History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

Cis.jd said:

Good job showing your hypocrisy. You first claim that alegations of Luther wanting the removal of those 4 NT books to be only from Catholic sites yet here you are referencing protestant sites. Even non christian sites talk about this. It's even stated on the Antilegomena.

"About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel."( Luther, M. (1999).

Click to expand...

What?! What it is with your repeated misrepresentations! I simply did NOT contend that Luther did not want the removal of those 4 NT books (from the canon), but that the charge that "Luther wanted Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology" was [mainly] Catholic propaganda, which you have utterly failed to show was otherwise.

In addition to the Fact that Luther was not removing anything from an indisputable canon, or was alone in so doing, nor did he fail to include non-canonical books in his translation. If you cared at all to even give a cursory perusal to linked pages I provided, while you expected me (or actually may not have) me to do so to your links, then you would have seen that I was not contending that Luther excluded certain books from being Scripture proper, but not as some unscholarly maverick, and not as without precedent from some of your so-called church "fathers."

You brought them up in support of your premise that they acted like Luther, charging corruption by the Catholic church based upon their own judgment,

Acted like Luther? No. So you just didn't get it then because this explanation in reference to me bringing up the non-trinitarian cults is wrong.

Click to expand...

Really? I was referring to this:
"Luther himself saw Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation to be uninspired, and he wanted them removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology. Just research on it. Mohammad's reasoning was the same when he made the Quran..."

Likewise,

"Now how does this tell someone like Felix Manalo that he can trust the actual Bible we have today, he (as well as the Muslims) claim the NT now is corrupted by the Catholic Church."

Your RC premise is that an Rome, with her infallible magisterium, is essential for knowing what Scripture is, versus using their own judgment , and that if we accept the NT then we assent to that need, and thus should assent to her judgment on what else is the word of God.

You think I do not see your argument? It is what i been countering thru multiple posts, trying in vain to get you to see your fallacy by answering questions i can only perceive as avoiding!

Well if you are going to argue as to how the RCC shouldn't be followed due to Scripture being the only rule of faith, then why are you accepting an inspired table of contents that they ruled to be accepted.

Click to expand...

And your argument is that Rome is essential for assuredly knowing what writing are of God (you cannot stop with the NT), and if we affirm what she affirms then we affirm she is trustworthy, and must therefore submit to all her formal judgments. Yet Prots also affirm the Jewish judgements of the OT canon, thus in your logic we should submit to all their 1st century magisterial judgments. Why will you not answer the questions that would logically refute your reasoning? Was a body (a canon) of inspired writings manifestly recognized and established as being authoritative by the time of Christ? Yes, then how then is Rome essential for recognition of what is Scripture? It matters not that the 1st c. canon was not complete, for the principle is that Scripture attests to the recognition and establishment of a canon, and thus a sure table of inspired contents.

But consistent with your logic, then since it was nation of Israel under those who sat in the seat of Moses that this recognition and establishment of a canon took place, then just as you equate this recognition to being infallible, and requiring assent to other judgments that came from that source (and i am sure you mean this assent was required before Rome provided its infallibly-define whole canon), then 1st c. souls should have submitted to all the magisterial judgments of this Jewish body.
There was no NT during the time of the apostles and the first christians of the 1CE, and i have repeated the events of Nero so many times. However you reply with guessing games and make false claims that they all had the NT back then.[/QUOTE]
I think you have me confused with RLH.

This was answered just through your own beliefs. The fact that you still have faith that the NT you have is correctly canonized, and that there is no other books than 27, then you are displaying actual assurance on the declaration of the Church. And yes, the church has to be infallible.

Click to expand...

So here it is again. I hope you may someday realize how absurd this Catholic reasoning is (and which i have heard before). The logically fallacy is that if someone affirms what someone else said is true (the 27 book canon), then they affirm such as wholly trustworthy, and should therefore assent to everything else the source said (if "you still have faith that the NT you have is correctly canonized... then you are displaying actual assurance on the declaration of the Church. And yes, the church has to be infallible" "Yes, the NT canon shows an infallible magisterium. You yourself fully believe the canon is correct and only 27 (nothing more than nothing less), and look at how all over the place your response has been when being shown the irony of your case. This shows an infallible magisterium."). Now since I have a broken watch which i affirm is 100% correct every day thus...

Consistent with your logic then since the NT affirmed the judgment of those who sat in the sat of Moses, then they affirmed the latter is trustworthy, and should have submitted to all its formal judgments.

Let me make spell it out for you more fully: What you do not realize is that what you are actually arguing with your "we showed you what Scripture was, therefore if you agree then you affirm that we are infallible, and are to be submitted to in all other like judgments," is that 1st century souls should have submitted to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses. (Mt. 23:2) Who were the magisterial discerners and stewards of Divine revelation over the corporate body which provided them, and affirmed such, and to whose judgment the NT church concurred.

And indeed affirms that "unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) and were the inheritors of of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

According your logic then, since the NT church concurred with the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses (and note that Rome did not provided its infallibly-define canon till after the death of Luther, yet you require submission to her before that, and here, even without any known formal Jewish declaration of a canon, it is clearly manifest a body of authoritative Scripture had been established, and which is understood to be the tripartite Palestinian canon - which the Catholic encyclopedia affirms is the OT of Protestants - and which the Lord can be seen referencing in Luke 24:44, the use of writings of which the Scribe and Pharisees never challenged) then then were displaying actual assurance that the judgment of the Scribe and Pharisees was correct.

And to be consist with your "if you agree on one thing, you must agree to all" logic, then this logically means 1st century souls should have submitted to the all the judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses in all other things.

Which effectively means you have just invalidated the NT church! For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture. And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved the from Scripture as being the supreme preserved standard, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And yes, the church has to be infallible.

Click to expand...

Which is a major unScriptural fallacy. Nowhere was ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility essential for the providing and preservation of faith. The OT "supreme court" certainly had authority, with dissent from it being a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) but which does not mean they possessed ensured infallibility as per Rome;'s conditions. Moreover, God often raised up men from without the historical magisterium to provide Truth and preserve it, even in dissent from the historical magisterium. Which again, is how the church began.

As i told you, quote in the statements Irenaeus made in regards to the church, you kept on bringing him up and he gives the explanation there yet you refuse to quote it.

Click to expand...

I think you have me confused with RLH. But note again that if you are going to make the overall early recognition of the 27 book NT canon into meaning that "this shows an infallible magisterium," and thus is ot be submitted to in all its judgments, (despite the fact that it was not yet infallibly defined and indisputable), then you need to require that the NT church should have submitted to the magisterium over Israel, which recognized and established the canon which the NT quoted and referenced from as authoritative.

Now I stayed up even longer just to provide this refutation, and so i will get back in a few hours (and did with editing this AM), God willing.

Cis.jd said:

Did you click on the link i gave? As i told you, if you want to argue with someone give the respect of actually checking out what he provides so you can understand what he is saying.

Click to expand...

I myself have not read any link from you that actually established your argument, while you only evidenced that you did not read the material i linked to which refuted propaganda. And see my next post as regards your SS=division, sola ecclesia-unity premise.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

What?! What it is with your repeated misrepresentations! I simply did NOT contend that Luther did not want the removal of those 4 NT books (from the canon), but that the charge that "Luther wanted Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology" was Catholic propaganda, which you have utterly failed to show was otherwise.

Cis.jd said:

How did I fail to show that this is fact, i gave you a quote from him as well as link about the Antilegomena. You can even do a google search and you will see even non catholic/christian sites about his opinion on those 4 books. Yet what was your response to it? A bunch of protestant sites. I find it rather hypocritical that you would scold me for "not caring" about your linked protestant pages yet earlier you would criticize my arguments on this to be all from catholic sites, when i never linked to catholic pages in the first place...
There isn't any historical source that denies this as a fact, all his quotes have been recorded and the whole "Luthers canon" exists.

Click to expand...

What?! How did I fail to show that this is fact?! None of your links supports that "Luther wanted Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology!" You provided zero quotes from him supporting this, as all this as well as your link about the Antilegomena states is that he did not consider them canonical for scholarly rewasons, as does your latest vain attempt ("Here is another one: Luther and Canon"), but not because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology!

And again the fact is that while supposedly being driven to exclude all these as being put there by the Catholics to support their own theology, and wanting them removed, he did followed a weighty list of others who doubted or even excluded Deutercanonical books and some NT ones as canonical, not was the canon indisputably settled yet, and Luther still translated and included these in his translation, and expressly state this was his own private judgment that others were free to disagree with.

Yet despite these substantiated facts, you insist that you substantiated that "Luther wanted Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology!"

The question needs to be asked, is this what Catholicism effects? That since they assert something it must be a fact despite the evidence to the contrary? There is something in Proverbs about those who are right in their own eyes despite reproof, and while you may charge the same, it is the veracity of the source of the evidence that is ultimately the issue.

Here is another one: Luther and Canon

Click to expand...

Yikes! Do you even read much of the pages you link to? You have already evidenced you do not, and the testimony of this one is by a "Jesus words only" advocate who attacks Paul's writings as not being Scripture! But according to your won logic, if you affirm the conclusions of a source on one issue (like the NT canon) then you affirm its trustworthness in others, and are logically obliged to assent them.

And yet this antiPaul author confirms that it was not due to a "Catholicism put this there" reason by Luther, but,
Luther ended up disparaging four writings in the New Testament:

• Hebrews because it refuses a second forgiveness to apostates
• James because it declares that 'faith without works is dead',
• Jude because it derived from 2 Peter and gave no clear witness to Christ
• Revelation because, he said, it did not properly teach Christ, was neither apostolic nor prophetic, and was subject to personal interpretation.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ You think I do not see your argument? It is what i been countering thru multiple posts, trying in vain to get you to see your fallacy by answering questions i can only perceive as avoiding!

And your argument is that Rome is essential for assuredly knowing what writing are of God (you cannot stop with the NT), and if we affirm what she affirms then we affirm she is trustworthy, and must therefore submit to all her formal judgments. Yet Prots also affirm the Jewish judgements of the OT canon, thus in your logic we should submit to all their 1st century magisterial judgments. Why will you not answer the questions that would logically refute your reasoning? Was a body (a canon) of inspired writings manifestly recognized and established as being authoritative by the time of Christ? Yes, then how then is Rome essential for recognition of what is Scripture? It matters not that the 1st c. canon was not complete, for the principle is that Scripture attests to the recognition and establishment of a canon, and thus a sure table of inspired contents.

But consistent with your logic, then since it was nation of Israel under those who sat in the seat of Moses that this recognition and establishment of a canon took place, then just as you equate this recognition to being infallible, and requiring assent to other judgments that came from that source (and i am sure you mean this assent was required before Rome provided its infallibly-define whole canon), then 1st c. souls should have submitted to all the magisterial judgments of this Jewish body. ...
So here it is again. I hope you may someday realize how absurd this Catholic reasoning is (and which i have heard before). The logically fallacy is that if someone affirms what someone else said is true (the 27 book canon), then they affirm such as wholly trustworthy, and should therefore assent to everything else the source said (if "you still have faith that the NT you have is correctly canonized... then you are displaying actual assurance on the declaration of the Church. And yes, the church has to be infallible" "Yes, the NT canon shows an infallible magisterium. You yourself fully believe the canon is correct and only 27 (nothing more than nothing less), and look at how all over the place your response has been when being shown the irony of your case. This shows an infallible magisterium."). Now since I have a broken watch which i affirm is 100% correct every day thus...

Consistent with your logic then since the NT affirmed the judgment of those who sat in the sat of Moses, then they affirmed the latter is trustworthy, and should have submitted to all its formal judgments.

I have not ignored to answer anything. My style of answering questions is to also be rhetorical. There are times when you know that 5 or more paragraphs isn't going to be interpreted or even read at all so the best way for people to understand is to give a question, and then over time have them answer to see my own answer to the question.

Click to expand...

Of course you have not ignored and refuse to answer many things, including the above, and while you may imagine your rhetoric somehow does, it manifestly does not, for all to see!

I gave an answer to all of this by asking you a question on my recent reply to you, and yes it deals with why the Church - along with scripture- are the two important rules of faith. Both are highly essential.

Click to expand...

An "answer?" In your eyes.

So lets get to answering this whole chunk. Out of the denominations I will list here, which one believes in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura: Lutherans, Baptists, SDA, Methodists, or Episcopal... you can even insert your own if you want?

Click to expand...

That is the question for you, since you broadly refer to Protestantism as an example of where SS leads to (and which uses it in isolation from the interpretive principals that go with it), and thus regardless of what i say (which would exclude all who do not affirm Scripture as the accurate and literally wholly inspired word of God, such as liberal Prot churches as the Episcopalians), it would appear that you hold all of Protestantism to be product of SS.

Or else just what is your argument if not that SS produces only vast conflicting divisions, while holding to the Catholic model for determination of Truth, that of assent to the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Divine revelation, you have unity?

Yet it is those who actually do most strongly hold to Scripture as the accurate and literally wholly inspired word of God, that have attested to being the most unified major religious body - despite their divisions - and thus are the most targeted one by liberals and Cath apologists alike.

Meanwhile the fruit of Rome - whose actions and fruit are what Scripturally define what she really believes - are all over the map . Yet you would have us leave conservative evangelical churches and become brethren with liberal Ted Kennedy RCs as well as some quite cultic traditionalist ones.

And while evangelical types do not claim the title of the one true church for their "ecclesial communities "(RC language for them), and determination of Truth is to be based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is how the NT church began, under the Catholic model for of determination of Truth, that of assent to the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Divine revelation, 1st c. souls should have submitted to those to sat in the seat of Moses.

And after over 1000 years you still have, in your own words, two "completely different churches and [who] have been for many years. We don't claim to be equal to each other theologically. We have a different view of which church is more accurate to the line of the apostles."

In addition, you have a multitude of cults which effectively operate according to the RC model for assurance of Truth, that of faith in leadership as possessing ensured veracity!

No thanks. While I certainly do not justify all the division among "Bible Christians, and admit both leadership and laity are far from the purity, power and passion of the prima NT church, (yet read Rev. 2+3) and as said, affirm the goal of a central magisterium, despite the corruptions of Rome, I find fr better pasture in evangelicalism, into which i was prayerfully was led to out of Roman Catholicism many years ago (though being then a never-miss weekly Mass-going RC). It was the right decision.

For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. (Ecclesiastes 9:4)

Be back later God willing.

PeaceByJesus said:

And apart from your spurious recourse to big tent Protestantism, we who hold to the most basic defining distinctive of the group the OP focuses on , and which is the difference btwn us and with liberal Prots and full cults, that of warrant from Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God being the necessary basis for veracity of doctrine (versus ensured veracity of leadership), have a different view of which church is more accurate to the line of the apostles. But while we disagree with each other's views somewhat we do not deny these overall uphold honest apostolic Scriptural teachings, and thus evangelicals work side by side in multitudes of ministries, and can easily worship together, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes and the very nature of Evangelicalism is we have fellowship with Anglicans such as JI Packer and John Stott, Baptists such as SBC, Reformed Baptists such as John Piper, to Presbyterian churches, Trinitarian Pentecostals to Wesleyan and some Methodist.

redleghunter said:

Yes I did and did further research. Knew of the group as I have a brother in Christ who lives in the Philippines and deals daily with their communities.

They are Unitarian and believe they are the One True Church.

Again what does that have to do with Protestants? The Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and JWs all claim to be the one true church.

Click to expand...

I notice that all churches keeping the apostolic succession acknowledge that they are all of the one true church, SFAIK.

Here's the book source if you don't trust the links provided.

Papal Legate at the Council of Trent

Here's the various excerpts which address the deeper story of the canon heading into Trent:

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:

►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; Alpha and Omega Ministries)

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63

►The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”—CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

►Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836

►Theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ):

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” . ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

►Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine. — Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978). See also Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)

Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

►“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. The books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong to the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.”

“Two questions were to be debated, namely, should this conciliar decision be simply taken over, without previous discussion of the subject, as the jurists Del Monte and Pacheco opined, or should the arguments recently advanced against the canonicity of certain books of the Sacred Scriptures be examined and refuted by the Council, as the other two legates, with Madruzzo and the Bishop of Fano, desired? The second question was closely linked with the first, namely should the Council meet the difficulties raised both in former times and more recently, by distinguishing different degrees of authority within the canon?

With regard to the first question the legates themselves were not of one mind. In the general congregation of 12 February, Del Monte, taking the standpoint of formal Canon Law, declared that the Florentine canon, since it was a decision of a General Council, must be accepted without discussion. On the other hand Cervini and Pole, supported by Madruzzo and a number of prelates familiar with the writings of the reformers and the humanists, urged the necessity of countering in advance the attacks that were to be expected from the Protestants by consolidating their own position, and of providing their own theologians with weapons for the defence of the decree as well as for the instruction of the faithful...The discussion was so obstinate that there remained no other means to ascertain the opinion of the Council than to put the matter to the vote. The result was that twenty-four prelates were found to be on Del Monte's side, and fifteen (sixteen) on the other. The decision to accept the Florentine canon simpliciter, that is, without further discussion, and as an article of faith, already contained the answer to the second question.” — Jedin,, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 55,56

The Barbarian said:

I notice that all churches keeping the apostolic succession acknowledge that they are all of the one true church, SFAIK.

Click to expand...

They each claim to be The One True Church.

Guess they need a Highlander moment. There can only be one.

PeaceByJesus said:

Yikes! Do you even read much of the pages you link to? You have already evidenced you do not, and the testimony of this one is by a "Jesus words only" advocate who attacks Paul's writings as not being Scripture! But according to your won logic, if you affirm the conclusions of a source on one issue (like the NT canon) then you affirm its trustworthness in others, and are logically obliged to assent them.

Click to expand...

Yeah noticed that. Trying to prove Luther threw out books and that site nukes most of the NT.

redleghunter said:

What he shared with you was from a Roman Catholic and premier scholar of Trent Hubert Jedin.

Click to expand...

And more and much more , by the grace of God.

Here's the book source if you don't trust the links provided.

Papal Legate at the Council of Trent

Here's the various excerpts which address the deeper story of the canon heading into Trent:


Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:


►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)


►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; Alpha and Omega Ministries)


Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.


►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63


►The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”—CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan


►Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836


►Theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ):


"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.


Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” . ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)


►Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine. — Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978). See also Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)


Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan


►“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. The books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong to the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.”


“Two questions were to be debated, namely, should this conciliar decision be simply taken over, without previous discussion of the subject, as the jurists Del Monte and Pacheco opined, or should the arguments recently advanced against the canonicity of certain books of the Sacred Scriptures be examined and refuted by the Council, as the other two legates, with Madruzzo and the Bishop of Fano, desired? The second question was closely linked with the first, namely should the Council meet the difficulties raised both in former times and more recently, by distinguishing different degrees of authority within the canon?


With regard to the first question the legates themselves were not of one mind. In the general congregation of 12 February, Del Monte, taking the standpoint of formal Canon Law, declared that the Florentine canon, since it was a decision of a General Council, must be accepted without discussion. On the other hand Cervini and Pole, supported by Madruzzo and a number of prelates familiar with the writings of the reformers and the humanists, urged the necessity of countering in advance the attacks that were to be expected from the Protestants by consolidating their own position, and of providing their own theologians with weapons for the defence of the decree as well as for the instruction of the faithful...The discussion was so obstinate that there remained no other means to ascertain the opinion of the Council than to put the matter to the vote. The result was that twenty-four prelates were found to be on Del Monte's side, and fifteen (sixteen) on the other. The decision to accept the Florentine canon simpliciter, that is, without further discussion, and as an article of faith, already contained the answer to the second question.” — Jedin,, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 55,56

Click to expand...

Well then it must be that these and other scholars who likewise had this attitude toward certain books that some local (fallible) councils had affirmed as Scripture, did not know that these were already infallibly defined as being so. And they also did not get the message that if you concur with an authority on one of its judgments (which they did in believing in OT books the Scribes and Pharisees evidently affirmed) then it means you affirm it is infallible, and must submit to all its judgments. /Sarcasm off.

redleghunter said:

They each claim to be The One True Church.

Guess they need a Highlander moment. There can only be one.

Click to expand...

Not according to each of them. They each consider the other to have kept the apostolic succession, to have valid sacraments, and to be churches in the Biblical sense.

The Barbarian said:

Not according to each of them. They each consider the other to have kept the apostolic succession, to have valid sacraments, and to be churches in the Biblical sense.

Click to expand...

Then why won't Eastern Orthodox give Roman Catholics the Eucharist?

PeaceByJesus said:

I myself have not read any link from you that actually established your argument, while you only evidenced that you did not read the material i linked to which refuted propaganda. And see my next post as regards your SS=division, sola ecclesia-unity premise.

Click to expand...

Please don't accuse me of not reading because I have. The fact is you both require your own post and your own links to protestant sites to be read only yet don't do the same. There is a reason why I've linked the Iglesia Ni Cristo, the sources in regards to Luther, and other protestant born cults. Just look at their faith statement and check the verses out.

Your post do no effectively refute anything I gave, and all those sources you posted in regards to the Luther subject, are all Protestant links. If you are going to go around and accuse my sources to be rooted in catholic answers or any catholic site then it's quite ironic that you are going to gloat about any "ignored" links that are protestant sites.

So now, as i've asked in my previous post -which is going to go into answering your whole blog. Do Lutherans, Episcopal, SDA, Methodists, and even your own denomination have SS as their rule of faith?

redleghunter said:

Then why won't Eastern Orthodox give Roman Catholics the Eucharist?

Click to expand...

Some will. Some won't. I'm not sure what the doctrinal issue is. There's no blanket doctrine forbidding it, but there are certainly Eastern Orthodox priests who won't do it.

The founder claims he was the last prophet:

Felix Ysagun Manalo (May 10, 1886 – April 12, 1963). According to official InC doctrine Manalo was the last messenger of God, sent to reestablish the first church founded by Jesus Christ, which the INC claims fell into apostasy following the death of the Apostles. He was succeeded by his son, Eraño de Guzman Manalo. The latter died in August, 2009.

Can you point me to the Westminster CF and show me where the Reformers claimed to be latter day prophets?

Theology: Iglesio ni Cristo claims to be to only true church established by Jesus Christ.

Sounds familiar. Yet no Protestants claim this. You guys do and the other guys claiming to be the one true church.

Iglesia ni Cristo’s false teachings include:

Denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ. The divinity of Christ is one of the essential teachings of the Christian faith — as is the doctrine of the Trinity, which in turn is also denied by the Inc. Rejecting one or more of Christianity’s core teachings places an individual or movement outside the Christian faith. Such an individual is referred to as a heretic, while an organization is said to be heretical.

Doesn't sound Protestant or Catholic there.


The claim that salvation comes only through this church (“This may come as a surprise to many, but the Biblical truth is, though all churches profess to preach God and Christ, there is only one true church that can bring people back to the good graces of God.” (Pasugo, November 1973, page 19)

Now that sounds familiar. The Mormons and your church claim this too.

The claim that not just anyone can teach or interpret the Bible. INC claims that only the late Felix Y. Manalo was — and Iglesia ni Cristo ministers are — given the authority by God to do so, because they “hold the seal” prophesies in Revelation 7:2-3.

Whoops..sounds like they have a self proclaimed infallible magisterium and their own pontiff too.

Iglesia ni Cristo | Apologetics Index

• They believe that one must hear the gospel from authorized Iglesia ni Cristo messengers and ministers.
• They believe the official name of the church is “Iglesia ni Cristo.” Other names are not the true name of the church and, therefore, false churches.
• They believe a person must be a member of an Iglesia ni Cristo church and be water baptized to be saved.
• They believe people must avoid eating dinuguan, which is pork blood stew, a Filipino delicacy.
• Their members must avoid joining trade unions.
• Their members must avoid court sessions.
• They must vote in blocs.
• They are under compulsory church attendance.
• They must give tithes to the church.

Looks like a admixture of Catholic, JW and some SDA beliefs.

What is Iglesia ni Cristo?

This is not Sola Scriptura my friend. This is Sola Ecclesia.

The Barbarian said:

Some will. Some won't. I'm not sure what the doctrinal issue is. There's no blanket doctrine forbidding it, but there are certainly Eastern Orthodox priests who won't do it.

Click to expand...

They will only do so under extenuating circumstances.

Well, of course Eastern Orthodox Churches like the Ukrainian church will do so, since they are in communion with Rome.

I believe there are a few Eastern Orthodox denominations apart from Greek or Russian churches that permit this. Of course, the Catholic Church is fine with Eastern Orthodox Christians taking communion in our churches, but since their own denominations generally forbid it. the Catholic Church urges them to respect the rules of their own churches.

PeaceByJesus said:

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
What?! How did I fail to show that this is fact?! None of your links supports that "Luther wanted Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology!" You provided zero quotes from him supporting this, as all this as well as your link about the Antilegomena states is that he did not consider them canonical for scholarly rewasons, as does your latest vain attempt ("Here is another one: Luther and Canon"), but not because Yet despite these substantiated facts, you insist that you substantiated that "Luther wanted Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology! "he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology!
Snip

Click to expand...

First I was talking about Luthers Antilegomena Luther's Antilegomena. Not the general meaning Antilegomena. His was specific. however i did put those links there intentionally for a reason.

You are correct that there is no actual statement that Luther disliked those 4 because of "being put there by catholics" as worded out. That was all bait. If your reading comprehension and ability to understand points wasn't completely dominated by your arrogance, you probably could have seen where I was leading you into by making this argument about "what Luther said".

Sometimes it is best for me to intentionally use a bit of error in the info i give (especially towards those who argue out of their own narcissism rather than do actual modest research and give respect to the person they arguing with by actually reading his points) because eventually the "corrections" you will give will end up being incompatible with your previous arguments. Why do i do this? It is so that both of you can stop trying to run in circles and force me to chase you around by responding to your points that is already going far from the initial points i've raised.

Fact of the matter is, Luther had problems with the canon NT: those 4 and 1; while some believe he had problems with 1st and 2nd Peter. Whether it was due to scholarly reasons, or conflicts protestant views, or even if he just didn't like the names is meaningless.. the fact is, he had doubts on them.
That is why there is a: Homologoumena and a Antilegomena.

The Homologoumena are the books that 100% accepted, the Antilegomena were the ones under dispute. There are books in our NT that were seen under the Antilegomena. Those 4 books were Antilegomena to Luther and he placed them at the end of his canon.
Now, the Catholic church and the EO however saw and ruled them as 100% true (Homologoumena). Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation... they are all from the Holy Spirit, period.

Nevertheless, Luther had every right to his skepticism on these books - most important reason is that there is no statement in scripture as to what books are from God nor was there any note from the Apostles to shut down any doubt to the 4's authenticity. The only thing that has ruled them is the church. Now since he was obviously in disagreement with this specific church then logically there is no reason for him to fully trust anything they have ruled as doctrine.

The entire 27 books is ruled by the church to be completely infallible and all of them have been passed down by the apostles. Yet there have been people in the past that disagree with it - who saw them as questionable to be canon. Now, i will pause here and not put the main points yet on where this is all talking about in relation to the actual points of my debates in this thread. Thank you though for following me as I lead you back to the main point of my arguments.

redleghunter said:

He claims they are the one true church.

The founder claims he was the last prophet:

Felix Ysagun Manalo (May 10, 1886 – April 12, 1963). According to official InC doctrine Manalo was the last messenger of God, sent to reestablish the first church founded by Jesus Christ, which the INC claims fell into apostasy following the death of the Apostles. He was succeeded by his son, Eraño de Guzman Manalo. The latter died in August, 2009.

Click to expand...

Yes, every one of these cults claim their legitimacy. Can you quote more about his history?

Can you point me to the Westminster CF and show me where the Reformers claimed to be latter day prophets?

Click to expand...

I never made this argument. Go back to the post in where i narrow down how protestant denominations where born, this is part of the whole Sola Scriptura argument. Go back to the post that goes like this: "one guy was from this church, read the scriptures - left his church because they were wrong.."etc etc

Sounds familiar. Yet no Protestants claim this. You guys do and the other guys claiming to be the one true church.

Click to expand...

Methodists do, so with Scandinavian Lutherans (which probably is another denomination), SDA's do.

Doesn't sound Protestant or Catholic there.

Click to expand...

Never said they were protestant or catholic. This is on the topic of Sola Scriptura and what self-interpretation can lead to if they are not guided by the Church. Remember your quotes on Irenaeus on this (which I am still waiting for you to paste in the sentences about the church... looks like you stopped your whole case about him when this was asked from you).

My argument is that the church holds the teachings of the apostles - one of the teachings the apostles passed down was the NT itself, along with Jesus' divinity, that God is Trinity, that we don't need to adhere to the mosaic laws anymore, nor are we obliged to worship on the Sabbath. This is passed down from the Apostles.

When we say "the Church is infallible". We are talking about theological views.
Since the Apostles passed down their teachings to the generations after them, then the Church has to be theologically accurate.. because it comes from them, who learned from Christ.

if you can claim to believe in the scriptures because of just having faith then why can't we have faith that God's guidance didn't fail and is still present in the church that guided his word? That Martin Luther part i gave was an excellent display of how you unadmitingly follow the rules of the church in regards to the the 27 books. They are correctly identified and ruled as inspired word.
Anybody who cast doubt on these books, such as luther, is wrong. You agree to that, yet here you are with an alt trying to make an argument as to how it is wrong to have the magisterium tell us what is theologically correct and how the Scriptures are to be interpreted.
So you can side with them on a few things but others you can't.. why? It's all because you pick and choose based on whatever doctrines are in your current protestant denomination.

This is not Sola Scriptura my friend. This is Sola Ecclesia

Click to expand...

They are sola scriptura. Just take a look at their uneducated article against James white: "The Trinity is not Scriptura".
THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO: Dr. James White claims “Sola Scriptura” and “Tota Scriptura”, but his TRINITY is “NO SCRIPTURA” (Unscriptural)
Here is them arguing against the Catholic Church on Sola Scriptura
THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO: ON MATTHEW 23:2 (THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO ANSWERS)
The Iglesia ni Cristo: Can you understand the bible by yourself?

I hope you are not going to go around the topic by posting verses that prove the trinity as if I am arguing on the side of the INC. The point is for you to see how the Bible can be misinterpreted that badly - just look at the verses they use to "show" that scripture is against the doctrine of the Trinity. Give some respect by understanding that point. Earlier, you made an argument about how Scripture Alone is enough, but look at how they believe they are doing the same?

Well now you are dealing with the same group of people who believe their whole belief system is based on the "correct" teachings of the Bible and no matter what verses you show about the trinity -- it all doesn't matter to them because they are fixed in their interpretations. They will argue back at you, using only verses from the bible to answer your verses, and you will do the same. It will be a Bible vs the Bible and both of you will be accused of interpreting it wrong.

Now this is where the importance of the Church being an additional rule of faith. Because no matter what word play they use, the history of the church refutes the INC interpretation itself. Go back to my referencing of Nero: During that time there was no NT (there was no gospels; no printed copies of Paul's epistles or any of the Apostle's letter so they can send out to different people); there was only the Church. Yet the 1st Christians believed in the trinity as documented by Plinny, Lucian, and other anti-christians. The worshiping of Jesus predates the written - published NT so all the accusations the INC makes about Catholics creating the Trinity doctrine is completely false because we see the 1st church believing in it before Rome adopted Christianity.

Cis.jd said:

Yes, every one of these cults claim their legitimacy. Can you quote more about his history?


I never made this argument. Go back to the post in where i narrow down how protestant denominations where born - the whole Sola Scriptura thing... it's the argument that contains: "one guy was from this church, read the scriptures - left his church because they weren't following scripture as they claim".. etc etc.


Methodists do, so with Scandinavian Lutherans (which probably is another denomination), SDA's do.
Either the "one true church" or believe they have the right interpretation of scripture.


Never said they were protestant or catholic. They are not christian period. This is on the topic of Sola Scriptura and what self-interpretation can lead to if they are not guided by the Church. Remember your quotes on Irenaeus on this (which I am still waiting for you to paste in the sentences about the church... looks like you stopped your whole case about him when this was asked from you). The church holds the teachings of the apostles - one of the teachings the apostles passed down was the NT itself, along with Jesus' divinity, that God is Trinity, that we don't need to adhere to the mosaic laws anymore, nor are we obliged to worship on the Sabbath. All of these are from the Apostles, they taught it both orally and scripturally.

That is why we view the Church as infallible. When we say "the church is infallible" we are talking in terms of theological views.. you can bring about any case that deals with politics and social issues to show it's errors but the infallibility deals with it's theological teachings. These theological and spiritual teachings are all passed down from the Apostles.. if you can claim to believe in the scriptures because of just having faith then why can't we have faith that God's guidance didn't fail and is still present in the church that guided his word? That Martin Luther part i gave was an excellent display of how deep down you and PBJ see that the authority of the 27 books isn't questionable, they are correctly identified and ruled as inspired word. Anybody who cast doubt on these books canonization, such as luther, is wrong. The church is right and these books have been passed down by the apostles, period. You agree to that, yet here you are with an alt trying to make an argument as to how it is wrong to have the magisterium tell us what is theological correct. It was this church that battled the gnostics ever since the 2nd century by making false interpretations of the word and inserting rogue like writings to create confusion against the identity of Jesus Christ. It was the church who believed in Jesus first before any form of scriptural writings were passed. Deep down you yourself are following it, but you won't admit it.



They are sola scriptura, that is why they disprove the trinity because they claim it isn't scriptura.
Just take a look at their uneducated article against James white.
THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO: Dr. James White claims “Sola Scriptura” and “Tota Scriptura”, but his TRINITY is “NO SCRIPTURA” (Unscriptural)
Here is them arguing against the Catholic Church on Sola Scriptura
THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO: ON MATTHEW 23:2 (THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO ANSWERS)
The Iglesia ni Cristo: Can you understand the bible by yourself?

Take a look at that, and look at the Bible verses they use to "refute" the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and other core beliefs in the Apostles Creed. Now understand the point. You earlier made an argument about how Scripture Alone is enough, but look at how they believe they understand the scripture? No matter what verses you show or reply back to me, it all doesn't matter to them because they are fixed in their interpretations. This is an example of my case in where the Church is important.
They will argue back at you, using only verses of the bible, with all the verses you will pull up (be reminded on your attempted derail when you were suggesting to "help me" in answering these cultists). So what is going to happen is you will argue verse vs verse. Now regardless of what ever word play they use to boost up their delivery of presenting an argument based on their interpretation, they can't argue against the history of the church: Simply because ( i bring it back to the nero part) the 1st Christians, as seen during the time of Nero, believed in the trinity and there was no NT yet. So logically this was all taught to them directly since they lived in the exact timeline of Jesus and/or his apostles.

If they professed that Jesus was the Lord that they would willingly die for it during the time where those verses they pull out wasn't published yet, then that means this teaching was completely original. All the accusations they make about Catholics creating the Trinity doctrine and the divinity of Jesus --and altering some verses to accommodate it-- is completely false because we see the 1st church believing in it before Rome adopted Christianity.

Click to expand...

Seems you are still operating from an erroneous concept of Sola Scriptura.

I offered this pages ago but you seem to want to define Sola Scriptura your own way, which is what is causing a lot of what you post based on a false premise.

redleghunter said:

Seems you are still operating from an erroneous concept of Sola Scriptura.

I offered this pages ago but you seem to want to define Sola Scriptura your own way, which is what is causing a lot of what you post based on a false premise.

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.
Understanding Sola Scriptura​

Click to expand...

I am aware of what you posted. Unlike you, i do show respect by actually reading. I understand that you believe that I am not defining Sola Scriptura correctly.

I did ask you and PBJ an important question one of them being: Do you believe in the invoking of Saints? Do you believe that saved men can be lost again or is it once saved always saved?