The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

LinuxUser · Sep 26, 2011

So Christ body looks like this:

instead of two arms, thousands of arms? Instead of two legs thousands of legs? Exactly how many heads does the body have? Can something like that be sustained?

Hentenza · Sep 26, 2011

LinuxUser said:
So Christ body looks like this:

instead of two arms, thousands of arms? Instead of two legs thousands of legs? Exactly how many heads does the body have? Can something like that be sustained?

lol I just love the name it and claim it theology fallacies.

bbbbbbb · Sep 26, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
People from Maine may have different customs than people from Texas, yet they have the same US constitution. United States, not Divided States.

Alaska and Hawaii are not conjoined to the other 48 states of the US, yet it is the United States, not the Divided States.

People from the east coast of the mainland USA speak differently than those from the west coast, and many more speak Spanish, yet it is the United States, not the Divided States.

Then, perhaps you should join the United Church of Christ. After all, they are the United Church, not the Divided Church.

LinuxUser · Sep 26, 2011

Hentenza said:
lol I just love the name it and claim it theology fallacies.

huh?

I never said anything about that. Does the body of Christ resemble a body or a freak show with multiple limbs?

sunlover1 · Sep 26, 2011

LinuxUser said:
Does the body of Christ resemble a body or a freak show with multiple limbs?

This (below) really is a new idea to you?
Which part causes you to mock?

Almost everything God does, He does through man.
He WAS here in a one membered body,
He's now here in a many membered body..

Yab Yum · Sep 27, 2011

LinuxUser said:
So Christ body looks like this:

instead of two arms, thousands of arms? Instead of two legs thousands of legs? Exactly how many heads does the body have? Can something like that be sustained?

The better to help you with my dear.

Hentenza · Sep 27, 2011

LinuxUser said:
huh?

I never said anything about that. Does the body of Christ resemble a body or a freak show with multiple limbs?

Are you serious? Are you claiming that only one denomination composes the body of Christ? Are you saying that all that do not belong to your church are not part of the body of Christ?

LinuxUser · Sep 27, 2011

I am saying is Christ divided into many parts or is Christ one? Did God make a body with many identical parts?

ivebeenshown · Sep 29, 2011

sunlover1 said:
This (below) really is a new idea to you?
Which part causes you to mock?

Almost everything God does, He does through man.
He WAS here in a one membered body,
He's now here in a many membered body..

One body with many members (one organization with many components) is entirely different that separate bodies each with many members (many organizations with different members.)

Like it or not, a body is an organization. Look at your body. The parts are organized in a particular way -- from the outside appearance, to the digestive tract, to the cellular level, and even to the acids and proteins that make up your genetic signature.

Organisms are inherently organized.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 29, 2011

Originally Posted by sunlover1

This (below) really is a new idea to you?
Which part causes you to mock?

Almost everything God does, He does through man.
He WAS here in a one membered body,
He's now here in a many membered body..

ivebeenshown said:
One body with many members (one organization with many components) is entirely different that separate bodies each with many members (many organizations with different members.)

Like it or not, a body is an organization. Look at your body. The parts are organized in a particular way -- from the outside appearance, to the digestive tract, to the cellular level, and even to the acids and proteins that make up your genetic signature.

Organisms are inherently organized.

That would make for an interesting thread

[I would bump this up, but I am afraid I will get "spanked" for doing so ehehe]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7525095-2/#post56474551
The Church/Body of Christ many members

LittleLambofJesus said:
I remember seeing a link [shown below] to a thread concerning a member/organ of the human body being used as an analogy of the Church/Body of Christ and thought I would make a seperate thread on it
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks

Can the eye say to the ear "I can hear"?....or the ear say to the nose "I can smell"?
Many members, one body

All denominations are merely body parts .

What is the body of Christ?? If it is referred to as a BODY would it not have many parts??If so, do those parts have different functions??

What does the lung do??

What does the liver do??

Is there someone going to heaven in every denomination??If so who and what are they?? I believe they are the results of the function of the Body part or denomination that brought them to Christ.

Does anyone else have an idea or input on this analogy??

ivebeenshown · Sep 29, 2011

"Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone."

This is still erroneous. I reject Sola Scriptura, but I do not reject personal accountability. If I raise my daughter as a Catholic, I am responsible (read: held accountable) for making sure that what I teach her is in line with Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, I do not reject the rule of Scripture, I reject the notion that Scripture is the one and only rule that I should use in evaluating teachings.

Standing Up · Sep 29, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
This is still erroneous. I reject Sola Scriptura, but I do not reject personal accountability. If I raise my daughter as a Catholic, I am responsible (read: held accountable) for making sure that what I teach her is in line with Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, I do not reject the rule of Scripture, I reject the notion that Scripture is the one and only rule that I should use in evaluating teachings.

To what is the Roman Church accountable for their teachings? Scripture-no. Tradition-no. Councils-no. Pope-? IOW, when you teach your daughter RC doctrine and she eventually asks, how do you know it is true, then you will answer ...

LinuxUser · Sep 29, 2011

The Church is accountable to Christ

ivebeenshown · Sep 29, 2011

Standing Up said:
To what is the Roman Church accountable for their teachings? Scripture-no. Tradition-no. Councils-no. Pope-?

The Catholic Church is accountable to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, which are inseparable. Both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition have been passed down to this day from the day of Pentecost. However, She is infallible in proclaiming true doctrine regarding faith and practice due to ex cathedra (when Jesus told Peter that whatever he bound was bound, and whatever he loosed was loosed) and magisterium (when Jesus told the same to the assembled Apostles.)

IOW, when you teach your daughter RC doctrine and she eventually asks, how do you know it is true, then you will answer ...

I will tell her that I know Christ is the Lord because the Father opened my eyes and ears to the Gospel out of his free grace, and that I know the Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded because no other church can claim to have direct succession from the Apostles as well as the seat of Peter.

Of course, the Church which Christ founded is the pillar and support of the truth. If you can't trust in the Church for the truth in all matters of faith, how can you trust in the Scriptures in all matters of faith when the Church (regardless of how you may define 'Church') handed down those very writings?

fhansen · Sep 29, 2011

Standing Up said:
To what is the Roman Church accountable for their teachings? Scripture-no. Tradition-no. Councils-no. Pope-?

The RC Church is accountable to God, the Being who established her.

Standing Up said:
IOW, when you teach your daughter RC doctrine and she eventually asks, how do you know it is true, then you will answer ...

And if yours were to ask, how do you know the bible is true, you will answer...

Standing Up · Sep 29, 2011

fhansen said:
The RC Church is accountable to God, the Being who established her.

And if yours were to ask, how do you know the bible is true, you will answer...

Amongst other things, I answer like John and Peter and Paul.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

fhansen · Sep 29, 2011

Standing Up said:
Amongst other things, I answer like John and Peter and Paul.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

So you'd tell her you believe the bible because you believe the bible-or at least the prophecies in the OT anyway?

Standing Up · Sep 29, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
The Catholic Church is accountable to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, which are inseparable. Both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition have been passed down to this day from the day of Pentecost. However, She is infallible in proclaiming true doctrine regarding faith and practice due to ex cathedra (when Jesus told Peter that whatever he bound was bound, and whatever he loosed was loosed) and magisterium (when Jesus told the same to the assembled Apostles.)

That's the issue. She is infallible because you believe she is infallible. IOW, whatever she says is infallible, not because there is some rule of faith or standard by which one might test her, but simply because she teaches that whatever she teaches is infallible. That's the cycle.

It's the old I am the parent and what I say goes. But there's no standard. It doesn't work for grownups.

I will tell her that I know Christ is the Lord because the Father opened my eyes and ears to the Gospel out of his free grace, and that I know the Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded because no other church can claim to have direct succession from the Apostles as well as the seat of Peter.

Of course, the Church which Christ founded is the pillar and support of the truth. If you can't trust in the Church for the truth in all matters of faith, how can you trust in the Scriptures in all matters of faith when the Church (regardless of how you may define 'Church') handed down those very writings?

Like Peter said, the Spirit moved the men. The men didn't move the Spirit, much as we might try and say.

Standing Up · Sep 29, 2011

fhansen said:
So you'd tell her you believe the bible because you believe the bible-or at least the prophecies in the OT anyway?

What'd Peter say? The Spirit moved the men. Then it was written. Paul said it was entrusted to them (to preserve). John says it was written so we might believe.

There's nothing there about popes, teaching magesteriums, traditions, councils, etc. My faith is in God and yes, what He said.

But the question is what's the standard? Let's say, I present a doctrine, for example, Mary was assumed bodily into heaven and make your salvation dependent on believing that. By what standard will we test that?

John has already told us that what is necessary for salvation is already written in the bible.

So, what's the standard? When your daughter says, why do you base your salvation on something apart from the bible, what do you say?

razeontherock · Sep 30, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
She is infallible in proclaiming true doctrine regarding faith and practice due to ex cathedra (when Jesus told Peter that whatever he bound was bound, and whatever he loosed was loosed) and magisterium (when Jesus told the same to the assembled Apostles.)

Wow. Where is IBS, and what have you done with him?

ivebeenshown said:
no other church can claim to have direct succession from the Apostles as well as the seat of Peter.

Wow x2. "No other Church?!?" Unpossible. The laying on of hands means something, you know.

ivebeenshown said:
Of course, the Church which Christ founded is the pillar and support of the truth. If you can't trust in the Church for the truth in all matters of faith, how can you trust in the Scriptures in all matters of faith when the Church (regardless of how you may define 'Church') handed down those very writings?

The Church that handed down those writings was in no way Roman, it was Jewish. And it was in no way Catholic in the sense of what is practiced today within your newfound denomination.

The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

bbbbbbb

Guest

Well-Known Member

Beloved, Let us love one another

Veteran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

On and on

Well-Known Member

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Oldbie

On and on

Oldbie

On and on

On and on

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency