Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Berean777]

Exactly. He called them "brooding wipers"... I think we all know how to translate that into 21st century slang.
Annie Besant called this global satanic government "the externalization of the hierarchy".
I've had enough hierarchy, thank you.

Jesus called it a day for that institutionalised hierarchical religious authority and he denounced it and labeled it as an abomination of desolation. The motto of Jesus's inward centred temple, that is the Kingdom of God within the born again believer, is that the greatest amongst his sheep is a servant. On the basis of this motto, no hierarchy can be condoned by Jesus and it is the very words that called this type of hierarchy as......

Brooding vipers who will not escape the fires of hell.

 

[Berean777]

Who said they're not accountable for their actions? The people who did them certainly are, and God will be the judge, not man. Same thing with the priests who abused children-whether or not they were prosecuted under the secular law, they will be held accountable, as will we all be, for our sins.

Hitler, Saddam and Moa amongst sadistic dictators were all condemned by the world along with their institutions that was were vehicles for their evil acts. Any relgious institution that is a vehicle for the evil acts of wicked men, is equally accountable to the evil acts of those men, who were brought up and embraced by the institution to lead the institution and in this regard the institution is not immune and must also be held accountable. If the Nazi party didn't exist, then Hitler wouldn't exist. If the Ba'ath party didn't need exist then Saddam wouldn't exist. If communism didn't exist, then Moa wouldn't exist. The very vehicle that is instrumental for men to perpetrate wicked acts, is in itself the access of evil for that wicked man or men.

Once a relgious institution has blood on its hands, it is equally accountable and must therefore be disassociated from the Holy name of the sinless Christ, that is to not associate what is unholy to the Holy God.

This particular religious institution is of God. As Gamaliel told Paul-"If it is of God, nothing will stop it. If it is of man, nothing will come of it.

Can any religious institution that has blood on its hands claim to be of God?

Look at the Pharisical religious institution and how Christ divorced himself from it as he charged it for all the crimes against humanity from the shedding of the blood of Abel to Zechariah. Those very words will one day come to haunt you, when you see the unsinkable titanic of religion sinking for all the world to see and this would be by its own very hands, for a lady laden with sins will continue to pile up her sins from earth to heaven as she says......

Give her as much torment and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself. In her heart she boasts, 'I sit enthroned as queen. I am not a widow; I will never mo (Revelation 18:7)

Notice the pharisaical relgious institution thought if themselves invincible, until Christ told them their end......

Do you see all these things?" he asked. "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." (Matthew 24:2)

We believe it is of God.

So were her works during the inquisitions and the crusades amongst other fruits from God.

Please don't lay blame on men for her many centuries long legacy, for the institution must reflect her actions. If you say it is infallible, then it obviously failed because it allowed head figures to commit crimes in her name and so the fallibility doctrine isn't reflective of her. Certainly if Jesus was the head, then he wouldn't have allowed those men across a period of a 1000 years or more to continue against his will and the will of an alleged infallible institution that pleads innocence of the crimes committed against humanity.

The institution? No, of course not. The faith? Yes. The sinfulness of the institution does not affect the perfection of the faith Christ gave us.

You got it in reverse, you see the institution is reflective of the sinless faith it is supposed to carry and not the sinless faith a reflection of the institution. Yes Christ's faith is sinless, yet you cannot claim it as if it is yours unconditionally. This means that the sinless faith was made for the institution to follow and her actions is a reflection of her faith, whether that be in conformity or not. If her actions are not reflective of the perfect faith in Christ, then the institution is a law onto itself, if it claims it can do no wrong. I note that you circled back to answer the question as to whether the institution is sinless, you originally answered no, then on the next breath you answered yes.

 

[Berean777]

The Truth is that the contents of Scripture are not contained in Scripture, that you have the Bible because the men of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discerned what belonged there, and what didn't belong there. A couple examples of what, they decided, didn't belong there, are the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache. The Fathers of the Reformation, however, disagreed with some of the choices, such as the Letters of St. James. Luther wanted to reject several NT books, but was rebuked.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church had censored certain scripture?

Or

Are you saying that the Catholic Church should rightfully boast about collating the letters from the 1st century witnesses?

All it has done is just relay information that it has withheld in its possession over several hundred years. What to include and what not to include is God's work that the Catholic Church cannot claim or boast about.

If God used certain people in history that were within the Catholic Church to collate letters into a biblios, does that make the Catholic Church a hero in this regard?

I believe that if it was up to the Catholic Church in general, it would have never released any letter, nor would have collated the letters into a biblios, in so saying that it was God who forced their hand through Constantine, in order to stop their bickering had forced them to do it.

When one man like Constantine is moved to do so, then that man could not be the general practice of disclosure policy by which the Catholic Church operated by. I would say it was out of the norm and that Constantine did what no other person within the institution would do and it required God to motivate this single man to force the clergy to do as he says or else.

Come on friend they were forced to do it under threat of a King's mandate. You make it out as if it was general practice from Catholic disclosure policies to disclose information. They had the letters for several hundred years, without ever intending to release them. One King Constantine who for all the wrong reasons wanted to settle disputes would unwittingly go against Catholic disclosure policy to have the clergy to compile the letters.

I call this unwittingly dumb act by Constantine to go against Catholic Church policy, to be the very act of God, using Constantine ulterior motives to have him deliver the biblios that today's Catholic apologists are back peddling with, as they curse Constantine as a dumb schmuck.

Think for a moment if the letters were not released by the Catholic Church, then they would have had not opposition to the faith once given to the saints. It is karma on a grand scale hehehehe.

 

[Berean777]

But that's not ALL of God's word, and that's where we differ.

As you had stated in your previous post that the compiling of the biblios was an act of God and if it be an act of God, then what is there is enough to carry anyone across the line as far as their salvation is concerned, hallelujah!

Oh, no, you'd be wrong, there. The Bible is certainly God's word, all 73 books. But that's not ALL of God's word, and that's where we differ.

Again I refer you to my reply above. What God has given is self sufficient for a person to read and follow Christ and be saved without a religious institution getting involved in that person's salvation.

And what I have presented is from a faithful born again and pure in heart Christian. We disagree, simply, that the Bible is the totality of God's Word.

Then sola scripture is self sufficient to one's salvation because the compiling of the letters that all the world has printed in the world's languages is an act of God and if so being an act of God, then have faith that God hasn't left out anything that would be important for a person's salvation to banquet on.

The institution doesn't 'give us' 'all of God's Word', either. The Holy Spirit does, it is the Church that recognizes it. The Church is the safeguard of the Truth. From your own Berean Study Bible, John 16:13 "However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come." Jesus was speaking to the Apostles; the Apostles knew they were going to die and they appointed successors whom they ordained with the same Holy Spirit.

Your completely misunderstanding the question as to the efficacy and self sufficiency of the faith once given to the 1st century saints. You see the faith has been transmitted to the jot and title to all the world, because Jesus said so...

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14)

If an institution or a person says that the complete gospel as far as salvation is concerned has not been completely transmitted from the 1st century until now, is blatantly calling Jesus a liar.

The banquet was never incomplete. What happened is that some men picked and chose what they wanted to take from that banquet. Also, the religious institution was instituted by Christ, not some several hundred years later. And the men that made up the Church ensured no errors would creep in, willing to die for the Truth.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that God ensured that the gospel of the Son had been from the 1st century until now been transmitted completely and that there requires no additional information that would make it anymore self sufficient as far as salvation is concerned?

Regardless of politics that played out in religion, the message was relayed to every individual as Jesus had prophesied, otherwise are you calling Jesus a false prophet? I would never image that you would!

Jesus said that the gospel will spread in all the world and if we are talking of the message that encompasses the entirety of the faith once given to the saints, then the self efficiency question of whether it has happened without discontinuity in the timeline of the New Testament would go hand in hand with the statement the gates of hell will not prevail against my church. The church is the heart of the question, because it would encompass the globe, regardless of Rome's locality in the scheme of things. Rome as far as a relgious denomination was a small fish in the early days and the seven churches that John addressed were the main thrust of the gospel witnessing.

No, it doesn't. The Holy Ghost guides the Church in ALL TRUTH, as John 16:13 says.

No where does it say that the Holy Ghost came to guide a religious institution, rather the Holy Ghist requires a living temple, that which is a human being, an individual.

It may disturb you because you don't understand the claim.

It disturbs me to see that the faith has been stolen from fellowship and discipleship and has been credited to a non living relgious entity fashioned around a physical temple centred worship, modelled after the Old Testament institution (the 1st beast).

But that's not my claim, nor is it the claim of my Church, Jesus' Church.

It is implied in many ways as though a non living religious entity exists separate to the dwelling place of God, for example scripture tells us that the living temple are the faithful in Christ. If say the faithful disperse and go to their homes, then the building or outwardly worldly institution or worldly name religion cannot be the temple of God, can it?

If it is, then that is the implication that the outward temple is made the dwelling place of God and hence the abomination is being setup in the Holy place where it should not be, because the intended dwelling place of God is in the individual believers, as the saying goes the kingdom of God is within you.

I am born and bread by God who Indwells me from when I was baptised in the name of Jesus. Now the outwardly worldly religious institutions are just bigger houses of prayer. Before people used to gather in houses and then it started to grown to halls and bigger venues. But the faith never migrated back to the Pharisical model of the Old Testament. Men have made up this institution because they want a cult like following and it is something that Jesus hated.

Just consider the way he spoke to the Pharisical relgious institution of those days, don't you see that Jesus hated it and what it stood for. How are today's hierarchical religious institutions any different today as compared to the Old Testament times, aside from butchering of animals?

We have a model of a religious institution that Jesus wanted nothing to do with, that is after he let them have it.... He said.....

You see, from now on your house is left onto you desolate.

 

[Berean777]

@Root of Jesse I love you brother and appeal to your intelligence and the faith that God has given you when calling you into this world. God make you see past the vail to discern matters and to lead many to his truth.

 

[samir]

Honestly admit that your argument is not simply that everyone, without exception, must be born again, but that baptism is that means according to Jn. 3:5 and Titus 3:5. Yet neither text can mean they must be baptized to be so.

You misunderstood again. I firmly believe everyone, without any exception whatsoever, must be born again. Baptism by water is the normal means God uses to give this new birth but God can use other means for those willing but unable to get baptized by water.

Nor did he say that "baptism was necessary for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38, but there he told them to repent, and be baptized for [eis: into; concerning; etc] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Typical. If you don't like what scripture teaches just change the words. I don't call that following scripture. It tells me your tradition comes first.

somehow your eyes failed to see Tertullian On Baptism

Tertullian believed in infant baptism. If you read his Treatise on Baptism for yourself instead of relying on biased and deceitful scholars to tell you what he taught then you would know Tertullian believed in infant baptism. The following two quotes from Ch. 18 of his treatise proves it along with an explanation for those who struggle with logic and reading comprehension:

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition?

Expressing the opinion that it may be better to delay baptism when it's not a case of necessity shows Tertullian believed infants should be baptized in cases of necessity which proves he believed in infant baptism. Even when it's not a necessity, saying it "may be better" to delay shows he believed in infant baptism for everyone.

"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins?

This quote from Tertullian is crystal clear. Saying let them become Christians when they are older proves Tertullian believed that infant baptism made infants Christians. His question about hastening to the remission of sins shows he believed infant baptism remits sin.

Baptism remits sin and makes one a Christian. Tertullian believed baptism did both for infants which proves he believed in infant baptism.

I've discussed this before and so far not one Protestant was able to find any ECFs who didn't believe in infant baptism. Would you like to try again?

 

[MrMoe]

Jesus didn't call Peter Satan. He spoke to Satan who desired to 'have' Peter. Christ told us this, too.

So when Jesus refers to Peter as a "this" instead of "you" in Matthew 16:18 He's definitely talking about Peter, but then only five verses later when Jesus physically turns to Peter and refers to him as "you" He's definitely not talking about Peter?

Your interpretations are not consistent or logical. Almost all bible versions say "said unto Peter" or "said to Peter" which makes it crystal clear that Jesus was talking to Peter and not Satan. Jesus called Peter, Satan.

 

[sculleywr]

So when Jesus refers to Peter as a "this" instead of "you" in Matthew 16:18 He's definitely talking about Peter, but then only five verses later when Jesus physically turns to Peter and refers to him as "you" He's definitely not talking about Peter?

Your interpretations are not consistent or logical. Almost all bible versions say "said unto Peter" or "said to Peter" which makes it crystal clear that Jesus was talking to Peter and not Satan. Jesus called Peter, Satan.

Since Satan means enemy, there is a meaning here, that Peter had made himself an enemy if he were to hold to what he had said. The point here is that when we choose sinful things, or try to advise people to do sinful things, we become the enemy of God.

 

[pescador]

If you took the effort to study church history you would quickly learn that Constantine didn't change anything. It's a Protestant myth that anti-catholics use to slander the Church and justify their rebellion.

Where does the New Testament say that any of the churches taught false or contradictory doctrines that weren't correct by a church council?

Scripture is clear that Jesus only founded one church. To say it doesn't exist or that it's impossible to know which one he founded is a rejection of Jesus and God's word. If you read the New Testament and the ECFs you'll see that the individual parishes were united as one church believing and teaching one gospel and united in doctrine unlike Protestants today where each sect teaches their own interpretations that often contradict what other sects teach.

They were all orthodox and united in doctrine. Every church that preserved the ancient Christian faith was an orthodox church.

The New Testament is clear Jesus founded a visible church and not some invisible body of believers who each follow a different gospel based on their own personal interpretations of whatever books in the bible they haven't rejected.

Jesus called him "Satan" because of his actions. If you kept reading you would see that Jesus forgave him after he repented and told him 3 times to feed his sheep. That doesn't sound like he disowned him.

It's obvious that you have swallowed the Catholic doctrine hook, line, and sinker without any regard for what the Bible says, church history, or common sense. None of what you say is true. There are no biblical references for your statements so I won't discuss them further.

I stand by what the Bible says and only what the Bible says. You can call it false, but that's between you and God. Sola Scriptura

 

[pescador]

So when Jesus refers to Peter as a "this" instead of "you" in Matthew 16:18 He's definitely talking about Peter, but then only five verses later when Jesus physically turns to Peter and refers to him as "you" He's definitely not talking about Peter?

Your interpretations are not consistent or logical. Almost all bible versions say "said unto Peter" or "said to Peter" which makes it crystal clear that Jesus was talking to Peter and not Satan. Jesus called Peter, Satan.

Correct! It is absurd to say that Peter started the Catholic church or any "one true church" which shows pride instead of humility. Sola scriptura.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The Truth is that the contents of Scripture are not contained in Scripture, that you have the Bible because the men of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discerned what belonged there, and what didn't belong there. A couple examples of what, they decided, didn't belong there, are the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache.

If the church could discern 1700 years ago, then it could 1900 years ago, then it could 500 years ago, then it can today. And, if it was discerning, then it is not tradition; and if it was done 1600 years ago, then tell me how that means your church exclusive holder or even continuing in holding truth and speaking it incontrovertibly.

The Fathers of the Reformation, however, disagreed with some of the choices, such as the Letters of St. James. Luther wanted to reject several NT books, but was rebuked.

Just goes to show infallibility of religious leaders and how you don't just take one man's word as gospel truth. Further, Luther rejected some OT books that the Protestants continue in today.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Did Christ put all his eggs in the one basket and say you are the relgious institution that I will place all my sheep in?

You think Christ hedged his bets because he didn't know what would happen? Yes, He created one Church, which is universal. Catholic means universal. Therefore, that's Christ's Church, which began on Pentecost.

You correctly said Christ Jesus is perfect and sinless, so a outward worldly religious institution with hierarchy of a perishable and transferrable Chief Priesthood Office IS NOT a reflection of Christ's sinlessness or perfection, that is as you correctly stated "they being human, have sin all through them".

You keep confusing the institution with the faith. Faith is what Christ provided, one Truth, one Faith, one Lord. The institution is only infallible in matters of faith because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, some leaders sin, but that does not negate the Truth of the faith.

in this regard Christ Jesus would not put all his eggs in an outward worldly relgious institution of any sort. Please listen to where this reasoning is heading........

Yeah, he didn't put his eggs in an institution. He put his eggs in a faith. One Faith, one Truth, one Baptism, one Lord.

Jesus made it abundantly clear where the Pharisees or THE religious institution of the entire Old Testament times stood as far as his righteousness is concerned. So many times Jesus would let the relgious institution have it in ways that you and I could not even imagine. A relgious institution that had Abraham as the Patrairch and here is the Lord completely and utterly divorcing himself from it.

I agree. But he knew there needed to be a hierarchy. He said "If your brother sins, speak to your brother, if that doesn't work, take it to a few of your brothers, if that doesn't work, take it to the Church..." (big-time paraphrase) That Church had authority.

Question....why do you think that Jesus would re-institute another religious institution modelled after the Old Testament institution, after he proclaimed such an institution as a desolation?

Again, you confuse the faith with the institution. I know it's hard, but pay attention.

It would be in error to think that Jesus would establish another worldly temple centred relgious institution like the Old Testament, especially when he made it so crystal clear when he declared his church to the Samaritan women at the well....

I believe there is a huge misunderstanding that people like yourself are having and are having difficulty grappling with the completely different faith movement that Jesus had established.

Actually, I have no problem separating the institution from the faith. Sometimes, the institution is just plain wrong. But the faith has never changed, and is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was NOT instructing his disciples to build another outward temple centred relgious institution as a counterpart to the Old Testament relgious institution, rather he was instructing them towards self discovering an inward modelled temple, that is not conceived by bricks and mortar or a hierarchy as per his say, that the greatest amongst you is your servant, that is it is modelled on the heavenly and spiritual realm. Of the worldly temple that today's institution represents the head figure and hierarchy are not harmonised by the motto of Jesus's church that the greatest amongst you is your servant, so in this regard this model is not what Jesus intended his Ekklesia/discipleship to be at all. Go back to Jesus's statement to the samiratan women at the well and scrutinise whether your relgious institution is built up on the Old Testament model or the New Testament model.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

...
Actually, I have no problem separating the institution from the faith. Sometimes, the institution is just plain wrong. But the faith has never changed, and is protected by the Holy Spirit.

The faith has never changed but the institution has. Overseerers are a long way from a pope

 

[Root of Jesse]

Everything was wrong with the temple worship, because it did nothing to bring people closer to God, it reinforced a relgious authority more so than the authority of God. We see how Jesus let loose words on the Pharisees from the first to the last of the institution, he blamed them for he deaths of Abel right through to Zechariah. On the basis of this charge Jesus had condemned the Pharisical church system in its entirety. He said look your house is left onto you desolate.

Completely wrong. There was nothing wrong with God's faith, which he instituted. What was wrong was the people administering the faithful.

When Jesus refered to Daniel about the abomination of desolation setup in the Holy Place, he meant that something that doesn't bring salvation but desolation will be setup all over again. So this could only be linked in context to his words....

Look, your house is left to you desolate. (Mathew 23:38)
Note the chronology from Mathew 23 where he divorces himself from the Pharisical relgious authority and then walks out of the temple and then prophesies against them, by saying.....

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)

70AD..... Destruction of Jerusalem is Jesus's prophesy fulfilled

Then you have the famous lines in context to the desolated Pharisical house being setup all over again by a different management......

14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (Matthew 24:14-16)

Notice the different management after the events of 70AD is another relgious authority being setup all over again and in vast contrast to the Pharisical institution. This institution in John's Revelation is said to be the second beast who emerges, who has two horns and is lamb/Christ like, but practices the same authority as the first religious beast institution that went down in flames in 70AD. So this new revamped religious institution is Christ/lamb like meaning it has a Christian spin to it and it it gives life to the first religious beast institution and speaks like the same persecuting dragon authority of Pharisees. This religious institution has two horns, meaning it is both relgious and political and Rome must be its political arm.

So the only conclusion that I can make is that if an institution existed that was not endorsed nor shown to be preeminent in John's writings and is however cryptically described by John, whilst John is on the island of Patmos under the captivity of the second beast that has its roots in Rome.

Since there is not a mention of a preeminent figure to John and that no other church outside of the seven that were written to were mentioned as to a religious authority in Rome, then we can safely say that whatever religious institution that was setup in Rome that was working politically with the Roman authority, was a plagiarised religious institution that Jesus prophesied would be established as the abomination that maketh desolate, after the events of 70AD.

The problem here is that the religious institution, the Catholic Church was being persecuted by the Romans. The Romans believe the Jewish and Christian faiths were the same. The Catholic Church was, by and large, underground, as an acorn is underground until it sprouts into a tree. Once the Catholic Church was legalized by Constantine, it needed a coherent authority. That authority was the pope and hierarchy. The early popes were martyred shortly after their election. But once Constantine legalized Christianity, which was the Catholic Church, and left Rome for Constantinople, the hierarchy was left to run the temporal government of Rome. That doesn't mean that the Church is "Rome". Therefore, your conclusions are pretty far off base.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

... But once Constantine legalized Christianity, which was the Catholic Church, and left Rome for Constantinople, the hierarchy was left to run the temporal government of Rome. That doesn't mean that the Church is "Rome". Therefore, your conclusions are pretty far off base.

Yah they kinda inherited their own country didn't they

 

[pescador]

You think Christ hedged his bets because he didn't know what would happen? Yes, He created one Church, which is universal. Catholic means universal. Therefore, that's Christ's Church, which began on Pentecost.
You keep confusing the institution with the faith. Faith is what Christ provided, one Truth, one Faith, one Lord. The institution is only infallible in matters of faith because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, some leaders sin, but that does not negate the Truth of the faith.
Yeah, he didn't put his eggs in an institution. He put his eggs in a faith. One Faith, one Truth, one Baptism, one Lord.I agree. But he knew there needed to be a hierarchy. He said "If your brother sins, speak to your brother, if that doesn't work, take it to a few of your brothers, if that doesn't work, take it to the Church..." (big-time paraphrase) That Church had authority.
Again, you confuse the faith with the institution. I know it's hard, but pay attention.
Actually, I have no problem separating the institution from the faith. Sometimes, the institution is just plain wrong. But the faith has never changed, and is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Catholic (capitalized) refers to the Christian sect. catholic (uncapitalized) means universal. If that wasn't true, why doesn't your sect refer to itself as "the catholic church"?

Christ created one church, his body of all believers. He didn't create one hierarchical, corporate institution.

Nowhere in scripture does it say that the [Catholic] institution is only infallible in matters of faith. Christ is infallible; no man-made institution is infallible.

"If your brother sins, speak to your brother, if that doesn't work, take it to a few of your brothers, if that doesn't work, take it to the Church..." means take it to the body of believers, not to some corporate institution. "Church" is NOT capitalized.

Our loyalty is to God through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit -- only -- not to some priesthood as there was in the Old Covenant, and was reconstructed by Constantine, the Roman emperor, with its massive architecture, hierarchical leadership, ornate symbolism, ritual, and regalia.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hitler, Saddam and Moa amongst sadistic dictators were all condemned by the world along with their institutions that was were vehicles for their evil acts. Any relgious institution that is a vehicle for the evil acts of wicked men, is equally accountable to the evil acts of those men, who were brought up and embraced by the institution to lead the institution and in this regard the institution is not immune and must also be held accountable. If the Nazi party didn't exist, then Hitler wouldn't exist. If the Ba'ath party didn't need exist then Saddam wouldn't exist. If communism didn't exist, then Moa wouldn't exist. The very vehicle that is instrumental for men to perpetrate wicked acts, is in itself the access of evil for that wicked man or men.

By your logic, the car is responsible for the action. That's wrong. Hitler created the Nazi Party, Saddam created his dictatorship. Wrong. The persons are responsible for their crimes. not the Institution, unless the institution demanded directly that they be done.

Once a relgious institution has blood on its hands, it is equally accountable and must therefore be disassociated from the Holy name of the sinless Christ, that is to not associate what is unholy to the Holy God.

It's you who thinks the institution has blood on its hands, but you really would have to prove that. Even if the institution did, the faith didn't suffer at all, and the faith is what I'm here to discuss.

Can any religious institution that has blood on its hands claim to be of God?

Name me a religious institution that doesn't have any blood on its hands.

Look at the Pharisical religious institution and how Christ divorced himself from it as he charged it for all the crimes against humanity from the shedding of the blood of Abel to Zechariah. Those very words will one day come to haunt you, when you see the unsinkable titanic of religion sinking for all the world to see and this would be by its own very hands, for a lady laden with sins will continue to pile up her sins from earth to heaven as she says......

The institution didn't shed the blood of Abel. And neither did the institution kill the prophets and judges. The institution didn't even kill Jesus. The Pharisees did that. Do you blame the Jewish faith for killing Jesus?

Give her as much torment and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself. In her heart she boasts, 'I sit enthroned as queen. I am not a widow; I will never mo (Revelation 18:7)

Notice the pharisaical relgious institution thought if themselves invincible, until Christ told them their end......

Do you see all these things?" he asked. "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." (Matthew 24:2)

You know, to some degree, every pastor alive is pharisaical, to one degree or another...

So were her works during the inquisitions and the crusades amongst other fruits from God.

Please don't lay blame on men for her many centuries long legacy, for the institution must reflect her actions. If you say it is infallible, then it obviously failed because it allowed head figures to commit crimes in her name and so the fallibility doctrine isn't reflective of her. Certainly if Jesus was the head, then he wouldn't have allowed those men across a period of a 1000 years or more to continue against his will and the will of an alleged infallible institution that pleads innocence of the crimes committed against humanity.

Infallibility only extends to the faith. Even one who is wickedly sinful can be infallible regarding the faith of Jesus.
In fact, even the wickedest of Popes never got the faith wrong.

You got it in reverse, you see the institution is reflective of the sinless faith it is supposed to carry and not the sinless faith a reflection of the institution. Yes Christ's faith is sinless, yet you cannot claim it as if it is yours unconditionally. This means that the sinless faith was made for the institution to follow and her actions is a reflection of her faith, whether that be in conformity or not. If her actions are not reflective of the perfect faith in Christ, then the institution is a law onto itself, if it claims it can do no wrong. I note that you circled back to answer the question as to whether the institution is sinless, you originally answered no, then on the next breath you answered yes.

Nope, that's not what I see, and how dare you declare what you think I see. You have no idea, even when I try to tell you.

 

[Albion]

Correct! It is absurd to say that Peter started the Catholic church or any "one true church" which shows pride instead of humility. .

Some people need to say "My church. Mine!" and work the name of it into every one of their posts. They need to feel better than other believers.

But if you've noticed, many members virtually never mention the name of their denomination, let alone crow about how it's the only one, the best one, the infallible one, whatever.

They apparently don't have a need to keep telling themselves that they are right.

 

[Root of Jesse]

As you had stated in your previous post that the compiling of the biblios was an act of God and if it be an act of God, then what is there is enough to carry anyone across the line as far as their salvation is concerned, hallelujah!

It may be enough, but there's more to it than enough. Christ invited us to the banquet, he didn't offer us 'just enough'. Hallelujah!

Again I refer you to my reply above. What God has given is self sufficient for a person to read and follow Christ and be saved without a religious institution getting involved in that person's salvation.

What about those who can't read? They were a majority for most of Christianity. Christ gave us people whom he ordained, who guided by the Holy Spirit, taught the faith faithfully and inerrently. The Bible is not the Word of God alone.

Then sola scripture is self sufficient to one's salvation because the compiling of the letters that all the world has printed in the world's languages is an act of God and if so being an act of God, then have faith that God hasn't left out anything that would be important for a person's salvation to banquet on.

How do you know, though? Why did they get compiled and translated? Because the Holy Spirit guided the Church to make that determination. You're welcome.

Your completely misunderstanding the question as to the efficacy and self sufficiency of the faith once given to the 1st century saints. You see the faith has been transmitted to the jot and title to all the world, because Jesus said so...

Sufficiency isn't the question. God invites us to a banquet where sufficiency isn't enough.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14)

Yes. Not written. Taught by word. Thanks for making my point.

If an institution or a person says that the complete gospel as far as salvation is concerned has not been completely transmitted from the 1st century until now, is blatantly calling Jesus a liar.

Not at all. Saying that the Word of God is not still being presented is calling Jesus a liar.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that God ensured that the gospel of the Son had been from the 1st century until now been transmitted completely and that there requires no additional information that would make it anymore self sufficient as far as salvation is concerned?

No. I believe that God ensured that his Word (the Son) would be transmitted throughout the ages.

Regardless of politics that played out in religion, the message was relayed to every individual as Jesus had prophesied, otherwise are you calling Jesus a false prophet? I would never image that you would!

I separate the politics from the faith. You, apparently, like to glue them together.

Jesus said that the gospel will spread in all the world and if we are talking of the message that encompasses the entirety of the faith once given to the saints, then the self efficiency question of whether it has happened without discontinuity in the timeline of the New Testament would go hand in hand with the statement the gates of hell will not prevail against my church. The church is the heart of the question, because it would encompass the globe, regardless of Rome's locality in the scheme of things. Rome as far as a relgious denomination was a small fish in the early days and the seven churches that John addressed were the main thrust of the gospel witnessing.

We believe the Gospel was spread by word of mouth by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit. This was done for decades before it was ever written. And, as John tells us, all the books in the world cannot contain everything that Jesus said and did. The Catholic Church does encompass the World-there is no country where the Catholic Church doesn't have a presence, where the Church doesn't feed the poor, clothe the naked, and so on, where the faith is not practiced. Rome, in the days of Christ, was the center of the world, and that's why that's where she chose to center it.

No where does it say that the Holy Ghost came to guide a religious institution, rather the Holy Ghist requires a living temple, that which is a human being, an individual.

Again, conflating the faith and the institution...

It disturbs me to see that the faith has been stolen from fellowship and discipleship and has been credited to a non living relgious entity fashioned around a physical temple centred worship, modelled after the Old Testament institution (the 1st beast).

It disturbs me to see that no Protestant religious body has the entirety of what Jesus gave us as the one True Faith.

It is implied in many ways as though a non living religious entity exists separate to the dwelling place of God, for example scripture tells us that the living temple are the faithful in Christ. If say the faithful disperse and go to their homes, then the building or outwardly worldly institution or worldly name religion cannot be the temple of God, can it?

Actually, it can. Many places where the Church is, to this day, persecuted, hold services in humble dwellings.

If it is, then that is the implication that the outward temple is made the dwelling place of God and hence the abomination is being setup in the Holy place where it should not be, because the intended dwelling place of God is in the individual believers, as the saying goes the kingdom of God is within you.

I am born and bread by God who Indwells me from when I was baptised in the name of Jesus. Now the outwardly worldly religious institutions are just bigger houses of prayer. Before people used to gather in houses and then it started to grown to halls and bigger venues. But the faith never migrated back to the Pharisical model of the Old Testament. Men have made up this institution because they want a cult like following and it is something that Jesus hated.

Were you baptized in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
And actually, if you visit the catacombs of Rome, you will see large basilicas under ground where the faithful worshiped God.

Just consider the way he spoke to the Pharisical relgious institution of those days, don't you see that Jesus hated it and what it stood for. How are today's hierarchical religious institutions any different today as compared to the Old Testament times, aside from butchering of animals?

He hated how they were serving the faithful, he didn't hate anyone. In some cases, the hierarchy does take on Pharisaical overtones, and in those cases, the shepherd will have to answer to the Shepherd about how he tended the flock.

We have a model of a religious institution that Jesus wanted nothing to do with, that is after he let them have it.... He said.....

You see, from now on your house is left onto you desolate.

Wrong interpretation, wrong conflating the faith and the institution.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So when Jesus refers to Peter as a "this" instead of "you" in Matthew 16:18 He's definitely talking about Peter, but then only five verses later when Jesus physically turns to Peter and refers to him as "you" He's definitely not talking about Peter?

Your interpretations are not consistent or logical. Almost all bible versions say "said unto Peter" or "said to Peter" which makes it crystal clear that Jesus was talking to Peter and not Satan. Jesus called Peter, Satan.

He looked at Peter and said "Get behind me Satan". He didn't say "Peter, you are Satan, and I need you to get behind me."
He said to Peter "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven."

Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account (Mt 4:10: “Get away, Satan!”).