Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[PeaceByJesus]

Y
Jesus could have easily said "you are Peter, and upon you I will build my church," but He didn't, which is very interesting.
Instead He said "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,"
From what I've heard, not all the ECF believed that the rock is referring to Peter. Some believed it was Peter's testimony, some believed it was Jesus Himself. I believe "this rock" Jesus is referring to is Peter's testimony, not Peter himself.

And by implication, upon Christ Himself.

The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock.

This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.​

 

[PeaceByJesus]

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16)

I see. The Catholic Church began on Pentecost.
Which Church is that? It looks like you ruled out the Catholic Church since it didn't begin until Pentecost and Jesus said to take it to the Church prior to Pentecost when the Catholic Church didn't exist.

On that basis (the use of the word as denoting a community) then the church began with Israel:

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (Acts 7:38)

And pagans have church:

Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. (Act 19:32, also 39, 41)

However, while ekklēsia existed according to the simple meaning of the word, and as described in the rest of Scripture (and there is very little ecclesiology in the gospels) then the distinctive Christian church as under the new covenant could not have begin the Lord's death, (Heb. 9:16,17) and as the "one body" of "Christ From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love," (Ephesians 4:15-16) then it did not begin until Pentecost with the pouring out of gifts, including service gifts:

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. (Romans 12:4-5)

As far as Mt. 18:15-18 referring distinctively to the RCC or the Orthodox, this actually flows from the OT:

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: (Deu 17:8-10)

And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. (Deu 17:12)

Yet which responsibility and authority did not require ensured infallibility, and Scripture was the ultimate standard, and thus the NT with its rejected (by them) itinerant Preacher and preachers began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, establishing their oral Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (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.)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

When do you think the judgement of those works takes place?

I already told you that. I guess you don't know that. See here. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)

" Regarding indulgences, works such as giving alms and praying and fasting are the only ones that gain indulgences...I guess you don't know that."

I did not even mention what was involved nor exclude giving alms and praying and fasting. I guess you don't know that.

"What about those who turn away from God? Are you saying there's no hell?
Another unwarranted conclusion. I did not exclude those who fall away, and "ambiguous texts" (such as the unfaithful steward) can include that. I guess you don't know that.

I guess you don't know that it's alms, prayer and fasting that builds the Church...

Such are means of providing material, with preaching being included, but it is the product of such that are being judged. I guess you don't know that.
The CCC contains nearly every line of Scripture, and explains it. In other words, it's not a substitute, it's a companion."

That is absurd. There are over 788,000 words in the KJV alone versus only 128,435 in the CCC. I guess you don't know that.

Sorry for the use of your sarcasm but it is a poor substitute for a real argument.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Tanakh (no patience for all the capitals) was not mentioned by Christ. Also, only two disciples were on the road Emmaus. I'm sure they all agreed what was the OT, though it is never written down anywhere. But other groups of Jews disagreed, and there was no official Canon.

The Tanakh which consist of three divisions, the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings, easily corresponds to what the Lord referred to in Lk. 24:44:

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44) for the tripartite canon of the law and the prophets and psalms (the Writings=hagiographa])

1st century Josephus held 22 books as Scripture, which (due to combining books, which later varied) an which is seen as supporting the 39 book Protestant canon, and divided the books into three sections: the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called 'hymns to God and precepts for human life,' also referred to as the Writings or the Hagiographa,

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.. — Against Apion 1.8.

Herbert Edward Ryle, states,

Josephus probably refers to exactly the same documents as the twenty-four of the traditional Jewish reckoning, Ruth being counted as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. His three divisions might be called the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. His first division comprises the same five books as the first division of the traditional arrangement. But his second division has thirteen books, not eight, the additional five being perhaps Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. The four books of the third division would then be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. — F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 33-34.

"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers." — Greg Bahnsen,

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Two of the gospels were written by people who never met Jesus. They learn about him how???Through Sacred Tradition..

And how did Paul know of true statements by pagan philosophers? But whether passed on orally or by writing we know they are true by their inclusion in wholly inspired Scripture, not under the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

And which class of writings souls discerned and established as being of God before a church of Rome presumed she was essential for this.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

.the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

Jesus did tell Peter "Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep", "Feed my sheep". The Pope, being the successors of Peter, carry the same heavy responsibility in matters of faith...

The commission to Peter street-level initial leader among the 11 (though never manifestly ruling over them (James is the one who provides the Scripture-based conclusive judgment in Acts 15, confirmatory of what Peter briefly testified to and exhorted, and Paul preached), for whom no successors are promised, nor by RC voting, simply does not translate into the NT church looking to him as the first of a line of exalted infallible heads reigning supreme in Rome.

And Paul himself called elders together and charged them to feed the flock, (Acts 20:28) which was with the word of God which is said to "nourish" believers (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up," (Acts 20:32) with Peter also teaching that the sincere milk of the word is what one grows by, (1Pt. 2:2) and which Paul fed the Corinthians with, and lamenting that believers were not yet ready for "meat," (1Co. 3:2). and with the writer of Hebrews exhorting receiving the "meat" of the word. (Heb. 5:13-6:2)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So then the question becomes, "Who do you trust?"

The answer is obvious:

"Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. 1 Samuel 10:25; Jeremiah 36:2; Daniel 9:2)

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (Mark 16:20)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Propaganda continued. In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon, and who separately included most of the apocryphal books in his Bible, as per an ancient tradition.

Propaganda, continued...

Mere recourse to bare bombast, contrary to what was/is abundantly substantiated.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

We don't worship Mary.

Another mere assertion, contrary to what Scripture describes.

That's not a doctrine, either.

Ratherr Catholics have less in common critically with the ancient NT church Christian faith, as do Prot denoms that are most close to her.

We have the same relationship with the Ancient One Church Christ instituted as an oak does to an acorn.

More mere propaganda, based on the propaganda that Rome is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Do you really want to argue Catholicism can do nothing, or that its teaching is merely what is officially professed?
That is exactly true. The Church can only propose how to live. The Church cannot impose anything. We do what the Church teaches because we want to, not because we're forced to-that's Islam...
Wrong, that is not Scriptural, and contrary to your own history, though its application and means was wrong. For instead Scripture states
"do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

But that what one does and effects is the evidence of what one really believes. (Mt. 7:20; Ja,. 2:18)

I was a Protestant, various flavors, most of my life, and cannot determine one "Protestant" teaching.

Then your use of "Protestant" is indeed basically meaningless in this context. Since you are arguing against a faith versus a church, you need to deal with what aspects of the faith you oppose, versus what your church teaches you.

To this day, there is only one Church Christ instituted. All baptized Christians are part of it.

That is charitable but clearly contrary to how multitudes of others, such as even seen in this thread, interpret RC teaching. But the only one true church is that which only and always consists of believers, and which inevitably is not that of any organic church.

That Satan tries to divide the sheep is noted.

True, but the Lord commands we separate from goats.

See? The pope has no power to force people to believe him, and yet history proves that the Popes are always on the cutting edge, seeing the future quite clearly...

Absurd sophistry. The pope has no power to force people to submit him because it was taken from him:

Q. 540. How did the Pope acquire and how was he deprived of the temporal power?

A. The Pope acquired the temporal power in a just manner by the consent of those who had a right to bestow it. He was deprived of it in an unjust manner by political changes. - baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm

Oh, you want statistics? Do you know that only 7% of Catholics do the work of the Church? The rest, to one degree or another, some go to Mass every week, some go Christmas, Easter only, some believe the teachings of the Church, some don't. Am I to understand that your criticism of the Catholic Church is that Catholics don't act Catholic enough? If so, I agree.

The point is that you must count and treat such as brethren as Rome does in life and in death, and yet this is the church you preach we need to be part of.

The Church only holds out that God is merciful for the benefit of those loved ones of the deceased.

So says your opinion, but makes what she says is conveys to be deceptive.

It is a problem, though. We often canonize people when they die, though they may not deserve it.

But most historical RC theologians held that the pope is infallible in issuing a decree of canonization.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Church never infallibly defines anything unless there is a question about it. That's why there is no Canon of Scripture dogmatically defined until Trent, why the Natures of God and the Persons of God were defined in the early Church, and so on.

But which does NOT mean that there was no question about it until then. In fact, as Ratzinger confessed,
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative ...

Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.- J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 .

But Rome can claim to "remember" what contemporary an early history "forgot" to record, and this novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is the basis for RC assurance:

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

Magisterial infallibility was believed until there was a question about it.

Wrong. Certainly "magisterial infallibility was believed" as are a lot of things, which simply does not translate it being believed by all "until there was a question about it!" Tuas libenter itself, which Vatican 1 invoked in support of its declaration of magisterial infallibility was written in response to a lack of universal affirmation of this, while most ecumenical Councils only a minority of the world's bishops present. And papal infallibility certainly was clearly disputed both before and in Vatican 1, and is rejected by Tradition-based Eastern Orthodoxy.

And of course, there is the dispute over what documents and statements in them are infallible, and what they mean.

Then it was dogmatically defined. Jesus made the Church the authority.

What? You think because Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, means that Jesus made the Church the infallible authority on Truth?!

Blasphemy! You might as well argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)\

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

The church magisterium is indeed the supreme magisterial authority on earth in judicial matters, as was the Jewish magisterium, and as is the Supreme Court in America, but which does not require ot make such an infallible authority.

John 6 describes Jesus saying we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and Jesus, being the Lamb of God, must be consumed, as was the Passover meal, before entering the Promised Land.

So Moses discovered the Cath Eucharist after he died, and that no Prots who do not believe in the "Real Presence" (despite this apparently originally being an Anglican term) can enter Heaven?

That certainly is consistent with the Cath insistence on taking Jn. 6:53,54 literally, and which means the Cath Eucharist is essential to have spiritual life within, but it is wholly untenable in the light of all Scripture, in which spiritual life was never obtained by physically literally eating anything.

We are all called to be saints. None of these contradict Sacred Scripture.

Making "saints" into a distinct class who alone go directly to Heaven, is.

"But it doesn't contradict Scripture"

Eucharistic theology certainly does!

Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against),

. Is that why Peter wrote 1 Peter? In that letter, he's writing to five churches in Asia, some which were evangelized by Paul. If Peter wasn't the head of the Church, why would he carry the authority to teach those five Churches?

So being an apostle writing to "strangers scattered throughout" wide areas another apostle (= authority) planted churches in makes Peter the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome?

RCs certainly having an extrapolative imagination. Now see
Triablogue: 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian primacy.

and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.

I'm still waiting for something that contradicts Scripture.

"Having eyes they see not."

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Bible is about the entire history of God's people, not just the first generation of the church. It begins with the creation of the Earth and heavens, then the creation of humanity, then the formation of God's people from Abraham all the way through to the minor prophets, then the Gospels, then acts of the apostles and the formation of the various churches, ending in Revelation. Your statement that "the Bible is only about the first generation of the Church" is so wrong it's amazing.

Gosh, can't you even realize I was speaking of the Christian Church???

Jesus did NOT make Peter the head of the apostles; he was one of them only. If you had to name a leader of the early church it would probably be James, the Lord's brother. Peter was a flawed, erratic person who went from confessing the Messiah to denying him.

Is that why Peter is always mentioned first among the apostles, or as "Peter and the other apostles"? Is that why they he was the one who convened the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? Is that why Jesus told Peter, specifically that "Satan has desired to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."? Is that why He told him "Feed my sheep"?
Regarding Peter being flawed and erratic, so what? All the apostles were flawed and erratic. Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, Thomas doubted Him, James and John wanted positions of favor with Him, all of them fled at His crucifixion.

If you do read the Bible every day then focus on what it says not what you want it to say, particularly about the Catholic church. If you disagree that the Bible is the only word of God, then what else is there? The teaching of fallible men?

No, the teaching of infallible men. Prevented from teaching error by the Holy Spirit. I trust the Holy Spirit, apparently, you do not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Which ignores the distinction i made. Such preaching of Scriptural Truths as i affirmed does not claim to be the inspired word of God as Scripture is, and or is assuredly infallible and equal to Scripture, as uninspired men of Rome assert for her traditions of men.

Wrong, and which is a mere argument by assertion. No Roman pope (versus Peter) or council spoke as wholly inspired of God, even according to RC theology.

Which is one of the qualities that separate Rome from wholly inspired apostles and Scripture.

No Roman pope (versus Peter) or council spoke as wholly inspired of God.

You're completely wrong.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I already told you that. I guess you don't know that. See here. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)

But you're interpretation is wrong. I guess you don't know that.

I did not even mention what was involved nor exclude giving alms and praying and fasting. I guess you don't know that.

But you believe that indulgences could be sold or bought. I guess you don't know that they can't, and weren't.

That is absurd. There are over 788,000 words in the KJV alone versus only 128,435 in the CCC. I guess you don't know that.

Not when you count the footnotes. By the way, the KJV is missing a few books. I guess you don't know that, too.

Sorry for the use of your sarcasm but it is a poor substitute for a real argument.

I've given the arguments, but you're too brainwashed to believe them.
When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).

Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59).

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Tanakh which consist of three divisions, the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings, easily corresponds to what the Lord referred to in Lk. 24:44:

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44) for the tripartite canon of the law and the prophets and psalms (the Writings=hagiographa])

1st century Josephus held 22 books as Scripture, which (due to combining books, which later varied) an which is seen as supporting the 39 book Protestant canon, and divided the books into three sections: the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called 'hymns to God and precepts for human life,' also referred to as the Writings or the Hagiographa,

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.. — Against Apion 1.8.

Herbert Edward Ryle, states,

Josephus probably refers to exactly the same documents as the twenty-four of the traditional Jewish reckoning, Ruth being counted as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. His three divisions might be called the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. His first division comprises the same five books as the first division of the traditional arrangement. But his second division has thirteen books, not eight, the additional five being perhaps Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. The four books of the third division would then be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. — F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 33-34.

"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers." — Greg Bahnsen,

I agree that Jesus was speaking of "Scripture", but nobody took the time to name the books. That took the inspired men of the Catholic Church to gather and discuss which of the Christian writings were "Scripture" and which were not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And how did Paul know of true statements by pagan philosophers? But whether passed on orally or by writing we know they are true by their inclusion in wholly inspired Scripture, not under the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

And which class of writings souls discerned and established as being of God before a church of Rome presumed she was essential for this.

Why did Paul have to go to the apostles and find out if he was teaching the faith correctly? Note: He was teaching BY WORD OF MOUTH. THEN later on, he wrote letters to correct errors that were cropping up in the different communities. He didn't tell Timothy to read Scripture alone. He said read scripture, and hold fast to the traditions I have taught you. The end.

 

[Root of Jesse]

.the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

The commission to Peter street-level initial leader among the 11 (though never manifestly ruling over them (James is the one who provides the Scripture-based conclusive judgment in Acts 15, confirmatory of what Peter briefly testified to and exhorted, and Paul preached), for whom no successors are promised, nor by RC voting, simply does not translate into the NT church looking to him as the first of a line of exalted infallible heads reigning supreme in Rome.

None of the apostles was lord of the others, just as now, the Pope is one of the bishops, but the one who sits in the Chair of Peter. The council, by the way, ratified the decision, but it was Peter and the others who prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance, just as the Church does today. And they did vote on the decision...

And Paul himself called elders together and charged them to feed the flock, (Acts 20:28) which was with the word of God which is said to "nourish" believers (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up," (Acts 20:32) with Peter also teaching that the sincere milk of the word is what one grows by, (1Pt. 2:2) and which Paul fed the Corinthians with, and lamenting that believers were not yet ready for "meat," (1Co. 3:2). and with the writer of Hebrews exhorting receiving the "meat" of the word. (Heb. 5:13-6:2)

Right, but Paul was ordaining bishops to feed his flock, as Jesus was. Laying on of hands was the key.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The answer is obvious:

"Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. 1 Samuel 10:25; Jeremiah 36:2; Daniel 9:2)

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (Mark 16:20)

So, you trust the men who wrote the Scriptures, especially the NT. You trust them because they're the authors of the Bible. But you have to know that there was no Canon of Scripture until the Church decided it, and some Christian writings were excluded. These decisions took prayer and the hand of God to decide which books belonged. If the Church had not done that, you would have a lot of Christian writings but no authority to tell you that they were canonical, or not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But which does NOT mean that there was no question about it until then. In fact, as Ratzinger confessed,
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative ...

Note: For their opinion...
Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.- J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 .
[/quote]And yet, the doctrine was approved. Because it does not contradict Scripture, and was believed prior to the 5th Century
But Rome can claim to "remember" what contemporary an early history "forgot" to record, and this novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is the basis for RC assurance:

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[/QUOTE]
The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don't know how it first came to be celebrated.

Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as <Aelia Capitolina> in honor of Jupiter.

For 200 years, every memory of Jesus was obliterated from the city, and the sites made holy by His life, death and Resurrection became pagan temples.

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the "Tomb of Mary," close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.

On the hill itself was the "Place of Dormition," the spot of Mary's "falling asleep," where she had died. The "Tomb of Mary" was where she was buried.

At this time, the "Memory of Mary" was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.

For a time, the "Memory of Mary" was marked only in Palestine, but then it was extended by the emperor to all the churches of the East. In the seventh century, it began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the "Falling Asleep" ("Dormitio") of the Mother of God.

Soon the name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: "Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth."

 

[Berean777]

When I was a child, I was raised by two very loving, devoted parents who did not deprive me of life, including very strict discipline. Their methods with me were pretty much the same as they were with my sister. While she is imperfect, and makes mistakes out of her immaturity, she is a good kid. On the other hand, I was a complete and total nightmare on steroids. I rebelled, and rebelled hard. I'm 28 now and still repairing the bridges that I didn't just burn, but nukes with a Tsar Bomba. It is not their fault that I turned into that nightmare. You do not blame the parents UNLESS you can prove that they intended for me to become that way.

Your parents, God bless them for doing the Lord's will are workers within one of many relgious institutions, that is the manufacturing plants, the many vineyards of God. They are saved by their own righteousness and neither can they save their sons or daughters by their own righteousness. The faith of your parents is not a reflection of the religious institution that they belong to, so the faults of the relgious institution is not charged against them, in the same way the charges that you have layed upon yourself at times, is not to be laid upon the parents who have no fault. So in this regard if workers in a plant are carrying out the will of God to their best ability, then they are pardoned from the faults of others, including the manufacturing process within the plant that is being run incorrectly by the foremen/tenants of the manufacturing plant.

Please brother read the parable about the tenants who are a symbol of the manufacturing plan foremen and managers, that is the hierarchy of a relgious institution, the Patriarch/Pope right down to the clergy.

Think about how Jesus had changed this structure forever, by restructuring the bygone Pharisical religious institution to that of ANOTHER........

The Parable of the Tenants

33“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

35“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

38“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

41“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”

42Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“ ‘The stone the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone;

the Lord has done this,

and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?

45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.


Notice in verse 45, under the old Chief Priest, the tenants, that is the church hierarchy who had rented God's vineyard were implicated in being unfruitful and therefore were sacked from the vineyard of God by the owner of the vineyard who is God, who had previously rented it out to them. This means according to verse 45, that he brought an end to that hierarchical infrastructure and replaced it by another, who would be tenanted by others who each and individually, would give their OWN individual SHARE of fruit of the harvest. This means that no longer is there a religious institution that brings the collective fruits of other workers, through the tenants/hierarchy as per the old pharisical modelled religious institution, but one that brings fruits by individual by individual faithful basis, like your parents let us say.

That is why Paul writes that grace is apportioned individually and not institutionally as was under the old chief priesthood Pharisical hierarchical administration.

4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says:

“When he ascended on high,

he took many captives

and gave gifts to his people.”

9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regionsc ? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Therefore you cannot be saved by or through your religious institution who had called your parents and you through your parents. If you notice verse 14 above, that the New Testament faith is non institutional as it was in the Old Testament times, that is every one, individually who is apportioned Grace individually by Christ, is able to grow independently in faith, from infancy to maturity. The concept of learning the faith is not by the old Pharisical religious practice of transmission teaching by the hirarachy, rather it becomes an individual effort to intrinsically own their faith and to become independent life long learners of the faith, by being intrinsically motivated to self seeking God through the Spirit of truth. So the saying of the new faith through Christ holds true, that is.......

10This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” 13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear (Hebrews 8:10-13)

After God had made the old covenant obsolete and replaced it with the new covenant under the new head Chief Priest Jesus christ as the Melchizedek (king of righteousness), then the institutional hierarchy of the old church had been sacked, as the tenants of the old administration, that was under a transferrable chief priest that was not sworn in by oath and had perishable life. Whereas under the new covenant the Chief Priest office of Christ Jesus is permanent and non transferable and was sworn in by an oath and declared as indestructible life.

So just to recap, the old covenant is gone, so too is the hirarachy that was the original tenants of God's vineyard. In place of it Paul speaks of one head Jesus Christ and a flatter functional institution that is fruitful on an individual by individual basis, according to the grace that Christ apportions. These individuals are not elected by man's religious institution of hierarchy that is, they have no human boss to report to, but are able to become individually apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service.

So it is Christ the Chief priest who is equipping his people who he apportions grace on an individual by individual basis. So there goes the hierarchy theory of a bygone religious institution. Simply a Patrairch/Pope cannot appoint a person in any position because his administration is non statutory and therefore ilegal as far as God the Father is concerned. So those who practice this hirarachal model continue according to the obselote old covenant and are disassociating themselves from Christ altogether, by trying to assume his position and think to change laws and times by appointing themselves as the tenants of God's vineyard and declare that they are the ones who can apportion grace by their own choosing.

This practice is therefore none salvatory and is in outright defiance to God and the one and only Kingly Chief Priest Jesus Christ.

Your parents and you, do not carry the sins of a disobedient religious institution that was sacked 2000 years ago and replaced by other tenants who would bring individually to God the fruits of their own labour of faith in Christ and so salvation becomes individually based and not institutionally based.

Don't believe on face value me or the scriptures that I have put together for you to digest and understand, rather also look at the thousands of pasters who have formed their own denominations and the numbers seem to be ever growing. This to me is indicative of what God had always wanted and so we must say goodbye to the institutions who ruled for the better part of the first millennium and embrace the future of factionalised Christainity that has no hirarachy and only one head.

Man was never meant to deal with religious law and order, God the supreme commander Christ Jesus does that job and boy has he dispersed that relgious enterprise of those bygone centuries, where institutions thrived on poor people who knew no better. Now with knowledge increased people can see these institutions for what they really are, that is obsolete and their heads patriarchs/popes have no jurisdiction, because their office is in defiance to God's one and only Chief Priest office of Melchizedek.

 

[sculleywr]

Your parents, God bless them for doing the Lord's will are workers within one of many relgious institutions, that is the manufacturing plants, the many vineyards of God. They are saved by their own righteousness and neither can they save their sons or daughters by their own righteousness. The faith of your parents is not a reflection of the religious institution that they belong to, so the faults of the relgious institution is not charged against them, in the same way the charges that you have layed upon yourself at times, is not to be laid upon the parents who have no fault. So in this regard if workers in a plant are carrying out the will of God to their best ability, then they are pardoned from the faults of others, including the manufacturing process within the plant that is being run incorrectly by the foremen/tenants of the manufacturing plant.

Please brother read the parable about the tenants who are a symbol of the manufacturing plan foremen and managers, that is the hierarchy of a relgious institution, the Patriarch/Pope right down to the clergy.

Think about how Jesus had changed this structure forever, by restructuring the bygone Pharisical religious institution to that of ANOTHER........

The Parable of the Tenants

33“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

35“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

38“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

41“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”

42Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“ ‘The stone the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone;

the Lord has done this,

and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?

45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.


Notice in verse 45, under the old Chief Priest, the tenants, that is the church hierarchy who had rented God's vineyard were implicated in being unfruitful and therefore were sacked from the vineyard of God by the owner of the vineyard who is God, who had previously rented it out to them. This means according to verse 45, that he brought an end to that hierarchical infrastructure and replaced it by another, who would be tenanted by others who each and individually, would give their OWN individual SHARE of fruit of the harvest. This means that no longer is there a religious institution that brings the collective fruits of other workers, through the tenants/hierarchy as per the old pharisical modelled religious institution, but one that brings fruits by individual by individual faithful basis, like your parents let us say.

That is why Paul writes that grace is apportioned individually and not institutionally as was under the old chief priesthood Pharisical hierarchical administration.

4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says:

“When he ascended on high,

he took many captives

and gave gifts to his people.”

9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regionsc ? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Therefore you cannot be saved by or through your religious institution who had called your parents and you through your parents. If you notice verse 14 above, that the New Testament faith is non institutional as it was in the Old Testament times, that is every one, individually who is apportioned Grace individually by Christ, is able to grow independently in faith, from infancy to maturity. The concept of learning the faith is not by the old Pharisical religious practice of transmission teaching by the hirarachy, rather it becomes an individual effort to intrinsically own their faith and to become independent life long learners of the faith, by being intrinsically motivated to self seeking God through the Spirit of truth. So the saying of the new faith through Christ holds true, that is.......

10This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” 13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear (Hebrews 8:10-13)

After God had made the old covenant obsolete and replaced it with the new covenant under the new head Chief Priest Jesus christ as the Melchizedek (king of righteousness), then the institutional hierarchy of the old church had been sacked, as the tenants of the old administration, that was under a transferrable chief priest that was not sworn in by oath and had perishable life. Whereas under the new covenant the Chief Priest office of Christ Jesus is permanent and non transferable and was sworn in by an oath and declared as indestructible life.

So just to recap, the old covenant is gone, so too is the hirarachy that was the original tenants of God's vineyard. In place of it Paul speaks of one head Jesus Christ and a flatter functional institution that is fruitful on an individual by individual basis, according to the grace that Christ apportions. These individuals are not elected by man's religious institution of hierarchy that is, they have no human boss to report to, but are able to become individually apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service.

So it is Christ the Chief priest who is equipping his people who he apportions grace on an individual by individual basis. So there goes the hierarchy theory of a bygone religious institution. Simply a Patrairch/Pope cannot appoint a person in any position because his administration is non statutory and therefore ilegal as far as God the Father is concerned. So those who practice this hirarachal model continue according to the obselote old covenant and are disassociating themselves from Christ altogether, by trying to assume his position and think to change laws and times by appointing themselves as the tenants of God's vineyard and declare that they are the ones who can apportion grace by their own choosing.

This practice is therefore none salvatory and is in outright defiance to God and the one and only Kingly Chief Priest Jesus Christ.

Your parents and you, do not carry the sins of a disobedient religious institution that was sacked 2000 years ago and replaced by other tenants who would bring individually to God the fruits of their own labour of faith in Christ and so salvation becomes individually based and not institutionally based.

Don't believe on face value me or the scriptures that I have put together for you to digest and understand, rather also look at the thousands of pasters who have formed their own denominations and the numbers seem to be ever growing. This to me is indicative of what God had always wanted and so we must say goodbye to the institutions who ruled for the better part of the first millennium and embrace the future of factionalised Christainity that has no hirarachy and only one head.

Man was never meant to deal with religious law and order, God the supreme commander Christ Jesus does that job and boy has he dispersed that relgious enterprise of those bygone centuries, where institutions thrived on poor people who knew no better. Now with knowledge increased people can see these institutions for what they really are, that is obsolete and their heads patriarchs/popes have no jurisdiction, because their office is in defiance to God's one and only Chief Priest office of Melchizedek.

Getting rid of the people inside a structure does not mean getting rid of the structure itself. If you remove all the prisoners from a prison, take down the barbed wire and bars and convert it into a hotel, did you get rid of the structure of the building itself?

The fact is that from the get-go, the Church had Structure. The Apostles established bishops over cities, those bishops appointed elders over each gathering and the elders elected Deacons to be ordained by the Bishops. We can see this from the very first century. We can see it in the Scriptures.

If man was not meant to deal with religious law and order, then rip out the Torah, burn it, and never use it. The command of God established the structure. If structure is sin, then God is a sinner. God made a mistake if structure is not something man was meant to have.

I'm sorry, but lack of structure is what made the Protestant Reformation fracture into the thousands of squabbling denominations there are today. Look at before the Reformation. There were three churches, two of which taught functionally the same, and Rome. The rest were either heretical sects that rejected the Trinity and other fundamental doctrines, or they were heathen religions or Pharisaical Jews (the Pharisees were the only sect of Judaism that survived the destruction of the Temple). Before the Great Schism, there were only two churches. But after the Reformation severed the church into four branches, then the Radical Reformation transformed those four into dozens, and later hundreds, and finally thousands of smaller churches, all squabbling over sometimes the most basic of dogmas, the structure was gone. Without structure, there is chaos.

Scripture says that EVERYTHING is to be done decently and in order. This includes the structure of the Church. Whether you like it or not, desire to be free from submission is a carnal passion. It is a desire planted into us by the first rebel, Satan. It was Satan who wanted to be free from structure. But by freeing oneself from the structure God placed in the world, a person raises himself to the position of God. The desire to be free from structure is pride. Pure and simple pride. It is part of what made Pelagianism such a horrible heresy. First one frees himself from the structure, then one believes that he can achieve salvation alone. Seriously, if one thinks he can find salvation apart from the Church God built, then he's not far from thinking he can achieve salvation apart from the God Who built the Church.