St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Thursday]

Since I'm a member of the Body of Christ, I don't think it was.

You are not a successor of the apostles. Wandering sheep are not the Church.

Jesus told us to listen to the Church. The Church is not a collection of individuals teaching contradictory doctrines.

 

[Rick Otto]

You are not a successor of the apostles. Wandering sheep are not the Church.

Jesus told us to listen to the Church. The Church is not a collection of individuals teaching contradictory doctrines.

Lol! I disagree with you, but I totally love your brevity and wit.

 

[Rick Otto]

I guess that would depend if one is following Christ or something else. Christ's words don't leave a lot of room for interpretation imo

I know, right? How long must one spend in seminary to understand the two greatest com?

 

[Rick Otto]

That's the purpose of the Church. Jesus promised that the Church would be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth.

When was this promise broken, assuming you think it was.

The church is all believers, not all Roman Catholics.
Just sayin'...
It's the difference between 'children of a pedigree" & 'children of a promise'.
Tho Ishmael sprang from the loins of Abraham, Isaac was promised to Sarah.
And so 'not all who are of Israel, are Israel's Paul tells us.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Notice the argument of the sola ecclesia polemicist (who after being refuted said he blocked me from replying to him so he would not have to read such anymore): He does not want to "replace the Head of the Church with His Bible," which he says "makes YOU the Pope,' as instead he interprets Scripture (1Tim. 3:15) as meaning that the church being the "pillar and ground the truth" means only his church has right interpretation of the Scripture. Which he defends as imagining that infallibility is essential for it to be what he interprets being the "pillar and ground the truth"requires.

It's actually sad that they are threatened with eternal damnation to interpret for themselves. Faith and morals are for the Holy Spirit to spiritually discern to each individually according to conscience and awareness of how they could negatively affect those of lesser faith. The true judge being the Holy Spirit. Those who have scripture as the base of faith have the ability to align with what scripture says about faith and moral issues which when it comes down to it can be more intence on the conscience than an assemblish of doctrine.

Yet as pointed out many times, the Lord provided and preserved His word and faith without such an infallible corporate entity, and the NT church began with souls doing just what he condemns, discerning itinerant preachers as being of God, implicitly based upon their Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

The Lord has explicitely shown His ability to preserved His covenent in 1 Samuel when the ark fell into enemy hands and God ALONE delivered it from Dagon god-followers. Yet because "they" see the ark as being Mary ( at best she would be that which carried the ark: gold-covered wood: human with divine covering) instead of that which contains the covenent (the Word of God)

This does not negate the magisterial office, as instead Scripture actually affirms it as authoritative, as it does civil authority, but not as possessing ensured (if conditional) infallibility.

The same book of Samuel places authority away from God and into a kings hand but it outlines the terms.

And holding to SS certainly does not make on a pope, as if the veracity of our arguments rested upon the premise of a ensured infallibility of office, as instead it rests upon the degree of warrant based upon Scriptural substantiation.

Right

But let me say here something that may seem surprising but it is Scriptural, which is that the ideal is to have a central magisterium to deal with ongoing matters unresolved on local levels, as in Dt. 17:8-13 and Acts 15, which pertains to judicial binding and loosing (but which in the supernatural realm is provided to all believers if Elijah-type holy fervent faith - which i do not claim). Yet not as possessing any ensured infallibility of office, but as in Acts 15, rendering Scripturally

Again the faith that brings about an Elijah responce is needed to defeat false prophets because it consists of endurance in faith. I think for mainstream tho that you are right.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think you are missing the point of the already exposed and refuted strawman argument still being used, which argues that SS means nothing can be sanctioned which is not explicitly in Scripture, thus no computers (at least not Windows), regardless of such helps being sanctioned in principle.

And that since Scripture does not supply a table of contents then you have no Scripture in the first place, as you need an infallible church, as the historical magisterium, to tell what Scripture (as well as Divine revelation outside of Scripture) consists of and means, regardless of the fact that the church itself began because souls discerned both men and writings of God as being so, even though they were in dissent from the historical magisterium.

Thus Scripture, even writings which the NT church abundantly invoked for support, materially provide for a canon, and also attest to Scripture being the supreme substantive transcendent standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, while formally providing basic truths, and materially providing for reason, the guidance of the Spirit, the church, etc.

Note however that SS does not and cannot claim that it was always operative for the people of God, nor can the church claim it was, though the limited revelation God gives has always been sufficient for God's plan.

But as God gives more grace and also meets needs,once and as written, Divine writings because the supreme standard and established as a body (the Law). And to which more were added as conflative and complimentary, being established as being of God, as men of God also were, due to their unique supernatural character and attestation. Though as with men of God, this was more manifest with some more than others.

The powers that be are to affirm what became established as being of God, thus those who sat in the seat of Moses should have affirmed John the baptizer, whom the people held to be a prophet indeed, and the Christ who invoked the authority of his baptism when His own authority as an itinerant preacher was challenged by said powers. (Mk. 11:27-33)

That which is of God is so regardless of the assent of the powers that be, nor is their formal sanction the essential cause of the establishment of that which is God, and which they are to be subject to, the veracity of their own binding judicial powers being dependent upon the warrant of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus mere profession and or formal historical descent, as the the kingdom of God is of such. (1Co. 4:20)

As the church of the living God manifested that He was alive, so it must today, beginning with the profound transformative effects in heart and life that manifest true regeneration.

And which i need to cooperate more with, and that rather than created things, Christ may always be my highest object of spiritual affection, object of allegiance, and source of security, and so be a better agent of grace to make positive differences in the lives of others for time and for eternity, rather than the contrary of these things as so often the case.

Wow.
Incredibly well put.
Are you a writer?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That's the purpose of the Church. Jesus promised that the Church would be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth.

When was this promise broken, assuming you think it was.

It never was, as the only one true church is that corporate body of Christ, for it alone only consists 100% of believers, and which is the entity referred as that which Christ gave the 5-fold offices to, and is married to Christ etc., (Eph. 4:11,12; 5:29-32). This general body has its visible, organic manifestations, but in which both wheat and tares express their faith, thus no particular church can claim to be the one true one (or the one false one), nor can claim to have comprehensive "all-truth" doctrinal purity (not even Rome does) and nor comprehensive doctrinal unity, which have ever been a goal of the Godly.

Yet it is not simply unity that is that goal, but unity in the Truth, and by the honest manifestation of it the apostles persuaded souls, (2Co. 4:2) while the greatest unity is found in mind-control cults such as the so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses." And who, as with the LDS and many others, basically effectively operate out of the RC model for assurance of Truth, in which leadership presumes a level of ensured veracity beyond what Scripture affords them, and thus require implicit assent to formally declared teachings on that premise, versus examination of Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of such.

“[ 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.

As concerns unity between visible churches, comparing one church org. with many others is not a valid comparison, esp. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]when the definition of such is so broad that you can fly a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, as a Cath. poster here insisted was a valid description of Protestantism (in the context of SS no less), but comparing believers based on their respective basis for assurance of doctrine would be.

Yet note also that what a church really believes does not simply consist of what is officially professed, thus consisting in a paper unity, but it consists of what it does and effects. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) And it is those who testify most strongly to Scripture being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God that also testify and evidence the strongest unity on core beliefs and values.

Note also however that as in Catholicism, both the strongest unity and the strongest debates are found among those who are most committed to doctrinal issues. And Catholicism certainly has its divisions, especially since V2 demonstrated how much past teaching can be open for interpretation.

As one poster wryly stated,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

And yet the divisions seen in Christendom are indeed grievous, though many are necessary, for indeed Scripture commands believers to come out from such unholy admixtures as Catholicism and liberal "Protestantism."

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You are not a successor of the apostles. Wandering sheep are not the Church.

Jesus told us to listen to the Church. The Church is not a collection of individuals teaching contradictory doctrines.

See above post. Even whether V2 is to be wholly obeyed is a matter of contention among Roman Catholics, while they are in substantial disagreement with EOs. The Cath basis for unity is itself unScriptural, being based on the premise of an ensured infallible church being essential to know what is from God, a novel premise in Scripture, and is a cultic means for unity. Meanwhile it is the basis for veracity which rests upon the level of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power that is most difficult but is Scriptural.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I forgot to add that when a church starts affirming as apostolic doctrine utterly things absent from Scripture, even if it is a most common practice for as prayer to created beings in Heaven (and all of which only God is shown able to hear and respond to), and exalt a created being as a goddess, engaging in such adulation only given to God (if that!) and never to morals or angels, and ascribing virtues and attributes far about what is written of any created being, then we have crossed the line from NT church to cultism.

It is no wonder they must resort to the superficial strawman of SS behind the refuted polemical challenge "show me the Canon by method of Scripture alone."

You are bearing false witness.

NO, it is you are bearing false witness, as while my charge is substantiated (if you dared or cared to follow the links) all you have a bare denial.

As i have said,

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Worship as in worship toward God versus mere veneration or abased obeisance (such as Joseph's brethren did toward him, but which no NT believer is sanctioned doing), is not defined in Scripture by a distinctive word, but by the residence of its object and manner and also sometimes by the content of its expression.

For the respective words for worship in Hebrew (shâchâh) and Greek (proskuneō) basically mean "to prostrate bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence..." [Strong's], thus denoting an act, but which is surely denoted as worship when towards a being in the supernatural realm, and or ascribing Divine attributes to such, including the ability to hear all prayers addressed to the being in Heaven, perhaps swearing by such due to their supernatural strength, and praising (often with great superlatives) praying and or sometimes making offerings to them (as towards the Queen of Heaven in Jer. 44), including with religious feasts to such, esp. in a sanctified place, with a common posture being falling or bowing down.

All of which is seen in Marian "veneration," and none of which save for prostration is seen as being sanctioned toward any created being.

Relevant texts:

Psa_95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker.

Rev_4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne...

Rev_19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev_22:8,9 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Psa_138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. (1 Kings 18:26)

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. (1 Kings 22:22)

Act_7:42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

Dan_3:5 That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up:

Zep_1:5 And them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by the LORD, and that swear by Malcham;

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Wow.
Incredibly well put.
Are you a writer?

Well, i did write those words so i guess i am a writer of sorts, by the mercy and grace of God, with slow arthritic key-pecking fingers no less.

But as with others post, the one you referred to certainly could be improved upon.

 

[Thursday]

NO, it is you are bearing false witness, as while my charge is substantiated (if you dared or cared to follow the links) all you have a bare denial.

As i have said,

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Note that worship as worship toward God versus mere veneration (or abased obeisance such as Joseph's brethren did toward him, but which no NT believer is sanctioned doing, "for all ye are brethren"), is not defined in Scripture by a distinctive word, but by the manner and also sometimes by the content of its expression and residence of its object.

For the respective words for worship in Hebrew (shâchâh) and Greek (proskuneō) basically mean "to prostrate bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence... [Strong's], thus denoting an act, but which is surely denoted as worship when towards an invisible being, praising, praying or making offerings (as towards the Queen of Heaven in Jer. 44), and or making religious feasts to such, esp. in a sanctified place, swearing by such as their supernatural strength, often with great superlatives and ascribing Divine attributes to said being, including the ability to hear all prayers addressed to the being in Heaven, with a common posture being falling or bowing down.

All of which is seen in Marian "veneration," and none of which save for prostration is seen as being sanctioned toward any created being.

Your opinion is wrong and it is directly contradicted by Catholic teaching.

If anyone wants to know what Catholics teach and believe, read the catechism. DON'T accept the opinions of anti Catholic bigots who don't know or care to learn the truth.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Your opinion is wrong and it is directly contradicted by Catholic teaching.

If anyone wants to know what Catholics teach and believe, read the catechism. DON'T accept the opinions of anti Catholic bigots who don't know or care to learn the truth.

So where are any of the statements, some by popes or esteemed "saints," i referenced contradicted by the catechism? Where have they ever been censored by the magisterium which the catechism points the flock to, and also calls for the faithful to "receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms"? (87)

Where are such statements contrary to what the CCC states about Mary, rather than supporting it?

Moreover, is the CCC, or its predecessors infallible? Does it even tell you what magisterial level each teaching in the Catholic church belongs to, so that you know what level of assent is required, or do you just render implicit assent to all public teaching as some RCs advocate?

For, It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...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.

And if popes have exalted Mary far above that which is written by the Spirit of Christ, then why should not others?
"O Mary, you are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honour of our people," "your greatness places you above the angels..a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature," "The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited...she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer's Kingdom..and cannot be refused.".

 

[Thursday]

So where are any of the statements, some by popes or esteemed "saints," i referenced contradicted by the catechism? Where have they ever been censored by the magisterium which the catechism points the flock to, and also calls for the faithful to "receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms"? (87)

Where are such statements contrary to what the CCC states about Mary, rather than supporting it?

Moreover, is the CCC, or its predecessors infallible? Does it even tell you what magisterial level each teaching in the Catholic church belongs to, so that you know what level of assent is required, or do you just render implicit assent to all public teaching as some RCs advocate?

For, It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...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 gave unique authority to the leaders of the Church.

For example:

21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Jesus gave unique authority to the leaders of the Church.

For example:

21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

What kind of answer is that? Where does this show that the referenced statements censored by or contrary to what the CCC states about Mary, rather than supporting it?

Moreover, how does Jn. 20:21,23 translate into a (conditionally) infallible magisterium being essential and uniquely being of Rome? Where is even the power to bind and loose sins exampled and where is it unique to the magisterium of Rome?

You quote Scripture to me, but are you willing to go where the Scriptural evidence leads to, or is your assurance of Truth based on the premise of the ensured veracity of Rome, so that in any confict Scripture only consists of and means what she says.

Is your argument 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?

Posting mere assertions in lieu of an argument will not do.

 

[sculleywr]

I guess that would depend if one is following Christ or something else. Christ's words don't leave a lot of room for interpretation imo

Apparently they do. Example: when asked how to obtain eternal life by the lawyer, Christ answers by confirming that the lawyer's reading of the Scripture, to love God and neighbor, is correct. According to Protestant theology in a lot of evangelical circles, it is not necessary to love neighbor to obtain eternal life. In fact, loving God is distilled down to making a "decision".

On other issues, Christ is interpreted to mean many different things. Was Christ being literal as the Greek is written when He says "this is My Body"? Is Peter being honest when he says Baptism is for the remission of sins?

These are not window dressing. These are parts of the foundation of the Faith. These are central issues of Christianity. And they are interpreted any number of ways.

That's the fact about a text. EVERY text requires interpretation. If God didn't preserve the proper interpretation, He didn't REALLY preserve the text.

 

[sculleywr]

Show me ANY reference to ANYONE in the NT text saying "we can't read that letter from Paul yet - we need to wait a few centuries for our unborn children to tell us what to think of it -- whether it is scripture or not"

False dichotomy. Not answering a false red herring that is not only illogical, but completely, utterly, and bafflingly irrelevant. What I said is they didn't call it Scripture. You cannot find a single reference saying "this book/letter/narrative is Scripture". Paul's letters, in their entirety, are called equal to Scripture by Peter. However, since we know we are missing two of Paul's letters, if we are to assume that they were all Scripture, then we must assume God didn't preserve all Scripture.

The fact is that they didn't know they were Scripture, and 99% of Christians didn't have access to all of Paul's letters. In fact, I wager that in Paul's life, there wasn't a single person who didn't directly know Paul that had read all of his letters, and I would wager that only the man he dictated to had read all of them.

That would be a "red herring" - since SS is not the statement that "no other text exists".

No. It uses the statement of Peter that all of Paul's letters are equal to Scripture. It isn't a red herring if it is evidence that not all texts of Scriptural authority were preserved.

Another red herring. Why not address the point in the post instead of these little diversions and rabbit trails??

Your point is solo Scriptura. You don't hold to the belief that ANY tradition is of authority. You believe the only authority is Scripture itself. No matter how far off of Scripture people go, you're there like a broken record repeating the SAME worn out and ineffective message that is a misinterpretation and twisting of Christ's words in Mark 7. I'm simply taking your message and turning it back onto you.

Now, if you will back off of the Solo Scriptura flouting in the area of authority, I'll back off on it in the area of worship styles. Deal?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Apparently they do. Example: when asked how to obtain eternal life by the lawyer, Christ answers by confirming that the lawyer's reading of the Scripture, to love God and neighbor, is correct. According to Protestant theology in a lot of evangelical circles, it is not necessary to love neighbor to obtain eternal life. In fact, loving God is distilled down to making a "decision".

Huh? Since when? I've been in Protestantism for abt 50 years and this is the first I've heard that. Loving the brethern is seen as proof of being Christian.

On other issues, Christ is interpreted to mean many different things. Was Christ being literal as the Greek is written when He says "this is My Body"? Is Peter being honest when he says Baptism is for the remission of sins?

These are not window dressing. These are parts of the foundation of the Faith. These are central issues of Christianity. And they are interpreted any number of ways.

That's the fact about a text. EVERY text requires interpretation. If God didn't preserve the proper interpretation, He didn't REALLY preserve the text.

You would have to go to John 6 and John 14:19-20 to take the words of Jesus about eating His flesh and drinking His blood in the literal sense of assimulating and becoming one. While the cleansing of baptism on the conscience is the topic Peter is refering to. So I don't see the problem that you see.

 

[sculleywr]

Couple of thoughts. The council idea was present and attempted from Acts 15 (and prior as you mention with the meetings at the gates). Believe EO still subject themselves to councils. RC eventually went the path to its internal Magisterium that answers to no one. P generally agrees with the first 7 councils. At least with a council, one might get some correction.

There's then a huge time jump from c65ad (Acts 15) to Nicea 325, though there was a "council" regarding the easter issue c195. The problem, unlike Acts 15 with apostolic authority ruling that was subject to scripture, the problem became one of enforcement. In 195, there was no enforcer. In 325 Constantine became the guarantee for the wrong (and some right) rulings. It was a bad combination of enforceable slippage.

Actually, that is incorrect. Constantine was not the guarantee for the Council of Nicaea. In point of fact, he flip flopped on the issue many times after Nicaea. His position as a Saint in the Church is, according to Deacon Michael Hyatt and Father Thomas Hopko, more a result of mercy and recognition of his more important work of legalizing Christianity than of his defense of the Nicene position. There were actually many Councils preceding the Council of Nicaea. in fact, a big issue at Nicaea was that a previous council had forbidden a use of the word "homoousious" in a context where the word had been used in a semi-gnostic heresy. The authority of the Council of Nicaea did not come from Constantine, but from the Church. It wasn't really considered Ecumenical until many years later. Constantine's exile of the Arian heretics was more of a political move than it was an enforcement of the Church's decision. This is evidenced by his eventual reversal on that decision, when the Arian heresy was at the pinnacle of its power.

The authority of the Council of Nicaea is coming from the Church, not a single authority figure.

 

[sculleywr]

Huh? Since when? I've been in Protestantism for abt 50 years and this is the first I've heard that. Loving the brethern is seen as proof of being Christian.

Proof of being Christian is not the same as the key to obtaining eternal life. There is a big difference.

You would have to go to John 6 and John 14:19-20 to take the words of Jesus about eating His flesh and drinking His blood in the literal sense of assimulating and becoming one. While the cleansing of baptism on the conscience is the topic Peter is refering to. So I don't see the problem that you see.

See, you have YOUR interpretation, and there are fifteen others I could find by asking ten other people. Every person is certain of his own interpretation being the correct one in Protestantism.

 

[sculleywr]

I've even tried to agree with them that we'll use their scripture and their interpretation. Now can they use SS? Of course not. It has nothing to do with their straw men, tin men, and cowardly lions.

No. It has to do with the FACT that Sola Scriptura is a 500 year old doctrine that was unknown to the Apostles. We cannot and will not use a dogma not given by the Apostles. It has nothing to do with your strawman of accusations of straw men.