Don't need to. Scriptures themselves provide the truth.See post #2658
Just as Jesus told the religious people of His day their traditions make the word of God of no effect. Not good.
Don't need to. Scriptures themselves provide the truth.See post #2658
Prov 30:5:6See post #2658
You provided no scriptures that witnesses the truth of what Jesus' comment concerning the use of a singular name meant, just your opinions.
You are still effectively asking for explicit scriptures. I know the game. if I provided something you would then ask for something nore specific.
Why don't you just tell me the exact wording you want scripture to saY.
Prov 30:5:6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
The word debunks your understanding. The epistles of the apostles make up a large portion of the bible. In the Apostolic Era the epistles were distributed and read to those in the NT churches...
Nor do I accept the false doctrine of sola scriptura. It was not the way of the apostles, of the early Church nor indeed the Church for 1500 years until the "reformers" invented it.
Where do they differ and why?
Do both lead to salvation? Why or why not?
How should we treat each other?
The "Final Authority" I spake of. Thus the difference.On what definition of Christian do you base that judgement?
It is the "imo" that concerns me. It is not to be our "opinion" that we base anything upon. Thus the matter of "Final Authority" that I spake of. This truly is the difference.interesting situation when it comes to final authority, imo.
They would more than likely say the 'Magisterium' (a nebulous terminology to be sure, but none-the-less).for Catholics I think that would be the Pope.
Yes, most "Protestants" "say" alot, but do not actually follow through with what they "say".most Protestants would say the Bible.
Disagree. That alters the "Final Authority" and takes the position of the Catholic faith. Thus why I stated what I did in regards "Final Authority" being the central issue.an observation, though:
the Bible is a set of words, so in practice it's the reader of those words that becomes the final authority.
Basically "Catholic" these days.I don't know much about the Orthodox.
The statement assumes something about "Orthodoxy", namely that it thinks it is the "church". It is not. This based in "Final Authority" again, as was stated from the first.I think I heard an Orthodox priest say one time that the entire church cannot be in error.
This is the defining difference on matters "Soteriology" and "Final Authority", and why I stated what I did. This is the difference between "Catholic" (big or small 'c') and "Protestant" theology.I think in that case the entire church would become a kind of final authority.
This statement essentially proves the argument that the Catholic ideology of 'immaculate conception' is not a scriptural (Bible) teaching, but exists outside and separate from it.Where does it say in the Bible that everything has to be explicitly stated in the Bible?
It doesn't.
Sola scriptura is unbiblical never mind sola explicita.
But you are saying that God has to send Paul back to earth before you will believe he is alive in heaven and interceding for us.
Only a parable! Are you suggesting Jesus taught a falsehood in a parable?
The point is that he was able to hear the requiests of those not on earth and respond to them.
If God sends Mary to warn us then we should listen. But most will not.
we speak about God here, are we prophet too?I called Mary a prophet because she does what prophets do - speak out about God and call for repentance.
it seems to me that a strange situation arises if a person says that they are going to use only scripture and not tradition."Of course, there were many deeds and sayings of the Lord not recorded in Scripture. Nonetheless, Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority, when Holy God did not give it, is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true." Excerpt from Christiananswers
One's belief system must be backed up with scripture for therein is the truth as stated in the inspired word.
John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Matt 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Matt 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Isa 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Ps 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
2 Tim 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
You are writing about providing no Scripture? A few posts ago you wrote to the effect that not all answers to religious beliefs are found in Scripture. Which is it? Scripture or invented Christian "facts"?
You're the one who is going beyond God's Word, not me. One time you refute sola scriptura, then you contradict yourself. I'm not going to tell you the exact wording that I want scripture to say. The Bible -- God's word -- says what it says.
There are those of us who believe God's Word is complete and sufficient and there are others who don't believe that. Which camp are you in?
I think Paul says he wrote a letter to the church at laodicea.The word debunks your understanding. The epistles of the apostles make up a large portion of the bible. In the Apostolic Era the epistles were distributed and read to those in the NT churches.
2 Peter 3:15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Peter 1:12-15
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
You misunderstood me, my brother, I believe Paul is in heaven, what I don't believe is paul able to hear us, Paul like Abraham that able to speak to rich man in hades, so do to us on earth.
Remember my question, if so why don't he come to my church to preach?
My brother, when Jesus say the kingdom of God is like a farmer, spread the seed.
You can't tale it literal, we read the message. This is an analogy my brother.
The principle is no different.My brother, the rich man was from the hades, not from earth
Because the Church has carefully examined all the evidence and authenticated certain Marian appearances as valid and worthy of belief.How do we know it was real mary, in my country devil able to pretend to be our death uncle.
A prophet is not just someone who speaks about God, but someone who speaks a message from God, speaks for God.we speak about God here, are we prophet too?
No it doesn't.This statement essentially proves the argument that the Catholic ideology of 'immaculate conception' is not a scriptural (Bible) teaching, but exists outside and separate from it.
The "Final Authority" I spake of. Thus the difference.
The word debunks your understanding. The epistles of the apostles make up a large portion of the bible. In the Apostolic Era the epistles were distributed and read to those in the NT churches.
2 Peter 3:15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Peter 1:12-15
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.