scripture furnishes doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof so that the man of God can define and do good works. The scriptures not only "furnish" such but THROUGHLY FURNISHES - meaning the scriptures are COMPLETELY SUFFICIENT as the source for doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof so that it comprehensively defines all good works!!!

 

read the passsage those items are what scriptures use which are sufficient for Good works. And since that is the case It doesn't even say that each item is sufficient in of itself for itself to to equip a man to do Good Works. Nothing in that passage even scratches that the scriptures of themselves are the Christians sole authority.

 

The scriptures do not "use" but "throughly furnish" these things! Study the Greek term exartizo translated "throughly furnish." The scriptures COMPLETELY AND SUFFICIENT AND THOROUGH FURNISH everything needed for the man of God to define an do good works.

Don't need tradition to furnish anything for this goal as the scriputes COMPLETELY AND SUFFICIENTLY AND THROUGHLY AND PERFECTLY supply these things to obtain that goal. Hence SCRIPTURES ALONE without tradition THROUGHLY COMPLETELY AND SUFFICIENTLY furnish all these things to accomplish that goal.

 

On what basis does the RCC say they can claim traditions to be equal to scriptures and on same level for setting doctrines and practices?

CANNOT be from the Bible itself, so where?

 

It is very simple. Lets start at the begining.

The Apostles were commanded by Jesus that

We can see this by several accounts

This shows apostolic authority

notice the tradition of reptentance for the forgiveness of sin is preached not writen.

Notice here the writen word is confirmed orally by people given apostolic authority not on its own basis. Note Paul he says

faith comes by proclimation not what was written. Thus Peter gives us insight to how things are passed on

Thus Peter's teachings were done orally and he insured that what he taught was passed on. Note how the first large group of converts were instructed

Note it wasn't devoted to reading text. Next here is an indicator of Apostolic tradition not specified in scripture

In other words the Apostles dedicated the day of worship to be on Sunday not the traditional sabbath day.

Now look to Oral tradition which Jesus adhered to

This is not found in the Old Testement but is an oral prophetic tradition.

Jesus wants people to adhere to teaching espoused from Moses' chair. This is also an oral Jewish tradition which is not found in the OT. Note where did Paul get this statement from?

I don't think you'll find Jesus saying those words recorded in the gospels.
Or where did Paul get these words?

An early Christian hymn which is Tradition.

Thus we can see evidence of Tradition being relied on in the NT. And note all of this happened 20 years before the first gospel was written and since some of these things can't be found in those passages we must concure they were taught by the Apostles and held to be truth by Christians with out reliance on the written word. Thus we see liturgical worship, Sunday worship, Christian hymn being passed on by the apostles which aren't expressed in the gospels. Thus these things are important and scripture is just another part of Tradition which is actually writen. Tradition and Scripture often over lap.