Protestant Doctrine

simonthezealot · Jul 6, 2006

a_ntv said:
Please ask these questions on OBOB.
This thread in not on Catholic Faith but it is on Protestant Doctrine (and I hope that protestants have a positive doctrine, not only to be the contrary of catholics).

When I see so many questions, I could suppose that who wrote them is not interested in reading the answers...

I know the Catholic answer to all of these, If I tried to explain them to another protestant I think it may cause an anerism, I think alot of Catholics would even struggle.
In our primitive human nature would our sheperd make it impossible for his sheep to find their way home? My opinion (no way)

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Jul 6, 2006

simonthezealot said:
IgnatiusOfAntioch said:

Greetings my brother,

We agree that Holy Scripture is good for these things. The problem is this still doesnt state or even imply that ONLY (i.e. sola) Scripture can do so. This mutual exclusivity of Sola Scriptura still has not been produced. Conspicuously absent is the statement the it is the Sole means by which we might be perfected in Christ. That is what is missing. It denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

The problem is that Sola Scriptura itself is an extra-biblical, man made doctrine that did not even exist until the 16th century. I believe that if it's new it ain't True; if it's True, it ain't new. There is no evidence for it for the first sixteen centuries of Christianity. That fact alone is enough to discredit it. Another is the very fact that it is not explicitly in the bible. The idea of the Sola Scriptura Bible alone (i.e. exclusive of any other means) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible.

A number of other issues arise from this. Since "sola Scripture" states that everything that is necessary for faith is contained within the pages of scripture, the books of the Bible must be listed within those pages or the "sola Scripture" believer cannot know that those books belong in the Bible, because it doesn't say so!

Other questions which I would have to have answered in order to dispel my doubts about Sola Scriptura are the following.

1. Where in the Bible does Jesus tell His apostles to write the Bible?
2. The Bible does indicate that it gives good guidance for perfecting our faith, but where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority of faith and morals?
3) Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
4) Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
5) Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example:
There was a version of Matthew's Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another
with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
6) Who had the authority to determine which books belong in the New Testament?

These next two are the sina qua non for me.

7. When a doctrinal dispute arises between "sola Scripture" believers, who has the authority to resolve the dispute?
8. Where in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted solely to what is written within Scripture?

If all of the above question cannot be answered from within the pages of scripture, I dont see how anyone can legitimately claim to hold to this doctrine. There is far more evidence to the contrary than there is to support sola Scripture.

Shalom Aleichem

Yours in Christ.

Click to expand...

Questions to the Catholics.....

This thread is about Protestant Doctrine. This particular subthread is about the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I will gladly answer your questions if you will start a separate thread on that subject.

I have asked several legitimate question to help to overcome my doubts about Sola Scriptura. If you can answer these questions from Scripture Alone, I will be able to legitimately hold Sola Scriptura.

So, can you help me overcome these problems with Sola Scriptura? Thank you.

Shalom Aleichem.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 6, 2006

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
We agree that Holy Scripture is good for these things.

Sola Scriptura is an epistemological principle of norming for doctrine. It is not a doctrine, it's a principle. It cannot be proven any more than Sola Ecclesia can be proven. Principles can, however, be evaluated in light of their purpose.

Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura. It does not exclude Tradition, the church, languages, history, logic or any other useful tool. Sola Scriptura is a principle for norming - not hermeneutics. No one is suggesting that the only tool we can use in interpreting a verse is the verse itself - such is not suggested any any Protestant known to me and certainly is not related to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is an epistemological principle for norming.

The problem is this still doesnt state or even imply that ONLY (i.e. sola) Scripture can do so. This mutual exclusivity of Sola Scriptura still has not been produced. Conspicuously absent is the statement the it is the Sole means by which we might be perfected in Christ. That is what is missing. It denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

Sola Scriptura does not teach that the Bible is God; it certainly is means of grace (along with the Sacraments) but only God can save or perfect us. Sola Scriptura is an epistemological principle for norming, it's not God.

The problem is that Sola Scriptura itself is an extra-biblical,

man made doctrine that did not even exist until the 16th century. I believe that if it's new it ain't True; if it's True, it ain't new. There is no evididence for it for the first sixteen centuries of Christianity. That fact alone is enough to discredit it.

1. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine; it certainly flows from some doctrines and envelops some - but it is not, per se, a doctrine. Nor is Sola Ecclesia. That alternative to Sola Scriptura also is not a doctrine, although it certainly involves a certain theology of the church. When we are evaluating the principles of Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia, we are evaluating epistemological principles for norming.

2. I respectfully disagree that Sola Scriptura is new. Jesus, Peter and Paul repeatedly, over and over and over, referred to the Scriptures as norming, they never once - not once - refered to the Roman Catholic Church as norming (or any other denomination or institution).

3. Principles can be evaluated. Principles of norming are to provide accountability and avoid self-authentication. So, we can evaluate Sola Scriptura and Sola Eccelesia in this light.

The Church of Josiah teaches that all girls are saved. There's the teacher and the teaching.

Sola Ecclesia: The Church of Josiah (as the teacher) is the "sole final arbiter" for the teaching of the Church of Josiah. This evaluation must be according to the teachings and claims ("Tradition") of the Church of Josiah, which, of course, includes that all girls are saved. So, on the basis of the norma normans (the rule, the Canon, the Standard) of the teachings of the Church of Josiah, the Church of Josiah will determine if the teachings of the Church of Josiah are correct. Whatismore, the conclusion which the Church of Josiah comes to as it alone evaluates the teachings of the Church of Josiah as normed by the teachings of the Church of Josiah are infallible, because the Church of Josiah so self-claims. And because the Church of Josiah self-claims that it's teachings are infallible, therefore they are unaccountable, except to the Church of Josiah. We can evaluate that principle in terms of the accountability it provides to the Church of Josiah, and the amount of self-authentication it avoids. (The ironic thing is while every church that embraces this principle of Sola Ecclesia defends it with a passion, they do so ONLY when they themselves use it, they ridicule it when ANYONE else uses it - which makes me wonder about the principle, but I digress).

Sola Scriptura. It is the responsibility of the Church of Josiah to reveal how this teaching is taught by God in His written Word - the the teachings of the Church of Josiah are accountable, so that it's words are under God's written Word. There is nothing in Scripture that confirms that all girls, by virtue of their DNA, are saved, therefore it has not been substantiated. This, too can be evaluated in terms of the accountability it provides and the self-authentication it avoids.

Now, unlike Sola Ecclesia which insists that only self can be the final arbiter for self, ie only self can use the principle, Sola Scriptura leaves that issue unaddressed - it's simply not a part of the principle as to who uses it. Some believe that each individual is to use the principle. These are agreeing with the Catholics and Mormons with Sola Eccelsia that the only appropriate interpretations are private ones by self (self = individual person, congregation or denomination) but the difference being they subject the Teaching to Scripture not to the Teaching itself - it's a different norma normans, even though it's still self arbitrating self. These people believe in careful, prayerful study with others, looking to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the goal being conviction. Some of those Protestants have posted in this thread. Others believe that the principle of Sola Scriptura is to be used collectively, by the whole church catholic, also slowly, carefully, prayerfully, looking to the Holy Spirit, but with emphasis on collectively and with the goal as consensus. BUT, regardless of WHO is permitted to use the principle of Sola Scriptura, the principle says that such is subject to, accountable to Scripture - not the other way around.

Sola Ecclesia: Self arbitrates self according to the norma normans of self, and such is infallible and unaccountable.

Sola Scriptura: God's written Word is the norma normans for self, and such is arbitrated either by self or collectively by the whole body of Christ.

An Illustration: You and I are in the back seat of a car. The driver has the car going 60 MPH. You say that the speed limit is 55 and I say that it's 45. The driver now needs to determ (arbitrate, evaluate) which (if either) is true. Now, you and I can both scream that we are infallible and unaccountable because we scream that we are infallible and unaccountable. We can scream that we just "know" because somehow, secretry, the designer of this road shared the secret with I alone and I'm now revealing it. The driver can listen to our self-claims, he might consider who screams the loudest or longest. OR he might look at the sign. There's a sign by the side of the road. It says "SPEED LIMIT 35" Ah, in that case, he is subjecting us to an authority outside each of us, a written authority put up there by the authorities, written in such a way that neither you nor I can alter to suit ourselves.

Neither Sola Scriptura nor Sola Ecclessia are doctrine and so neither needs to be proven. They are principles that can and should be evaluated. An epistemological principle of norming is to do one things: Provide accountability. Which provides more accountablilty for self? Self or Scripture? Of course, no principle is infallible and can certainly be abused - that's true for both Sola Scriptura and Sola Eccelsia, but we're just evaluating the principles here.

the next two are the sina qua non for me.

7. When a doctrinal dispute arises between "sola scriptura" believers, who has the authority to resolve the dispute?

The principle of Sola Scriptura doesn't answer this question; principles rarely include who or how the principle is to be applied. As has been explained often, there are two different ways in which the principle might be applied, although functionally, it probably often falls somewhere in between. Some would say that the principle is in the hands of the individual (whether that be an individual person, congregation or denomination). This person, congregation or denomination looks to Scriptures - and carefully, prayerfully, humbly, slowly studies that written Word of God - looking to the Holy Spirit for guidance, with the goal of conviction. Others would say that this principle is in the hands of the whole church catholic collectively (collective rather than private). They, too, would insist that we carefully, prayerfully, humbly, slowly study that written Word of God - discussing even debating - always looking to the Holy Spirit for guidance, with the goal of consensus. BUT (and this is critical), HOW the principle is used is a different issue than the principle itself.

This would be in contrast to Sola Ecclesia, which says that the individual (person, congregation or denomination) is the "sole final arbiter" - that only self can evaluate self - and that this self-evaluation must be done according to the norma normans that includes the teachings ("Tradition") of self, so that self evaluates self according to self. Furthermore, that the unavoidable conclusion of this process is infallible and therefore unaccountable.

8. Where in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted solely to what is written within Scripture?

Click to expand...

As far as I know, it doesn't. That's why we speak of the WRITTEN Word of God. But in this highly practical issue of norming, we need to keep things within the realm of what we know. It MIGHT be that God has whispered some secret information to Joseph Smith - no one can "prove" that God did or did not. It MIGHT be that God is speaking through the mother of one of my homeschool friends as she frequently spoke in tongues, revealing all kinds of interesting things from the Holy Spirit - no one can "prove" that she is not. It MIGHT be that a man I met in a forum similar to CF some time ago who was told by God that Jesus was an alien from another planet was indeed speaking from God - no one can "prove" that he is not. It's ALL within the realm of the theoretically possible. The question becames: How to I evaluate Betty and her nearly daily revelations via tongues? Sola Ecclesia would say that Betty is the "sole final arbiter" for Betty - only Betty can norm the theology of Betty, and the norma normans (the Standard, the Norm, the Canon) for this self-evaluation is the teachings and self-claims of Betty ("Tradition" as she defines it), so that Betty evaluates Betty's teachings on the basis of Betty's teachings, furthermore, the conclusion Betty comes to is infallible and therefore unaccountable except to Betty and to God as Betty so determines (substitute "Betty" for Catholic or LDS Church or the Magisterium thereof if you like). Sola Scriptura would say that what Betty says is subject to what God says, her words are under God's Word - not the other way around. If Betty teaches, "Jesus had pink hair" Protestants go to Scripture to see what God has told us about Jesus' hair. We make her teachings accountable to God not to herself. We believe this provides for better accountability and less self-authentication.

Protestants realize that anyone can self-claim anything, but we aren't so sure that it therefore, is true. Protestants have in mind all the firm warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that would lead many astray - and we're just a tad uncomfortable with this "self arbitrates self according to self and self is infallible" epistemology, we are apt to desire more accountability than that. And, of course, if self arbitrates self according to the norma normans of self, then self will tend to find self as correct - as can be witnessed as we listen in on a conversation between Catholics and Mormons. We are just a tad uncomfortable with that approach.

Remember, too, my friend, that while not all Christians accept the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, nearly 100% of Christians (including Catholics) embrace the Holy Scriptures - we ALL see them as first century, divinely inspired, authoritative, true, and apostolic. And they are written so that neither a Catholic nor a Lutheran nor a Baptist can change the words in the text to better suit them, they are there, in black and white. This, we feel, provides for a more solid Canon than "what I think/feel" or "what I teach is" as we attempt to norm the various viewpoints.

Pax.

- Josiah

.

Trento · Jul 6, 2006

simonthezealot said:
Questions to the Catholics;

1.) On whose authority did you determine that Sacred Tradition was equal to Sacred Scripture. When the bible warns against it in Mark 7:1-13
2.) On whose authority did you determine Priest Celibacy and abstaining from meats was okay against the warnings of 1 timothy 4:1-3

3.) On whose authority do you promote reciting the rosary when scripture explicitly says;
Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray use not vain repetition.

4.) On whose authority did you determine that statues and images are okay and that it was okay to bow to popes and statues of Mary and Peter. when scripture explicitly says this,
Exodus 20:4-5
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Also...
Act 10:25,26 Peter forbid Cornelius to bow to him because he was a man, aren’t modern popes men then too. Yet they allow and expect this.

5.) On whose authority did the catholic church determine Mary as comediatrix...Catholic catechism paragraphs 968-970, 2677 Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can trust all our cares and petitions.
Whan scripture tells us this...
1st timothy 2 : 5-6 There is only one mediator that is Jesus Christ. Also Hebrew 7:25 and Ephesians. 3:1

6.) On whose authority did you determine it was okay to call priests' "father" when scripture reads this...

Matthew 23:9 expressly forbids calling any man father as a religious title, yet the word pope originally meant father catholic dictionary page 667 modern popes and priests wear the very title forbid by Christ.

7.) Whose authority determined Peter as the chief shepard when he stated it was Christ.
The Vatican teaches that peter is the churches supreme pastor (shepherd) catechism paragraph 857
But Peter himself disagrees he calls Jesus the chief shepherd (pastor) 1 peter 5:4

I don’t see how anyone can legitimately claim to hold to these doctrines when they obviously contradict scripture.

It will be worth your time to acquaint yourself with these rules and commit them to memory or jot them in the flyleaf of your Bible. Using them will keep you free from cultism and false teachings. All the early Church Fathers used them. Irenaeus used them when he wrote Against Heresies, which dealt with Gnosticism and other untruths. Every law court religiously follows them and honest theologians dare not violate them. Much false teaching is the result of violating one or more of these universal rules of interpretation.

Rules of Interpretation
The Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.

1--Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?

2--Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.

3--Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.

4--Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.

5--Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.

6--Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.

1 -- Jesus left his teaching authority to the Church.
Acts 1.8: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Similarly in Mark 3:14, and 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. There is no commandment to write, and no indication that the oral apostolic word died in the fourth century. It was the Apostles who carried Jesus message and passed it down to succeeding generations. The New Testament proceeded from the traditions of the Apostles and the Church.
The problem of understanding Scripture, and its correct interpretation, existed then as well as now. How was it dealt with?
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.31: "How can I" he said "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
From this we can see that the Church carried authority for the explanation and interpretation of Scripture. Why was this? To ensure that the Apostolic teaching remained true, and that the Church - the Body of Christ - remained One. Without this Apostolic unity of teaching, the Church would inevitably splinter into thousands of contending fragments.
2 -- The same authority that developed the dogma of the incarnation.

3 -- Christ used it in the Garden while praying to the Father. We imitate Christ.

4 -- The commandment is not actually that clear at all. The word "graven image" in the King James version is actually better translated "idol", and that is how most modern versions render it. Actually, the passage does not forbid producing images at all, or even pronounce against using them in churches. It is against producing and worshipping idols in place of the true God.
God wouldn't give the Israelites orders that broke the very commandments he had just given them, would he? But if you adopt the Protestant interpretation of this commandment, that is exactly what he does: In Exodus 25, God orders Moses to build an Ark to hold the commandments. He tells Moses how to build the Ark and cover it with pure gold, adding:
Exodus 25:18-19: "And make two cherubim (angels) out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other....The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them."

So here we have God himself ordering Moses to produce religious statues of angels, immediately after the commandments had been given! Therefore your interpretation of this commandment must be incorrect.
Again, in Numbers 21:8-9, when the Israelites were plagued by serpents, the Lord told Moses to "Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that everyone who is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live". Moses did so, and people were healed by looking at it! If God opposed all images, why would he have chosen to heal His people through one, and even made it a type of the Messiah (John 3:14-5)?
1 Kings 6:29 says that the walls of the Temple were covered with "carved figures of cherubims, and palm trees, and open flowers, within & without".
1 Kings 6:31-35 tells that the doors to the inner sanctuary and the main doors of the Temple were also covered with gilded images of cherubim, palm trees and open flowers.
2 Chronicles 3:14 says that the great curtain of the temple was also covered in images of angels
2 Chronicles 4:2-4 shows that twelve metal bulls facing towards the four points of the compass, supported the "sea", the ritual water tank of the priesthood.
2 Chronicles 3:10-13 tells us that Solomon had two huge golden statues of angels constructed for the Holy of holies - in addition to the two on top of the Ark.
Does God ever object to this proliferation of images in the Temple?
No. In fact in 2 Chronicles 7: 12-18 He blesses the Temple indicating His divine pleasure. The Temple of Solomon, therefore, resembled a Catholic church more than a typical Protestant one!
5--- JOB 33:21 His flesh wastes away to nothing, and his bones, once hidden, now stick out. JOB 33:22 His soul draws near to the pit, and his life to the messengers of death. JOB 33:23 "Yet if there is an angel on his side as a mediator, one out of a thousand, to tell a man what is right for him, JOB 33:24 to be gracious to him and say, Spare him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom for him'-- JOB 33:25 then his flesh is renewed like a child's; it is restored as in the days of his youth . JOB 33:26 He prays to God and finds favor with him, he sees God's face and shouts for joy, he is restored by God to his righteous state.

Clearly here we have an example of an Angel acting as a mediator for a man who is about to die from sickness and sin and yet by the Angels mediation the man is restored to his health and his righteous state. By virtue of the Angels persuading intercessory prayer to God to have mercy on the man, the man was spared death.

JER 15:1 Then the LORD said to me: "Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go!

This is in the negativebut clearly shows that departed saints go before the very throne of God and make intercessory prayer for those of us on earth.

The unique Mediatorship of Christ thus no more prevents our brother and sister Christians in heaven from praying for us than it prevents our brother and sister Christians here on earth from praying for us. It is intercessory prayer in both cases.

JN 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Talking to those in heaven is not forbidden. In fact, it is encouraged, for in the Psalms we pray to the angels to ask them to join us in worshipping God:

"Bless the LORD, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the LORD, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Psalm 103:20-21).
"Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Psalm 148:1-2).

These may be prayers in which we are not seeking to get any benefit for ourselves-just asking them to worship with us-but they are requests, and thus prayers, none the less.

Trento · Jul 6, 2006

6--- In the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:2021).
This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Pauls literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

You ovelooked Pauls statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:1415).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:1314).
referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

7--- Consider the verse, "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke 22:31. When Our Lord was about to establish the faith in His Church, He specifically prayed for St. Peter as head. Scripture does not show Our Lord saying this to any of the other Apostles.
It is clear that having prayed specifically for St. Peter, the head of the others, it was so St. Peter might not fail, who was to assist with supplying the others with the faith as well.
And when Our Lord says, "being once converted" that St. Peter should "confirm thy brethren", does this not clearly state that St. Peter is head of the others? Our Lord could not have given St. Peter the command to confirm the Apostles without charging him to have care over them.
Also consider the verses, "When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep." John 21:15. Our Lord again, only said these words to St. Peter and not to the other Apostles because St. Peter alone was the authority among them. There is no confusion on whether Our Lord was speaking to St. Peter alone here for the part "more than these" shows Our Lord referring to the other Apostles, and only St. Peter was grieved. And what does it mean to give someone charge of feeding the sheep but to be their pastor, ruler and shepherd? In many places in Scripture to "feed" and to "rule" are used interchangeably as well so there is no confusion here.
We also note in numerous places in Scripture where there is occasion for the Apostles to speak, St. Peter is known to speak for the group. "Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God." John 6:68. Notice St. Peter speaks for the group and also says "and WE have believed", speaking for all. Only one in authority speaks for a group.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 6, 2006

Trento said:
1 -- Jesus left his teaching authority to the Church.

The thing is, in all the verses you wonderfully share, it never says He gave it to the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination.

I think you are assuming that the church of Christ is a denomination and that, of course, it's yours. You can make that assumption if you like (as do Mormons and others), but, IMO, that doesn't make it true.

And while I think the church catholic (that's us) does have the authoritiy and responsiblity to teach, that does not suggest that we have the authority or ability to proclaim our own teachings as infallible and unaccountable dogmas. The verses you quoted are not a blank check for us to teach whatever we want or come up with.

MY view...

Pax.

- Josiah

.

Trento · Jul 6, 2006

CaliforniaJosiah said:
As I'm sure you know, Unam Sanctum is a Papal Encyclical - still very much official.

While I quoted it from memory (as many Protestants can), I double checked it and it's the exact, verbatim translation from the official Catholic website.

The bookmarked site I used for such Encyclicals is www.papalencyclicals.net If that's not on your list of Catholic sites, it should be.

I hope that helps.

Pax.

- Josiah

.

At the end of 1301, Boniface commanded the French bishops to attend a council to be held November 1302 in Rome to consider the badly needed reform of the French Church. Philip forbade them to attend and in April 1302 organized an assembly of his own in Paris, of nobles, burgesses, and clergy to denounce the Pope and accuse him, based on a crude forgery of AF titled Deum Time (which means "Fear God"), of being "feudal overlord" of France. The French clergy, while addressing Boniface as Pope, protested against Boniface's "unheard of assertions." The Pope denied he ever claimed to be feudal overlord of France but was prepared to depose Philip if necessary, as he reminded them previous popes had done to three French kings.
Philip still refused to permit his bishops to attend the Pope's council in Rome. When the council did finally meet in November 1302, fewer than half of the French bishops attended and no measures for reform were agreed upon. Immediately after this abortive council, Pope Boniface VIII issued the famous Bull Unam Sanctam (Nov 18, 1302).
In light of the above history, we can see the dispute between Boniface and Philip had nothing to do with "Protestants" (they did not exist), it had nothing to do with pagans or any non-Catholic as such

The best modern commentator on the Bull, Jean Riviere --

"From the strictly theological point of view, the case presented in the bull Unam Sanctam contains nothing very disturbing, or even anything very special....the strong personality of Boniface VIII and the boldness of his actions must not lead to a misunderstanding of the fact that his doctrine is, for the most part, fashioned from traditional elements. One finds, of course, nothing essentially new in the first half of the bull, which is pure dogma: the unity of the Church and the necessity of belonging to it in order to be saved were affirmed in formal terms...in the third century; the primacy of the Roman pontiff goes back in multiple strands to the oldest of eccle- siastical history. As for the powers of the Church whose exposition makes up the second part of the bull, not only the foundations, but even the wording is borrowed from older authors...." (Wood, page 70)\
All the historians acknowledge that Boniface said nothing new but was deriving his teaching from previous sources, in particular St. Bernard, Hugh of St. Victor, and St. Thomas Aquinas among other theologians.

xapis · Jul 6, 2006

Ignatius,
During my 2-hour hiatus, Josiah seems to have already handled your post full o'questions... but there's something I noticed in that response to my post. You didn't really tell me what you thought about the honest exegesis given of 2 Tim. 3:15-17...

Notice, if you will, there's a colon at the end of v. 16. That tells us the sentence isn't over. The thought continues into v. 17 and that's where it is completed. It says "that the man of God may be perfect". The Greek word for "perfect" is ἄρτιος (transliterated artios) and it means complete. That's followed by "throughly furnished unto all good works." The phrase "throughly furnished" is the translation of the Greek verb, ἐξαρτίζω (transliterated exartizo), which has its root in artios and means "to complete" or "to finish". All that is needed to "perfect" the man of God is contained within the Holy Scriptures!

So, in these three verses, we learn that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. We learn that they're given by inspiration of God and are good for doctrine. And we learn that they are able to completely furnish the man of God unto ALL good works.

Paul's teaching that the Scriptures are able to make man wise unto salvation and to perfectly equip man to a subsequent life of good works infers that no other "rule of faith" is necessary. Therefore, we must conclude that the Scriptures are indeed sufficient.

...just curious as to your thoughts on this.

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Jul 6, 2006

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Sola Scriptura is an epistemological principle

Actually, Sola Scriptura is a Protestant Doctrine, not an epistemology as I pointed out here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3119564-protestant-doctrine.html&page=16

As the Protestant writer J.F. Foster points out, "the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura" is successfully articulated and defended in the book Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Reformation Theology Series) by Don Kistler.
No less an authority than AA Hodge himself states that it is the 1st Protestant Doctrine.
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, DD, President of the Westminister Theological Seminary gives a detailed and working description of the "definitive Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura" in his treaties on the same subject.
There are endless citations indicating that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant Doctrine, which is the title of this thread.

As I pointed out in my reply to #2 above, Sola Scriptura certainly is a Protestant doctrine. A doctrine is a teaching or principal, clearly that is what Sola Scriptura is. Also, the well known Protestant site Bible.org's second lesson states "This lesson will center on the doctrine of Christian authority. Here, focus will be on the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura "

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
The problem is that Sola Scriptura itself is an extra-biblical,man made doctrine that did not even exist until the 16th century. I believe that if it's new it ain't True; if it's True, it ain't new. There is no evidence for it for the first sixteen centuries of Christianity. That fact alone is enough to discredit it. Another is the very fact that it is not explicitly in the bible. The idea of the Sola Scriptura Bible alone (i.e. exclusive of any other means) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible.

A number of other issues arise from this. Since "sola Scripture" states that everything that is necessary for faith is contained within the pages of scripture, the books of the Bible must be listed within those pages or the "sola Scripture" believer cannot know that those books belong in the Bible, because it doesn't say so!

Other questions which I would have to have answered in order to dispel my doubts about Sola Scriptura are the following.

1. Where in the Bible does Jesus tell His apostles to write the Bible?
2. The Bible does indicate that it gives good guidance for perfecting our faith, but where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority of faith and morals?
3) Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
4) Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
5) Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example:
There was a version of Matthew's Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another
with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
6) Who had the authority to determine which books belong in the New Testament?

These next two are the sina qua non for me.

7. When a doctrinal dispute arises between "sola Scripture" believers, who has the authority to resolve the dispute?
8. Where in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted solely to what is written within Scripture?

If all of the above question cannot be answered from within the pages of scripture, I don’t see how anyone can legitimately claim to hold to this doctrine. There is far more evidence to the contrary than there is to support sola Scripture.

There are a number of stumbling blocks that must be overcome to assuage my doubts about Sola Scriptura. Your post, although very erudite, does not directly address these issues and certainly was not directly from Scripture Alone. Please address the answer directly to these points. If you can explicitly answer these questions from Scripture Alone, I will be able to legitimately hold Sola Scriptura as a meaningful doctrine.

So, can you help me overcome these problems with Sola Scriptura?

Grace and peace to you.

Your brother in Christ.

mesue · Jul 6, 2006

Metanoia02 said:
I've been to this church to, it doesn't even have sacraments, they have something called ordinances? Go figure.

Wow, the one I went to had sacraments.

Redwolf · Jul 6, 2006

cathmomof3 said:
Where did that come from?

"Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary." (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)
Stated another way, the dogma reads: Extra ecclesia nulla salus.
From the Athanasian creed:
"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith' unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Denzinger 39, 30)

[SIZE=+2] "Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)"[SIZE=-1](Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=+2] "Outside the Church there is no salvation." (Salus extra ecclesiam non est) [SIZE=-1](Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne: Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)

[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+2] "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved . . ." [SIZE=-1] (Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith, Chap. 1; Denzinger 430)[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=-1]
Pope Boniface:
[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+2] "With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." [SIZE=-1](Denzinger 468-69)
[/SIZE][/SIZE]"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."[SIZE=-1] (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)[/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] "Christ Jesus left you this sweet key of obedience; for He left His Vicar, whom you are all obliged to obey until death. And whoever is outside his obedience is in a state of damnation." St. Catherine of Siena, MCH, reference #374, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1: "There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope").

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] "We teach,...We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation." Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis (On Communism And The Church In China), Encyclical Promulgated on June 29, 1958, #46.

[/FONT]
[SIZE=+2] Is that enough?
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

xapis · Jul 6, 2006

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
1. Where in the Bible does Jesus tell His apostles to write the Bible?

Honestly, what is the point of this question? I hope you’re not trying to disprove the divine inspiration of the Scriptures lest we have to rehash 2 Tim. 3:16.

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
2. The Bible does indicate that it gives good guidance for perfecting our faith, but where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority of faith and morals?

I’ve already answered this. Faith > 2 Tim. 3:15. Morals (good works) > 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
3) Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
4) Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
5) Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example:
There was a version of Matthew's Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another
with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
6) Who had the authority to determine which books belong in the New Testament?

Obviously, your point with this group of questions is to stress that “the church” “chose” the NT canon. Let's look at the criteria for the selection of the canon:

Apostolic Origin – attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance – acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use – read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message – containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

SOURCE: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm

Not to take anything away from those on the council because going through over 2,000 books had to be a very painstaking process BUT this undertaking does not automatically ascribe equal authority with the Scriptures to any group of men.

If you disagree with the inclusion or exclusion of any particular NT book, feel free to post that elsewhere and I'll be glad to participate in the discussion.

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
These next two are the sina qua non for me.

7. When a doctrinal dispute arises between "sola Scripture" believers, who has the authority to resolve the dispute?

As Josiah already mentioned, you seem to be confusing Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura. IMHO, Sola Scriptura has no conflict with two in dispute taking up such a matter with another Christian, e.g., a layman, a clergyman, an elder, or a deacon.

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
8. Where in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted solely to what is written within Scripture?

Again, please don’t confuse Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura. If you want me to come out and say that no oral teaching or “tradition” has ever been inspired, I will not. The oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, however, were subsequently written down. And any valid oral teaching or “tradition” thereafter could not be contradictory or in addition to the Scriptures. The Scriptures never mention any other God-breathed authority.

Shalom.

cathmomof3 · Jul 6, 2006

Redwolf said:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary." (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)
Stated another way, the dogma reads: Extra ecclesia nulla salus.
From the Athanasian creed:
"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith' unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Denzinger 39, 30)

[SIZE=+2]"Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)"[SIZE=-1](Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=+2]"Outside the Church there is no salvation." (Salus extra ecclesiam non est) [SIZE=-1](Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne: Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)

[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+2]"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved . . ." [SIZE=-1](Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith, Chap. 1; Denzinger 430)[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=-1]
Pope Boniface:
[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+2]"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." [SIZE=-1](Denzinger 468-69)
[/SIZE][/SIZE]"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."[SIZE=-1] (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)[/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Christ Jesus left you this sweet key of obedience; for He left His Vicar, whom you are all obliged to obey until death. And whoever is outside his obedience is in a state of damnation." St. Catherine of Siena, MCH, reference #374, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1: "There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope").

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"We teach,...We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation." Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis (On Communism And The Church In China), Encyclical Promulgated on June 29, 1958, #46.

[/FONT]
[SIZE=+2]Is that enough?
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Keeping in mind that Catholics acknowledge that protestants are PART OF the Catholic Church...
Here is exactly what the Catechism says:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciencethose too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

cathmomof3 · Jul 6, 2006

7cworldwide said:
The oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, however, were subsequently written down. And any valid oral teaching or tradition thereafter could not be contradictory or in addition to the Scriptures. The Scriptures never mention any other God-breathed authority.

Shalom.

2 peter 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
John 14:16-18
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, 17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. 10

xapis · Jul 6, 2006

cathmomof3 said:
2 peter 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
John 14:16-18
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, 17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. 10

Yes. The Advocate is the Holy Spirit, the third part of the trinity.
Please explain your point.

cathmomof3 · Jul 6, 2006

7cworldwide said:
Yes. The Advocate is the Holy Spirit, the third part of the trinity.
Please explain your point.

The God-breathed authority that you say was not mentioned in scripture is the advocate, the spirit of truth that is to be with us always, given to the apostles and passed down in a constant succession from the apostles to our Bishops today.

xapis · Jul 6, 2006

cathmomof3 said:
The God-breathed authority that you say was not mentioned in scripture is the advocate, the spirit of truth that is to be with us always, given to the apostles and passed down in a constant succession from the apostles to our Bishops today.

There's no new "rule of faith" there though. As 2 Tim. 3:15-17 says, ALL we need to know for salvation and the subsequent Christian life is taught in the Scriptures.

edie19 · Jul 6, 2006

7cworldwide said:
There's no new "rule of faith" there though. As 2 Tim. 3:15-17 says, ALL we need to know for salvation and the subsequent Christian life is taught in the Scriptures.

a great big AMEN here

edie

icedtea · Jul 6, 2006

simonthezealot said:
2.) On whose authority did you determine Priest Celibacy and abstaining from meats was okay against the warnings of 1 timothy 4:1-3

I dont see how anyone can legitimately claim to hold to these doctrines when they obviously contradict scripture.

What a wonderful list. Its true then in black and white; Catholic doctrine is against God's word. Thank you.

FreeinChrist · Jul 6, 2006

cathmomof3 said:
The God-breathed authority that you say was not mentioned in scripture is the advocate, the spirit of truth that is to be with us always, given to the apostles and passed down in a constant succession from the apostles to our Bishops today.

That Advocate was given to all who believe - we all have the Advocate if we are in Christ.

Jhn 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
Jhn 14:17 {that is} the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, {but} you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

Rom 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for {us} with groanings too deep for words;
Rom 8:27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to {the will of} God.
Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose.

Protestant Doctrine

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Soli Deo gloria!

Contributor

Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none.

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo gloria!

Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ

Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ

Soli Deo gloria!

Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ

Soli Deo gloria!

Legend

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency