Would you stay? 3

[Davyboy]

What you are promoting is this....

1. you are saying is that "God's Word can be found outside of Scripture"

2. The Church has authority in and of herself (a special sect at that)

3. Multiple sources of authority outside of the word of God

4. There is Doctrine that can be found outside of the Bible

If you would take off your Baptist glasses you would see clearly what I meant, instead of seeing things that aren’t there. It is very simple. If you are misreading what I’m writing, who says you are not misreading or misunderstanding the meaning of what is in scripture.

Do you understand the meaning of this statement? : “I never said you stole money.”

Are you sure, you understand it, because it meant, “I never said you stole money.” So implying someone else said it. Sorry I actually meant, “I NEVER said you stole money,” but it was implied. No actually I meant, “I never SAID you stole money,” I thought it but never said it. Thinking about it I meant “I never said you STOLE money.” Maybe you could have lost it but I didn’t say you stole it. Or maybe I meant, “I never said you stole MONEY.”

The implications are clear that the six-word sentence depending on how you place the stress on the different words yields up to five different meanings. So I ask you, which is more likely to be open to misinterpretation, that six-word sentence or the Holy Bible?

The INTERPRETATION IS WHAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH HERE, not whether or not the Bible teachings something against the Catholic Church.

The NT was written by Catholics, it was written about Catholics, it was written to Catholics and the NT was preserved by the Catholic Church down through the centuries so the great irony becomes that you wouldn’t even have a Bible to attack the Catholic Church if it were not for the Catholic Church.

No one has yet to answer the issue with the Canon of the Bible from the Bible Alone because they didn’t just float down from heaven. Those who reject tradition because they go by the “Bible Alone” you can’t do that. That is because in order to know what books belong in the NT, you would have to have accepted first the Catholic tradition of which book belong in the NT that is the Canon of Scripture. So nowhere in the Bible tell us which books belong in the Bible so that's a tradition that you must accept in order to be able to say I go by the Bible Alone.You can obviously see the inconsistency and incoherence of that position.

 

[Davyboy]

Something I forgot to mention, Jon said, “God Gave all Authority to Jesus Christ-The word of God."

Well Jon do you follow his command when Jesus Christ –the word of God- says

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink

Right before that He says:

“I am the bread of life”

“but here is the bread that come down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die, I am the living bread that came down from heaven”“

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

So do follow his command when he said to need you eat and drink His blood (not just symbolically or just a remembrance) OR do you follow the traditions (symbol or remembrance) of the Reformers?

A simple Yes or No would suffice because this would be a big thread by itself.

 

[steaver]

The NT was written by Catholics, it was written about Catholics, it was written to Catholics and the NT was preserved by the Catholic Church down through the centuries so the great irony becomes that you wouldn’t even have a Bible to attack the Catholic Church.......

Now thats funny! Catholics are not even found in the scriptures.

 

[Davyboy]

Now thats funny! Catholics are not even found in the scriptures.

That wasn’t that funny. Here is a short answer to that, I'll show an example. Now THIS is funny!

Using the Bible alone, please give me the verses that has the word “Trinity” in it. There should be plenty since it is “basic and essential”. Also please give verses that provide explicit formulas for the nature of the Trinity.

 

[Davyboy]

Also while your looking up the Trinity, please provide from the Bible Alone where we see the words: Denomination, Bible, Protestant and most importantly the word Incarnation (very basic and essential). Your answer will make me laugh.
(By the way the word Catholic was the only things you wanted to address from all that Bible information and historical info from Early Church History on the "Bible Alone")

 

[utilyan]

Now thats funny! Catholics are not even found in the scriptures.

Common error made from people who think original scripture was a English bible that fell out of the sky.

That is like some one who says HYDATOS are not even found in the scriptures. Because our buddy doesn't understand thats the Greek for "Water".

You are not looking for "catholic" but "ekklesia kata holos"

Catholic is in the bible. It is greek its how they would say THE WHOLE CHURCH, the ENTIRE CHURCH, The UNIVERSAL CHURCH. the COMPLETE CHURCH. the ENTIRE BODY OF CHRIST.

Brand name denominations did not exist then, we were not competing. Catholic was a reference to the whole christian church.

To say Catholics are not even found is to say the whole church was not in the bible, which is absurd.

 

[Walter]

Now thats funny! Catholics are not even found in the scriptures.

Also while your looking up the Trinity, please provide from the Bible Alone where we see the words: Denomination, Bible, Protestant and most importantly the word Incarnation (very basic and essential). Your answer will make me laugh.
(By the way the word Catholic was the only things you wanted to address from all that Bible information and historical info from Early Church History on the "Bible Alone")

My thoughts exactly

 

[Adonia]

Now thats funny! Catholics are not even found in the scriptures.

The fact that the word "catholic" was not written in the Scriptures is immaterial. There are lot's of things that were not written in the Scriptures (as the Scriptures tell us), yet things in this world that exist and not mentioned are as true as the nose on your face.

The word Catholic means universal, coming from the Greek "Katholikos". You have heard of Greek right, wasn't that the language the NT Scriptures was first written in?

The Christian faith was universal, one, there was no other and every Christian was a member of but one faith tradition, so therefore it was indeed "catholic" or "katholikos" or "universal". Got that?

 

[JonShaff]

Something I forgot to mention, Jon said, “God Gave all Authority to Jesus Christ-The word of God."

Well Jon do you follow his command when Jesus Christ –the word of God- says

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink

Right before that He says:

“I am the bread of life”

“but here is the bread that come down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die, I am the living bread that came down from heaven”“

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

So do follow his command when he said to need you eat and drink His blood (not just symbolically or just a remembrance) OR do you follow the traditions (symbol or remembrance) of the Reformers?

A simple Yes or No would suffice because this would be a big thread by itself.

I follow the Scriptures...He said "believing on Him at his word" Is equivalent to "Eating and drinking Him".

He clears that up with His disciples

John 6
vs. 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

The Scriptures speak for themselves...This is not a passage concerning the Lord's supper or communion. This does not have any eucharist-ic overtones. Jesus is saying if you believe me and my words you are receiving me.

How do we know? look at Peter's response to Christ...

67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

sir, I can help you leave Rome and the paganism that it is steeped in, humble yourself and flee.

 

[Davyboy]

I follow the Scriptures...He said "believing on Him at his word" Is equivalent to "Eating and drinking Him".

He clears that up with His disciples

John 6
vs. 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

The Scriptures speak for themselves...This is not a passage concerning the Lord's supper or communion. This does not have any eucharist-ic overtones. Jesus is saying if you believe me and my words you are receiving me.

That wasn't a simple Yes no No. I will keep this short for Jon, from your interpretation it doesn’t make sense. So Jesus keeps saying unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you, and repeats it over and over then later say by the way, all that stuff I just kept repeating doesn’t mean anything. Again makes absolutely no sense.

His point is not to negate what he’d previously said when he says “the flesh is of no avail”. Jesus says Eat my flesh and drink my blood and I'll raise you up and then he goes on to say “the flesh is of no avail” or “the flesh profits nothing” its the spirit that gives life. HE is not negating what He just said when he says the flesh is of no avail. Jon you DID NOT notice that He doesn’t say “MY” flesh is of no avail”, He is speaking of “THE”flesh.

He said "believing on Him at his word"

So what is His "word": “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (symbol = tradition of the reformers. If you think not, The Bible and history disagree with you)

Again an example of the interpretation is what is in conflict with here, not whether or not the Bible teachings something against the Catholic Church.

Please don't try and derail this thread with trying to direct all our attention to his topic, cause I'm still wondering where in the Bible the "Bible Alone" is taught because you guys said its plainly obvious.

 

[Davyboy]

I’ve seen so many irrelevant passages that are thrown out hoping with their fingers crossed that it satisfies the Bible Alone midset. Sorry they DO NOT. So since biblical facts on our side are being simply ignored, I'll just repost it

I guess no one knew what to do or how to make a rebuttal against the oral and extrabiblical traditions of the New Testament (verse that don’t have any OT scriptural evidence to them.) Ignoring the Facts.

Wow the Protestant view of the using the “Bible Alone” stance is devolving. It went from a strict view of you must use the written words only, now steaver and Yeshua1 are basically saying with that with the death of the last Apostle the authority’s active role within the Church (Apostles) also died. You know by insisting on the authority of the Apostles (early Church) gives credence to the Catholic teaching.

By the verses I provided back in part 2 of this thread, the Oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. By preaching by oral instruction (Rom 10:17), the Church would always be the living teacher. Nowhere in the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only or that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

So Jesus invested the Apostles (Early Church) with His authority but the Bible says nowhere that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. It’s actually the opposite, the Bible is quite clear that in 1) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and 2) the Apostles clearly chose successors who in turn possessed the same authority to “bind and loose.” This is shown in Act 1:14-26 election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas and in 2 Tim 1:6 and Titus 1:5 where St Paul is passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus.

It was clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time (1 Pet 1:25) Take note the word has been “preached” (ORALLY). This would endure. It would not be ousted, replaced or succeeded by a written record and it still would continue to have its own authority.

2 Tim 2:2 Paul says “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (Remember no canon of the Bible until about 400 AD and the printing press till about 1400AD) This was the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down unbroken from the apostles to our own day. So Paul told Timothy to pass on the oral teaching (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give those traditions to men who would be able to teach others, so continuing the chain. Also Paul gave this not long before his death (2 Tim 4:6-8) as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

So Paul shows us what tradition is in 1 Cor 15:3, 11. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Then the Apostle praises those who follow that Tradition in 1 Cor 11:2: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you”. Since the very beginning of the Church, Christians have “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was an actual NT.

There is a lot of information here so making a 1 or 2 long statement is not considered a rebuttal.

So far we have nowhere in the Bible that says:

Nowhere in says: the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: that the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

Nowhere in the Bible: the words Bible, Protestant, Denomination, and most importantly very basic and essential: Incarnation and Trinity.(nor are there verses that provide explicit formulas for the nature of the Trinity.

This snowball (of nowheres) is getting bigger the more we post and will continue to get bigger. This "Bible Alone argument" pillar is showing its hollow inside and with just a small kick it crumbles.

 

[Adonia]

sir, I can help you leave Rome and the paganism that it is steeped in, humble yourself and flee.

When are you folks going to give up the grape juice and crackers and return to true worship of the Lord? We do what He says to do and place that (the memorial of Calvary) as the crux of our worship service, while you place the sermon as the top of yours. Why no altar in your churches? I'm sorry, but a "church" with no altar is like the local VFW, a nice place to dance yes, but worship, no. Humble yourself and flee to the real house of the Lord.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you're justified in taking the Catholic Church’s word on the Bible’s authenticity (most of it at least) and still hating our Church as much as you do?

I hate the theology of the Church of rome, as it is not from God, and many jabe stayed lost under its spell...

 

[Davyboy]

Has anyone noticed that these posters (steaver, Yeshua1 and Jonshaff) were very arrogant at the beginning on the thread back in part 1 and 2 but now that they have been presented with information they don't like they are trying to stay away but they are too proud to do. So instead of having a Biblical rebuttal on what we have posted they try evasion techniques. For example, 1) ignoring the question or statements 2) acknowledging the question without answering, 3) attacking the question 4) attacking the questioner.

So as of right now, those three are not being productive in proving anything on the Bible Alone. So I'll just add some more things to the list.


Sola Scriptura
Nowhere says:the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: God’s Word is restricted only to what is written down.

Nowhere says: Jesus gave instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book.

Nowhere says: the Apostles told their followers that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book

Nowhere says: the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

Nowhere in the Bible: the words Bible, Protestant, Denomination, and most importantly very basic and essential: Incarnation and Trinity.(nor are there verses that provide explicit formulas for the nature of the Trinity. Nowhere in the Bible tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity.

Nowhere says: the Canon of Scripture.

Nowhere says: Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head

Nowhere says: Anything about Altar calls or the sinners prayer.

But like I said this snowball is just getting bigger the more we roll along.

 

[JonShaff]

When are you folks going to give up the grape juice and crackers and return to true worship of the Lord? We do what He says to do and place that (the memorial of Calvary) as the crux of our worship service, while you place the sermon as the top of yours. Why no altar in your churches? I'm sorry, but a "church" with no altar is like the local VFW, a nice place to dance yes, but worship, no. Humble yourself and flee to the real house of the Lord.

God's People are "the church"--not a building like you seem to think!

 

[steaver]

The Christian faith was universal, one, there was no other and every Christian was a member of but one faith tradition, so therefore it was indeed "catholic" or "katholikos" or "universal". Got that?

So then you would say ALL Christians are Catholics?

 

[steaver]

So as of right now, those three are not being productive in proving anything on the Bible Alone. So I'll just add some more things to the list.

So you want a specific verse that is written exactly the way you have said it needs to be written. If I were to show you a verse that is written exactly the way it needs to be written for it to be undeniably the truth, would you believe it? Or would you have to consider what the Pope had to say about it?

 

[steaver]

Here is the core foundation of each position;

Camp A) The word of God is NOT the final Authority. Men are the final authority and may only reference the word of God for help on making their final authority decisions on what it is God wants.

Camp B) The word of God IS the final Authority. Men are to study the word of God and rightly divide the word of God by referencing the word of God, through prayer alone in the Holy Spirit. Any matters of contention between Christians are to be settled through study of the full counsel of the word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is the core foundation of each position;

Camp A) The word of God is NOT the final Authority. Men are the final authority and may only reference the word of God for help on making their final authority decisions on what it is God wants.

Camp B) The word of God IS the final Authority. Men are to study the word of God and rightly divide the word of God by referencing the word of God, through prayer alone in the Holy Spirit. Any matters of contention between Christians are to be settled through study of the full counsel of the word of God.

Church of rome holds that the scriptures are a divine source, but so is tradition, and that the Church alone has the full understanding of what the Bible/tradition teaches
Baptists hold to scriptures alone, and that each one of us can have the Holy Spirit illuminate thr truths in them to us ourselves.

 

[Yeshua1]

Has anyone noticed that these posters (steaver, Yeshua1 and Jonshaff) were very arrogant at the beginning on the thread back in part 1 and 2 but now that they have been presented with information they don't like they are trying to stay away but they are too proud to do. So instead of having a Biblical rebuttal on what we have posted they try evasion techniques. For example, 1) ignoring the question or statements 2) acknowledging the question without answering, 3) attacking the question 4) attacking the questioner.

So as of right now, those three are not being productive in proving anything on the Bible Alone. So I'll just add some more things to the list.


Sola Scriptura
Nowhere says:the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: God’s Word is restricted only to what is written down.

Nowhere says: Jesus gave instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book.

Nowhere says: the Apostles told their followers that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book

Nowhere says: the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

Nowhere in the Bible: the words Bible, Protestant, Denomination, and most importantly very basic and essential: Incarnation and Trinity.(nor are there verses that provide explicit formulas for the nature of the Trinity. Nowhere in the Bible tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity.

Nowhere says: the Canon of Scripture.

Nowhere says: Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head

Nowhere says: Anything about Altar calls or the sinners prayer.

But like I said this snowball is just getting bigger the more we roll along.

No where does it state that there is ANY additional revalations to come from God to us apart from the Bible, so the traditions of Rome are excluded
No where does it state the RCC alone has infallible understanding in what the bible says to us, so its stance on that goes
Jesus built his trueChurch with saved people in all churches, so the Roman view of being one true church crashes and burns like the Zepplin!