.

[Arsenios]

Arsenio's posted on his view of Church authority over scripture

Only in your dreams...

You now have TWO WITNESSES against your false assertion...

I posted on the Church's AUTHORSHIP of Scripture...

And on its authoritative historical interpretation of Scripture...

YOU are the one claiming this is CHURCH AUTHORITY over Scripture...

Unlike Luther, the Church has never claimed authority to change Scripture...

and you said it was a great post.

Hooray!!!

It does not look to me like your out of Catholicism.

Well YOU sure aren't!
You can't read what is in front of you without accusing someone ELSE that she is not out of HER Catholocism!

You deny sola scriptura,

Who wants to worship a Book?

maybe you left the RCC as a matter of taste,
but I do not see that the RCC left you.

Snotty little nasty-girl-slaps like this are not appropriate here...

Arsenios

 

[Don Maurer]

Only in your dreams...

You now have TWO WITNESSES against your false assertion...

I posted on the Church's AUTHORSHIP of Scripture...

And on its authoritative historical interpretation of Scripture...

YOU are the one claiming this is CHURCH AUTHORITY over Scripture...

LOL, ohh, such radical and wild accusations. You people seem incapable of speaking in civil decent ways. I bet your wild accusations will get even worse.

What I said was completely true. When any Church claims to be the author of scriptures, and the only authoritative historical interpreter of scriptures, then that is complete sola ecclesia. When any church claims such things, it has cut itself off from correction by the scriptures. Of course then it results in unbiblical traditions such as transubstantiation, Justification by faith and works, and many other false teachings.

There is no Church authority over scriptures. The scriptures stands alone as the sole authority by which any theological dispute should be settled. The scriptures is the sole authority for the rule of the Christian life and practice. The scriptures testifies of its own authority when the apostles quoted and said "it is written."

It is painfully obvious that the Church does not rule over scriptures. If a man were living 100 years before Christ, how would he know what the "scriptures" were? There were no bishops with pointy little hats, no church councils, and yet men 100 years before Christ knew what the scriptures were.

Unlike Luther, the Church has never claimed authority to change Scripture...

I get quite a laugh out of you people being so paranoid about Luther. He is quite the boogie man to you people. The paranoia extends to setting up so many straw men. You make up such an unhistorical Luther. It is painfully obvious that what you say about Luther is not true. Luther never claimed the authority to "change scripture." It is simply a bad joke to assume that Luther was the first to ever reject any or all of the deuterocannonicals.

Well YOU sure aren't!
You can't read what is in front of you without accusing someone ELSE that she is not out of HER Catholicism!

I would certain agree that I am not a Romanists or Eastern Catholic. And yes, I am accusing Sunlover of being complicit in siding with Rome. He said he left Rome, but I see that the essential core of Rome's theology is still there with Sunlover. He might reject the Marian doctrines, or a few bells and whistles, but the essential part of his theology is very Romanist.

Who wants to worship a Book?

LOL, and you consider any more than name calling? It is true that on our side we worship the God that revealed himself in the Bible. You worship a God you think is in your Church Tradition.

maybe you left the RCC as a matter of taste,
but I do not see that the RCC left you.

Snotty little nasty-girl-slaps like this are not appropriate here...

Arsenios

LOL, the only difference in your view and Romes is, ahhmmm, none? Maybe just papal infallibility.

 

[Arsenios]

When any Church claims to be the author of scriptures,

Who wrote the NT Scriptures?
Who established their Canon??
Who preserved them for one thousand five hundred years until the printing presses were invented???

and the only authoritative historical interpreter of scriptures,

We wrote them for the Body of Christ...
We did not write them for pagan idolators...
We know how to interpret them...

We are the only HISTORICAL interpreter who has a consistent 2000 year record of interepretation...

then that is complete sola ecclesia.

Historical fact...

When any church claims such things, it has cut itself off from correction by the scriptures.

Scriptures correct nobody - Only people correct people -

Of course then it results in unbiblical traditions such as transubstantiation, Justification by faith and works, and many other false teachings.

You can't get the Latins out of the color of your glasses, can you?

There is no Church authority over scriptures.

Christ is the Authority over Scripture, and He is the Head of His Body, the Church...

You can argue with Him...

The scriptures stands alone as the sole authority by which any theological dispute should be settled.

Show us one time when this happened? How did Luther do with Rome? Or with Zwingli? Or with Calvin?

When is the last time YOU corrected anyone with the Bible?

The scriptures is the sole authority for the rule of the Christian life and practice.

Do they tell you when to pray and when to fast?
Or are they silent on your bookshelf?

The scriptures testifies of its own authority when the apostles quoted and said "it is written."

That testifies to their prophetic Truth...

It is painfully obvious that the Church does not rule over scriptures.

Nobody said it does - Christ rules over the Church as Her Head... We are the Body of Christ...

In the Protestant traditions, each person rules over his own interpretation of Scripture...

If a man were living 100 years before Christ, how would he know what the "scriptures" were?

He would attend Synagogue... That is what Jesus did... And Paul... And Peter... And John... And... And...

Men 100 years before Christ knew what the scriptures were.

Very astute of you to say so...

you people...you people...you people.

You are a "you people" kind of guy, yes?

You make up such an unhistorical Luther. It is painfully obvious that what you say about Luther is not true. Luther never claimed the authority to "change scripture." It is simply a bad joke to assume that Luther was the first to ever reject any or all of the deuterocannonicals.

In the Luther Bible, he removed the Book of James... Disagreed with it... Insisted it had to be some lesser addition later written...

It is true that on our side we worship the God that revealed himself in the Bible.

We worship the God Who revealed Himself as God the Son of Man on earth...


Arsenios

 

[Peter J Barban]

Who wrote the NT Scriptures?
Who established their Canon??
Who preserved them for one thousand five hundred years until the printing presses were invented???



We wrote them for the Body of Christ...
We did not write them for pagan idolators...
We know how to interpret them...

We are the only HISTORICAL interpreter who has a consistent 2000 year record of interepretation...



Historical fact...



Scriptures correct nobody - Only people correct people -



You can't get the Latins out of the color of your glasses, can you?



Christ is the Authority over Scripture, and He is the Head of His Body, the Church...

You can argue with Him...



Show us one time when this happened? How did Luther do with Rome? Or with Zwingli? Or with Calvin?

When is the last time YOU corrected anyone with the Bible?



Do they tell you when to pray and when to fast?
Or are they silent on your bookshelf?



That testifies to their prophetic Truth...



Nobody said it does - Christ rules over the Church as Her Head... We are the Body of Christ...

In the Protestant traditions, each person rules over his own interpretation of Scripture...



He would attend Synagogue... That is what Jesus did... And Paul... And Peter... And John... And... And...



Very astute of you to say so...



You are a "you people" kind of guy, yes?



In the Luther Bible, he removed the Book of James... Disagreed with it... Insisted it had to be some lesser addition later written...



We worship the God Who revealed Himself as God the Son of Man on earth...


Arsenios

I like the basic idea of this thought: "
We wrote them for the Body of Christ...
We did not write them for pagan idolators...
We know how to interpret them...

We are the only HISTORICAL interpreter who has a consistent 2000 year record of interepretation..."

I am assuming that Arsenios includes the universal church that extends beyond Catholic/Orthodox and includes Protestants.

By the way, this tangent should be hived off to its own thread. I'm here to talk about 2-way prayer.

Speaking of which, my wife claims that, before she met me, she had a vision from God which helped her overcome a lot of pain from her past. Unfortunately, I've never had a vision and I can't verify if hers was real or she's just cray-cray. Based on her spiritual fruit - I think her vision came from God.

 

[sunlover1]

Anecdotes and stories, no matter how heart warming and convincing, are not what determines truth. They make no contribution to doctrine no matter how sincerely they are made. Only scripture can do that. And nowhere does scripture teach that God gives us instructions via our feelings. It is a completely man made idea.

God speaks through our conscience for the most part.

No it is not in the scriptures. The most you have offered in way of a proof text is "My sheep hear my voice, I know them and they follow me". You say "my voice" is a strong feeling.

I never said that

I say it is his words and teaching as recorded in scripture (seeing as scripture is frequently described as the voice" of God in other parts of the bible).

?? Where is it described as the voice of God?

No He didn't speak to his people, only to a select few of them. Only to a handful of his special ambassadors such as Moses, Elijah, Paul, etc. Just because God spoke audibly to the prophets and big names of the bible on special occasions doesn't mean it is normative for us, just as it isn't normative for us to part the Red Sea, call fire down from heaven, or raise the dead. And the voice they heard was the audible voice of God, not a feeling or an impression which they then verbalized using their own words.

He left His Spirit so we would still have God with us for every joy or sorrow we want to share w Him. He has communicated with His creation since the very beginning!
But indeed He communicated in different ways
No it's not a feeling, it's communication.

 

[Don Maurer]

Who wrote the NT Scriptures?

The apostles and those who consulted the apostles wrote the NT. The apostles and writers are not the Church, rather they are the foundation of the Church. In fact the scriptures teaches what I am saying...
Eph 2:19-20 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow- citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.
This is the point of what I said previously. You violate scriptures with your tradition, but no one can correct your Church when it violates scripture with their tradition because you consider your Church infallible.

Who established their Canon??

The Canon is a fallible list of infallible books. This is why even the Church Fathers could not agree on the extent of Scripture and had difference canonical lists of books. This is further evidence of the fallibility of the Church. Church Fathers and Church councils disagree and contradict each other. We look at the Canon is two completely different ways. For you, the Canon is like a golden index that dropped down out of heaven and some apostle stubbed his toe on it and said "oh, look, the Canon." Protestants do not properly consider the table of contents to be inspired.

Who preserved them for one thousand five hundred years until the printing presses were invented???

Well, it was not Erasmus, not even Beza.

To say, as you are, that because the scriptures have been preserved, that your Church has authority over the scriptures would not be a proper argument. Your argument assumes consular authority. No council ever had the authority to declare the extent of scriptures. Thats why the canon is an fallible list of infallible books.

We wrote them for the Body of Christ...
We did not write them for pagan idolators...

The problem here is the pronoun "we." That pronoun should be "they" wrote the scriptures. Scriptural authority goes back to the apostles and prophets. Please see Ephesians 2:19-20. Hey 1 also talks about the scriptures being written by the apostles and prophets. John 17 speaks of Christ giving the word to his apostles. Then the apostles gave it to the Church.

We know how to interpret them...

We are the only HISTORICAL interpreter who has a consistent 2000 year record of interepretation...

First, interpretations of the church Fathers do not agree. also, the number of verses even interpreted by councils is so very minimum it is absurd to say that councils have interpreted scriptures, and councils err.

Scriptures correct nobody - Only people correct people -

This is an obviously unbiblical statement. If words have meaning (and they do) it is clear that the scriptures correct people.
2 Tim 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness
This text is not talking about the Church, but the very nature of the scriptures.

You can't get the Latins out of the color of your glasses, can you?

LOL, well, that was fair of you to say that. I am obviously much more familiar with the Roman Catholic Church than the Eastern Catholic Church tradition.

(Snip) not enough time to respond to everything.

Show us one time when this happened? How did Luther do with Rome? Or with Zwingli? Or with Calvin?

When is the last time YOU corrected anyone with the Bible?

I am doing it now. Just go above to the red letter quotes. Please read the scriptures I quoted and give me a scriptural refutation of the verses I am quoting in context.

In the Luther Bible, he removed the Book of James... Disagreed with it... Insisted it had to be some lesser addition later written...

I am not Luther scholar, but I know that you are completely misrepresenting him. What you write is simply complete ignorance of history. Oh, and by the way it was not just James, but also Jude. Luther did include them in the canon, but complained that they are epistles of straw. He did not like that they were not gospel focused books, and also questioned if they could be traced to apostolic authority. Books like Mark and Luke/Acts can be traced to Apostolic authority. It is far more difficult with James and Jude. Nevertheless, the point is that Luther never removed James from the Bible, but he did express reservations. It is a complete farce to say Luther "disagreed with it." That is totally unhistorical. This is the usual Luther phobia where "you people " think you can say anything about Luther you want, and as long as its bad, it does not have to be true. It seems shameful behavior to me to misrepresent Luther in the way "you guys" do. You do not even begin to understand what Luther was saying. I should not be surprise that you misrepresent Luther, you do the same with scripture.

 

[Don Maurer]

I like the basic idea of this thought: "
We wrote them for the Body of Christ...
We did not write them for pagan idolators...
We know how to interpret them...

We are the only HISTORICAL interpreter who has a consistent 2000 year record of interepretation..."

I am assuming that Arsenios includes the universal church that extends beyond Catholic/Orthodox and includes Protestants.

By the way, this tangent should be hived off to its own thread. I'm here to talk about 2-way prayer.

Speaking of which, my wife claims that, before she met me, she had a vision from God which helped her overcome a lot of pain from her past. Unfortunately, I've never had a vision and I can't verify if hers was real or she's just cray-cray. Based on her spiritual fruit - I think her vision came from God.

What makes you think your protestant? Just because your not attending a Catholic Church?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What makes you think your protestant? Just because your not attending a Catholic Church?

Good point. Modern evangelicalism has more in common with Catholicism than with Luther or Calvin, although most don't realize that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Good point. Modern evangelicalism has more in common with Catholicism than with Luther or Calvin, although most don't realize that.

Speaking from a Lutheran perspective, it actually seems to me that modern Catholicism has more in common with the Reformers than modern Evangelicalism. That is, while there certainly remain fundamentally significant differences that can't be glossed over or ignored, if one were to transport, say, Luther, to the 21st century he would almost certainly have more issues against modern Evangelicalism than Rome.

Luther and the Reformers didn't just take issue with Rome, they were just as (if not more so) at odds with "the enthusiasts".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Speaking from a Lutheran perspective, it actually seems to me that modern Catholicism has more in common with the Reformers than modern Evangelicalism. That is, while there certainly remain fundamentally significant differences that can't be glossed over or ignored, if one were to transport, say, Luther, to the 21st century he would almost certainly have more issues against modern Evangelicalism than Rome.

Luther and the Reformers didn't just take issue with Rome, they were just as (if not more so) at odds with "the enthusiasts".

-CryptoLutheran

You are correct. I should have been more clear.

Modern evangelicalism has more in common with what, IMO are some of the negative aspects of Catholism, and I would agree that the Reformers have more in common with Catholicism in many of its, again, IMO, good/biblical aspects, and that's a good thing.

Anyone transported from the 16th century into today's mega/seeker/entertainment-driven Evangelical church would drop dead on the spot.

 

[swordsman1]

God speaks through our conscience for the most part.

Our conscience is the feelings of guilt we get when the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. It is our God-given capacity to determine whether our conduct is right or wrong.

Romans 2:15 "They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."​

Our conscience is nothing to do with giving us new revelations. Eg "God told me to do such and such" because I feel that is what God wants me to do.

?? Where is it described as the voice of God?

I listed several examples where scripture is described as the "voice" of God in the 2nd half of my earlier post here.

 

[Peter J Barban]

What makes you think your protestant? Just because your not attending a Catholic Church?

I made that post for you, not myself. Just trying to be a peacemaker in showing that, assuming we are all born again, we are all family, we are all church, we all share in what happens during the Church Age.

I want to get back to talking about our experience with 2-way prayer. If you don't, why are you posting on this thread?

Nevertheless, you care enough to ask, so I will answer. I grew up in the Catholic church as a semi-agnostic. I became born again at college, alone in the basement of my Catholic church. At that time, Catholicism was all I had experienced.

However, once I began studying the Bible with nondenominational Christians, I began to disagree with the Catholic teaching that I was brought up with. I began attending a campus non-denominational church. When I came back home, my staunch Catholic mother insisted that I talk things over with our local priest.

After sharing my Bible convictions with the priest, he agreed that I would be better off as a Protestant. As a literal protester of the Catholic church, I think that makes me more Protestant than most.

Since then, I have served in many Protestant branches, such as:
Nondenominational churches
Christian and Missionary Alliance Church
several Baptist Churches
Taiwanese Reformed Church
Presbyterian Church
a Charismatic Church
soon to be working with a Four Square Gospel Church.

This does not count churches where I spoke for a few days or weeks. As you can see, I am about as "protestant" as anyone can be without becoming a martyr.

Did you know that God spoke to Hudson Taylor to become a missionary to China when he was a boy in England? They had a lot of Bibles there, yet God still spoke.

 

[sunlover1]

Arsenio's posted on his view of Church authority over scripture and you said it was a great post. It does not look to me like your out of Catholicism. You deny sola scriptura, maybe you left the RCC as a matter of taste, but I do not see that the RCC left you.

As I am a very strong defender of sola scriptura, your post doesn't make a lot of sense to me.. Perhaps you're confusing me with another.

 

[Arsenios]

Anyone transported from the 16th century
into today's mega/seeker/entertainment-driven Evangelical church
would drop dead on the spot.

OK OK... So yes, I almost DID blow my coffee all over the computer screen!
That is too funny and too true...
We have become seeker-friendly by becoming rock-stars...
Guitars and vocals and drums...
Great theater with emotion evoking music...

It would be lovely to have an affordable Greek searchable Bible that would ID roots...
Worship in the Church from the beginnings has been LITURGICAL... Worship is a labor... A common labor of the faithful on behalf of the world... Searching the root term 'liturg' in the Biblical texts would level some edifices in common thinking, I should imagine...

Lit- as in literal means common...
-Urg as in urgent means work...

In practice, it is a Service of Prayers chanted antiphonally...
Prayers 90% or more taken directly from the Bible...
It is not a big sermon giving a Pastor's human opinions about what he reads in the Bible...
The homily by the Priest should not normally be over 10 minutes...

Sola Scriptura services are mostly human opinions delivered in sermons...
In the good ol' days, a preacher who couldn't preach non-stop extemporaneous for 3 hours was sub-standard...

Arsenios

 

[sunlover1]

Our conscience is the feelings of guilt we get when the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. It is our God-given capacity to determine whether our conduct is right or wrong.

Romans 2:15 "They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."​

Our conscience is nothing to do with giving us new revelations. Eg "God told me to do such and such" because I feel that is what God wants me to do.

Well that's not what I said anyhow.

I listed several examples where scripture is described as the "voice" of God in the 2nd half of my earlier post here.

i hunted down the first few verses you posted, which did not describe Scripture as the voice of God, and felt like I was on a wild goose chase.

 

[Arsenios]

What makes you think your protestant?
Just because your not attending a Catholic Church?

Still can't get your colored glasses off?

Is calling someone a Catholic your ultimate condemnation?

Do you spit and slap and taunt too?

Do you know what the term catholic even means?

Arsenios

 

[swordsman1]

i hunted down the first few verses you posted, which did not describe Scripture as the voice of God, and felt like I was on a wild goose chase.

Maybe you were looking at the wrong part of my post. These are the examples where scripture is described as God's "voice":

Deut 9:23 "Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God."​

Were the Israelites barred from entering the promised land because they didn't listen to God's voice in their minds, or because they didn't believe the recorded promises given by God?

Judges 2:20 "So the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to My voice". ​

Was the Lord angry with the Israelites because they were not obeying an inner voice or because they disobeyed his written covenant?

2 Kings 18:12 "because they did not obey the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed His covenant, even all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded; they would neither listen nor do it." ​

The "voice" here is clearly metaphorical for God's commandments.

Psalm 103:20 "Mighty in strength, who perform His word, Obeying the voice of His word!" ​

Clearly "voice" is scripture here.

Jer 9:13 "The Lord said, “Because they have forsaken My law which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice nor walked according to it". ​

Feelings or God's law?

Jer 26:12-13 "The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you have heard. Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the Lord your God". ​

Inner thoughts or previous commands given by prophecy as recorded in scripture?

Jer 40:2-3 "The Lord your God promised this calamity against this place; 3 and the Lord has brought it on and done just as He promised. Because you people sinned against the Lord and did not listen to His voice, therefore this thing has happened to you". ​

Did they disobey their inner impressions, or previously given prophecy?

Dan 9:10 "nor have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His teachings which He set before us through His servants the prophets." ​

An inner voice or written teachings and prophecies?

Rev 3:19 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." ​

Are we saved by hearing an inner voice in our heads or by hearing the gospel from scripture?

 

[Arsenios]

Maybe you were looking at the wrong part of my post. These are the examples where scripture is described as God's "voice":

Deut 9:23 "Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God."​

Were the Israelites barred from entering the promised land because they didn't listen to God's voice in their minds, or because they didn't believe the recorded promises given by God?

Judges 2:20 "So the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to My voice". ​

Was the Lord angry with the Israelites because they were not obeying an inner voice or because they disobeyed his written covenant?

2 Kings 18:12 "because they did not obey the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed His covenant, even all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded; they would neither listen nor do it." ​

The "voice" here is clearly metaphorical for God's commandments.

Psalm 103:20 "Mighty in strength, who perform His word, Obeying the voice of His word!" ​

Clearly "voice" is scripture here.

Jer 9:13 "The Lord said, “Because they have forsaken My law which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice nor walked according to it". ​

Feelings or God's law?

Jer 26:12-13 "The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you have heard. Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the Lord your God". ​

Inner thoughts or previous commands given by prophecy as recorded in scripture?

Jer 40:2-3 "The Lord your God promised this calamity against this place; 3 and the Lord has brought it on and done just as He promised. Because you people sinned against the Lord and did not listen to His voice, therefore this thing has happened to you". ​

Did they disobey their inner impressions, or previously given prophecy?

Dan 9:10 "nor have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His teachings which He set before us through His servants the prophets." ​

An inner voice or written teachings and prophecies?

Rev 3:19 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." ​

Are we saved by hearing an inner voice in our heads or by hearing the gospel from scripture?

The "voice" of the Lord was the voices of the Prophets, was it not?

And in the Body of Christ in these latter days, are we not ALL enjoined to seek the prophetic gifts? I mean, in the first century, following the Flames of Fire of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost upon the Apostles, the "Gift of Tongues" was given upon Baptism to all Christians... They all spoke in foreign languages... This was the given of Baptism, given to all... And to progress, one sought the Gift of interpretation, and above that and related to it was the Gift of Prophesy...

The Prophets were those who DID hear the voice of God within, who made "ascents in their hearts" as did Paul when he ascended to the third heaven... Christians are ALL CALLED to the Prophetic Gifts, AND...

FEW ARE CHOSEN...

Because the COST of discipleship is high...

I was listening to a monk from St. Anthony's yesterday on line, and he said that IF it were known how hard it is to be a monk, NO ONE would ever become one... AND... IF it were known what the rewards of being a monk are, EVERYONE would become one... The Way is straited and narrow and hard...

We are Baptized INTO Christ, and in this we are renewed in Spirit, and are a New Creation in Him... Until we are utterly alone, we will not know that we are never alone... And alone, in silence, in our inner stillness alone, this is where Christ in the Holy Spirit comes to us, as He did to all the Prophets... "In THY Light shall we SEE Light."

A lot of Protestant Christians hear God's Voice within them - The many Protestant churches have left them spiritual orphans, and God will not have them wandering about without a guiding hand... God gave us the Apostles and the Churches they founded to disciple the nations in Spirit and in Truth, and these days, all of that support in discipling us unto God is just not very much in evidence - All the Sola's can give us is words in ink on the pages of Holy Writ, and human opinions of their meaning, as they insist on denying the Voice of God so evident in the Prophets of OT Scripture, and the NT as well, to those seeking the Face of God...

You simply cannot deny God's voice in the soul of another,
just because you do not hear it in your own soul...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Are we saved
by hearing an inner voice in our heads
or
by hearing the gospel from scripture?

We are saved by God...

Our ears do not save us...
Nor does our inner hearing save us...

Only God saves us...

His Grace saves us...
Through the Faith of Christ...
Who gave it to us...
Through His Apostles...
In His Apostolic Church...
Discipling ALL the Nations...

Arsenios

 

[sunlover1]

Arsenio's posted on his view of Church authority over scripture and you said it was a great post. It does not look to me like your out of Catholicism. You deny sola scriptura, maybe you left the RCC as a matter of taste, but I do not see that the RCC left you.

I just reread his post and unless he was referring to a particular denomination/sect,
I do agree that it was the church, as in the Apostles,
Founding fathers et al who did write the Scriptures down.
That's ALL I meant.
You disagree with that?
But God is the AUTHOR in the form of the Spirit.