The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[rturner76]

Best historical evidence says otherwise, but you go on believing myths perpetrated by men grasping at power.

I'll take the old proven Apostolic Succession instead of the flavor of the week's protestant dogma.

 

[Fervent]

I'll take the old proven Apostolic Succession instead of the flavor of the week's protestant dogma.

Uh huh, making all kinds of exceptions for when there were multiple popes and long stretches of no pope and other breaks in the supposed succession. That is of course saying nothing of the fact that there is no evidence Peter was ever bishop in Rome and the best historic evidence suggests that Rome was ruled by a council and not a single bishop for the first 150 years. The claims of apostolic succession fall flat when the history of the church is actually investigated, especially as most of the claims related to them can pretty definitively be traced to originate long after the apostles were around, and early writers such as Irenaeus explicitly deny the claim of a hidden apostolic tradition apart from the public letters that are contained in the New Testament.

 

[rturner76]

Uh huh, making all kinds of exceptions for when there were multiple popes and long stretches of no pope and other breaks in the supposed succession. That is of course saying nothing of the fact that there is no evidence Peter was ever bishop in Rome and the best historic evidence suggests that Rome was ruled by a council and not a single bishop for the first 150 years. The claims of apostolic succession fall flat when the history of the church is actually investigated, especially as most of the claims related to them can pretty definitively be traced to originate long after the apostles were around, and early writers such as Irenaeus explicitly deny the claim of a hidden apostolic tradition apart from the public letters that are contained in the New Testament.

Believe what you want. I stick with the bishop to bishop Apostolic succession for the past 2000 years. Your church was funded by some guy, mine was founded by Christ. But to each his own.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

First Pope, put in place by Christ himself. Who put the founder of your church in place? A bunch of people or Christ the redeemer himself? Most likely a bunch of laymen. I'll stick with the church that Christ founded with Peter at the head after his departure.

You will not prevail against the CHurch Christ founded but hey, do what makes you feel good and hope for the best I guess.

 

[Fervent]

Believe what you want. I stick with the bishop to bishop Apostolic succession for the past 2000 years. Your church was funded by some guy, mine was founded by Christ. But to each his own.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

First Pope, put in place by Christ himself. Who put the founder of your church in place? A bunch of people or Christ the redeemer himself? Most likely a bunch of laymen. I'll stick with the church that Christ founded with Peter at the head after his departure.

You will not prevail against the CHurch Christ founded but hey, do what makes you feel good and hope for the best I guess.

Predictable. The usage of that verse to defend papacy doesn't appear until the 4th century, and as I said before there is no contemporary evidence that Peter was ever the leader of the Roman church. What you are forwarding are fairy tales and myths made up by men who desired power. You defy Christ in calling men your father, in direct contradiction to His teaching.

 

[rturner76]

Predictable. The usage of that verse to defend papacy doesn't appear until the 4th century, and as I said before there is no contemporary evidence that Peter was ever the leader of the Roman church. What you are forwarding are fairy tales and myths made up by men who desired power. You defy Christ in calling men your father, in direct contradiction to His teaching.

I don't believe in a contemporary religion but an ancient one over 2000 years old.

 

[Fervent]

I don't believe in a contemporary religion but an ancient one over 2000 years old.

Contemporary means from the time period, the papist religion started with Leo 1 who was the first bishop of Rome to resemble the modern idea of a pope and the first to claim Petrine descent. What you believe are fairy tales that don't match the historical record.

 

[rturner76]

Contemporary means from the time period, the papist religion started with Leo 1 who was the first bishop of Rome to resemble the modern idea of a pope and the first to claim Petrine descent. What you believe are fairy tales that don't match the historical record.

What I believe IS the historical record according to the Apostolic Succession. What you believe is new take on Christianity set up by laypeople. I'll stick with the original CHurch but you are free to follow whatever new innovation you see fit.

 

[Fervent]

What I believe IS the historical record according to the Apostolic Succession. What you believe is new take on Christianity set up by laypeople. I'll stick with the original CHurch but you are free to follow whatever new innovation you see fit.

:According to..." The primary sources disagree with their account.

 

[rturner76]

:According to..." The primary sources disagree with their account.

They disagree with Christ? Not too productive for Christians of any kind.

 

[Fervent]

They disagree with Christ? Not too productive for Christians of any kind.

No, they disagree with the usurpers who claim "Apostolic succession."

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

Apostolic Succession historically understood... not some name it claim it myth.

The Didache
Just as the Bible says that teaching sound doctrine is a requirement for being a bishop (Titus 1:9), The Didache explains that teachers are to be followed only as far as they're faithful to sound doctrine. They aren't to be followed just because they hold a church office:

"My child, remember night and day him who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as you do the Lord. For wherever the lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord....Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord....Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (4, 11, 15)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

"'One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.' The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church's ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop. In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom....Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the 'gift of the Spirit,' the 'apostolic line.' Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders." (1559, 1576)

The Council of Trent condemns those who say that church leaders can be appointed by laymen:

"Furthermore, the sacred and holy Synod teaches, that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the other orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether of the people, or of any civil power or magistrate whatsoever, is required in such wise as that, without this, the ordination is invalid: yea rather doth It decree, that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the civil power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door." (session 23, chapter 4, "On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and on Ordination")

In Him,

Bill

 

[rturner76]

No, they disagree with the usurpers who claim "Apostolic succession."

THe usurpers were called "Protestants: They made up their own religion.

 

[Fervent]

THe usurpers were called "Protestants: They made up their own religion.

The usurpers are those who, in defiance of Christ's call to call no man "father" because we have one Father in heaven, demand to be called "Father." The usurpers are those who claim that a man is the "vicar of Christ," when Christ tells us that the church has one ruler in Himself. The reformers call to return to what is written in Scripture is a call to honor God as sole authority, the usurpers hold their human traditions as equal to the word of God.

 

[rturner76]

The usurpers are those who, in defiance of Christ's call to call no man "father" because we have one Father in heaven, demand to be called "Father." The usurpers are those who claim that a man is the "vicar of Christ," when Christ tells us that the church has one ruler in Himself. The reformers call to return to what is written in Scripture is a call to honor God as sole authority, the usurpers hold their human traditions as equal to the word of God.

The reformers make up a doctrine they like and don't adhere to the teachings of the one and true Apostolic Church. Enjoy your revised doctrine. I'llstich with the original.

 

[FredVB]

There is an inertia of belief, that will have faith continue when some evidence contrary to it comes along. What is in the Bible communicated to the readers should yet have priority for believers, it is revelation from Yahweh our God.

I'll take the old proven Apostolic Succession instead of the flavor of the week's protestant dogma.

That is really interesting that apostolic succession is believed to be proven.

So why did God say to Noah and his sons, after the flood when all evil people were destroyed, that it was just fine to eat whatever they wanted to eat?

Genesis 9:1-3, "Then God blessed [righteous] Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Every living creature of the earth and every bird of the sky will be terrified of you. Everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea are under your authority. You may eat any moving thing that lives. As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

It's fine if you want to eat nothing but plants and seeds, but it's false to think that is a rule from God.

I have shared scripture passages and relevant information, and the responses are all disregarding those and making strawman argument with claim of things said that I never did say. And scriptures shown to me are not looked at so carefully, as in this case. I prefer those I engage with in communication show intellectual honesty that we can actually discuss things back and forth, and something can be learned, by either one or both.

It was just fine to eat whatever they would eat? And, it's fine if we want to eat nothing but plants and seeds, but it's false to think it is a rule from God? Where are you getting these things? It is so full of things to take apart and deal with well.

Passages shown don't say it was fine to eat whatever they would eat. Read again the passage, what was shared there and the rest of that passage. Fear and dread will come on the animals, they will terrified of man, into the hand of man they are delivered. Yet the flesh should not be had with its blood. In this passage God mentions that originally God gave just food of green vegetation to us. What happened, God changed his mind? Why now? Why not much earlier? If it was to continue, why did God not say eating meat from animals was to continue?

So from this, you are teaching God's mind changes. Or else, you don't believe God meant what God said to start with?

Now, I did not tell you a rule from God what to eat. But verses I show of what God says have been ignored.

The points I raise that are not considered in responses I want to see considered.

There is all the abuse of animals kept in animal agricultural industry. It is contrary to God's will. Proverbs 12:10. Responsibility is involved in knowingly still eating what was from animals.

God's original design, from God's perfect will, was food for us provided from green vegetation. Genesis 1:2-31.

Billions and billions of animals are raised in production and slaughtered every year. Not just is there abusive captivity and slaughter in the youth out of a potential lifetime for each of them, supported by the demand from those among us still having it, it is taking a lot more of the resources and land and water than plant-based living would, while natural environments and wildlife are rapidly diminishing for that and our destructive demands on this world, and with the oceans being depleted, and with the gasses emitted contributing greatly to climate change. Revelation 11:18. God rightly hates the destructiveness.

And abundant evidence shows eating a variety of whole food that is a plant-based along with having vitamin B12 supplied is healthiest, avoiding many health problems.

 

[BobRyan]

We would not know about the following things without Scripture.

1 Trinity
...
Source used:
Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? | Alpha and Omega Ministries

Do you think the following examples are case-in-point for what we do find in scripture for 'Trinity'? Or what we "do not find" in scripture for the Trinity?

• The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of “God the Father”.
• The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
• The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit

While we all disagree on certain things, I do not believe any of us here disagrees on the Trinity.

Do "all agree" that the above 3 bullet points are in scripture and no tradition at all is needed to find them stated?

 

[FredVB]

Do you think the following examples are case-in-point for what we do find in scripture for 'Trinity'? Or what we "do not find" in scripture for the Trinity?

• The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of “God the Father”.
• The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
• The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit

Do "all agree" that the above 3 bullet points are in scripture and no tradition at all is needed to find them stated?

There is argument about there being the trinity of God by some because they don't have the word trinity to find in their Bible. Still, while we can find the heavenly Father, Christ the Son of God, and the Spirit of God, are each identified as God in scripture passages, and they are in communication with each other serving the same goals, and there is clearly only one God, one Being, in scripture passages, we don't find other concepts in passages for any of many other things that people come to understand about this unity, that is called trinity. Yet the unity as God is certainly involved with each being identified as God, they are not separately God.

 

[BobRyan]

There is argument about there being the trinity of God by some because they don't have the word trinity to find in their Bible. Still, while we can find the heavenly Father, Christ the Son of God, and the Spirit of God, are each identified as God in scripture passages, and they are in communication with each other serving the same goals, and there is clearly only one God, one Being, in scripture passages, we don't find other concepts in passages for any of many other things that people come to understand about this unity, that is called trinity. Yet the unity as God is certainly involved with each being identified as God, they are not separately God.

1. IN the Bible - are "Three persons" actually "three beings" or one being ?
2. We all agree with "One God Deut 6:4, in Three Persons Matt 28:19) but do those texts also provide this information??

• The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of “God the Father”.
• The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
• The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit

IN John 17 does Jesus pray to Himself??

In John 17 "That they may be ONE as WE are ONE" - is Jesus saying that humans can only be "ONE" by all becoming "ONE being"??

In Gethsemane "Not my will but Thy will be done?" is it "Himself" is speaks to ??

IN John 16 - the statement that the Holy Spirit will not take of his own word - but will take of the words of Christ and share them with mankind - is the Holy Spirit "Jesus" is He speaking of "Himself" the One Being that is the Holy Spirit and the Father?

Are those the kinds of things you find "sola scriptura" in your POV?

 

[FredVB]

There is argument about there being the trinity of God by some because they don't have the word trinity to find in their Bible. Still, while we can find the heavenly Father, Christ the Son of God, and the Spirit of God, are each identified as God in scripture passages, and they are in communication with each other serving the same goals, and there is clearly only one God, one Being, in scripture passages, we don't find other concepts in passages for any of many other things that people come to understand about this unity, that is called trinity. Yet the unity as God is certainly involved with each being identified as God, they are not separately God.

1. IN the Bible - are "Three persons" actually "three beings" or one being ?
2. We all agree with "One God Deut 6:4, in Three Persons Matt 28:19) but do those texts also provide this information??

• The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of “God the Father”.
• The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
• The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit

IN John 17 does Jesus pray to Himself??

In John 17 "That they may be ONE as WE are ONE" - is Jesus saying that humans can only be "ONE" by all becoming "ONE being"??

In Gethsemane "Not my will but Thy will be done?" is it "Himself" is speaks to ??

IN John 16 - the statement that the Holy Spirit will not take of his own word - but will take of the words of Christ and share them with mankind - is the Holy Spirit "Jesus" is He speaking of "Himself" the One Being that is the Holy Spirit and the Father?

Are those the kinds of things you find "sola scriptura" in your POV?

Bob, you ask different things that would need to be addressed separately. There is what is in the Bible, it pretty much is what I just posted previously in this thread. Other than referring to passages I would show there isn't much more about it from the Bible. The rest is asking about my point of view, while I might answer that it will be distinct from what I can say from passages. I don't try to go very far from what is shown in the Bible for such things, as what to know about God, while I believe God also impresses things on those of us who are believers and seeking things out.

God is just one being. Isaiah 43:10-11,
“You are my witnesses,” says Yahweh,
“With my servant whom I have chosen;
that you may know and believe me,
and understand that I am he.
Before me there was no God formed,
neither will there be after me.
I myself am Yahweh.
Besides me, there is no savior."

What you asked about in Matthew 28 is what is shown for the formula for water baptism of confessing believers. The only clue that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one being according to what should be said is that the baptism is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just the one name, and the name is not "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The revealed name, shown the most in the Bible as originally written, designated that it is Yahweh.

The Bible shows, in certain places, the heavenly Father is Yahweh, Christ the Son is Yahweh, come in the incarnation, and the Spirit of God is Yahweh. As Yahweh is only one being and there is no other, the heavenly Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are just the one being, Yahweh, in their unity. They are never separate in their unity.

I don't really believe the Father generates or generated the Son, that is more from creeds than Bible passages. But the incarnation came from God. Logos the Word, who came in the incarnation, already existed through eternity in unity as one being with the heavenly Father and the Spirit of God. That is the eternal nature of God, plurality in absolute unity. I believe mathematics was eternal in the knowledge of God, and it proceeds from this.

Each is always in communication with the others, in one being. Jesus the incarnation of Logos, with God and being God, prayed to the heavenly Father, not to himself, Jesus. They are one in many senses. That we should be one is not in all those senses. But it is about unity. They each have a will. But the will of each agrees with the will of each other. Jesus as a man in the incarnation still had a struggle with that, but never violated the agreement which continued.

 

[FredVB]

1. IN the Bible - are "Three persons" actually "three beings" or one being ?
2. We all agree with "One God Deut 6:4, in Three Persons Matt 28:19) but do those texts also provide this information??

• The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of “God the Father”.
• The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
• The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit

IN John 17 does Jesus pray to Himself??

In John 17 "That they may be ONE as WE are ONE" - is Jesus saying that humans can only be "ONE" by all becoming "ONE being"??

In Gethsemane "Not my will but Thy will be done?" is it "Himself" is speaks to ??

IN John 16 - the statement that the Holy Spirit will not take of his own word - but will take of the words of Christ and share them with mankind - is the Holy Spirit "Jesus" is He speaking of "Himself" the One Being that is the Holy Spirit and the Father?

Are those the kinds of things you find "sola scriptura" in your POV?

Bob, you ask different things that would need to be addressed separately. There is what is in the Bible, it pretty much is what I just posted previously in this thread. Other than referring to passages I would show there isn't much more about it from the Bible. The rest is asking about my point of view, while I might answer that it will be distinct from what I can say from passages. I don't try to go very far from what is shown in the Bible for such things, as what to know about God, while I believe God also impresses things on those of us who are believers and seeking things out.

God is just one being. Isaiah 43:10-11,
“You are my witnesses,” says Yahweh,
“With my servant whom I have chosen;
that you may know and believe me,
and understand that I am he.
Before me there was no God formed,
neither will there be after me.
I myself am Yahweh.
Besides me, there is no savior."

What you asked about in Matthew 28 is what is shown for the formula for water baptism of confessing believers. The only clue that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one being according to what should be said is that the baptism is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just the one name, and the name is not "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The revealed name, shown the most in the Bible as originally written, designated that it is Yahweh.

The Bible shows, in certain places, the heavenly Father is Yahweh, Christ the Son is Yahweh, come in the incarnation, and the Spirit of God is Yahweh. As Yahweh is only one being and there is no other, the heavenly Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are just the one being, Yahweh, in their unity. They are never separate in their unity.

I don't really believe the Father generates or generated the Son, that is more from creeds than Bible passages. But the incarnation came from God. Logos the Word, who came in the incarnation, already existed through eternity in unity as one being with the heavenly Father and the Spirit of God. That is the eternal nature of God, plurality in absolute unity. I believe mathematics was eternal in the knowledge of God, and it proceeds from this.

Each is always in communication with the others, in one being. Jesus the incarnation of Logos, with God and being God, prayed to the heavenly Father, not to himself, Jesus. They are one in many senses. That we should be one is not in all those senses. But it is about unity. They each have a will. But the will of each agrees with the will of each other. Jesus as a man in the incarnation still had a struggle with that, but never violated the agreement which continued.

God as one being, still as the heavenly Father, Logos the Word with God, and the Spirit of God, in full unity, is Love, which is only possible through eternity independently of when God produced creation with there being that unity of the heavenly Father, Logos, and the Spirit of God together. God models that love perfectly, as when God made this world, and everything was what God called very good, it was what would be perfect for us, and all life in it. This of God's perfect will is modeled for us, God's love is modeled in that.