Where is the Biblical Support for 'Sola Scriptura'

[GenX]

Where is the Biblical Support for 'Sola Scriptura'

[Soundbear]

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm

THE RULE OF FAITH & PRACTICE.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.


1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.



2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule of faith and practice?

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the Church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2nd, to interpret Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition.--" Decrees of Council of Trent," Session IV, and "Dens Theo.," Tom. 2., N. 80 and 81.



3. By what arguments do they seek to establish the authority of tradition? By what criterion do they distinguish true traditions from false, and on what grounds do they base the authority of the traditions they receive?

1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are--(1.) Scripture authorizes it, 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6. (2.) The early fathers asserted its authority and founded their faith largely upon it. (3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writings. The scriptures themselves are handed down to us by the evidence of tradition, and the stream cannot rise higher than its source. (4.) The necessity of the case. (a.) Scripture is obscure, needs tradition as its interpreter. (b.)Scripture is incomplete as a rule of faith and practice; since there are many doctrines and institutions, universally recognized, which are founded only upon tradition as a supplement to Scripture. (5.) Analogy. every state recognizes both written and unwritten, common and statute law.

2nd. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists confine the application of the rule to the first three or four centuries. the Romanists recognize that as an authoritative consent which is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in general council, or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the church whatever.

3rd. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true. (1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church expressed by Catholic consent.



4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.

2nd. It is improbable a priori that God would supplement Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Because Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below (question 20), the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately upon tradition.

3rd The whole ground upon which Romanists base the authority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions.

They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as will be shown below (question 18).

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions unknown to the ancients.

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of Scripture. A house divided against itself cannot stand.



5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of faith?

Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity or clarity, and accessibility.



6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.



7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.



8. How may this completeness be proved, from the design of scripture?

The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it.

"Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.--John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.



9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved?

As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have always been practically found to be such by the true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel all pretended -traditions and priestly innovations.



10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny the perspicuity of Scripture?

Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly obscure until explained by the event. But they do affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught.

Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and unlearned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves.



11. How can the perspicuity of scripture be proved from the fact that it is a law and a message?

We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1) a law to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of commanding and teaching is to charge God with clearing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.



12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?

Ps. 19:7,8; 119:105,130; 2 Cor. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:18,19; Hab. 2:2; 2 Tim. 3:15,17.


13. By what other arguments may this point be established?

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such.--Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

2nd. All Christians indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures.--2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39.

3rd. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary, is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.



14. What was the third quality required to constitute the scriptures the sufficient rule of faith and practice?

Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the pre-eminent characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pretended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this matter is simply to give all currency to the word of God.



15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the rule in questions of faith?

"A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." The Protestant doctrine is--

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2nd. (1.) negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians.

(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27), by each individual for himself; with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.



16. What is the Romish doctrine regarding the authority of the church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of all controversies?

The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infallible in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting the original revelation communicated through the apostles.

The church, therefore, authoritatively determines--1st. What is Scripture. 2nd. What is genuine tradition 3rd. What is the true sense of Scripture and 'tradition', and what is the true application of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief or practice.

This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official capacity, and in the bishops as a body, as when assembled in general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of pope or council.--"Decrees of Council of Trent," Session 4.; "Deus Theo.," N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. "Bellarmine," Lib. 3., de eccles., cap. 14., and Lib. 2., de council., cap. 2.



17. By what arguments do they seek to establish this authority?

1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apostles, and to their official successor, securing their infallibility, and consequent authority.--Matt. 16:18; 18:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; John 16:13; 20:23.

2nd. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the world.--Matt. 28:19, 20; Luke 10:16, etc.

3rd. The church is declared to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," and it is affirmed that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her."

4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. Matt. 16:19; 18:15-18.

5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth and error, and must consequently be qualified and authorized to do so--2 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 16:17; 2 John 10.

6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an ever-living, visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and Judge.

7th. From universal analogy every community among men has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would be of no value without the other.

8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and universality, which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true church.



18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church be shown to be utterly baseless?

1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race.

2nd. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the faith.

3rd. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:33,47,48,49, and 1 John 2:20,27.

4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the precious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For--(1.) the word church ekklhsia is a collective term, embracing the effectually called klhtoi or regenerated.--Rom. 1:7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Jude 1:; Rev. 17:14; also Rom. 9:24; 1 Cor. 7:18-24; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; Eph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such.--Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5; John 10:27; Col. 1:18,24. (3.) The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as equivalent to "the called,""the saints,""all true worshippers of God;" witness the salutations of 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles.-- 1 Cor. 1:30; 3:16; 6:11,19; Eph. 2:3-8, and 19-22; 1 Thess. 5:4,5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 2:10; 1 Pet. 2:9.

5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the "signs of an apostle."--2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:1,12; Acts 1:21,22.

6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scripture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since their universal judgment never has been and never can be impartially collected and pronounced.

7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance, of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the Scriptures from the people.

8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual religion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If; therefore, we admit that the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself; viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.



19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scriptures are the final judge of controversies be established?

That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts:

1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13.

2nd. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, question 13.

3rd. All Christians are commanded to search the scriptures, and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers.--John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1,2.

4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and interpreter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:47-49; 1 John 2:20,27; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17.

5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it "purify the heart." Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately apprehends on its own experimental evidence.--John 17:17, 19; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:22.



20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the scriptures are the word of God?

Their objection is, that as we receive the scriptures as the word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount.

This is absurd, for two reasons--

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the church, but--(1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident (a) from the nature of their doctrine, (b) from their miracles, (c) their prophecies, (d) our personal experience and observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, (a) from internal evidence, (b) from historical testimony rendered by all competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it.

2nd. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.



21. How is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge, derived from the diversities of sects and doctrines among Protestants, to be answered?

1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, but only that when exercised in a humble, believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth.

2nd. The term Protestant is simply negative, and is assumed by many infidels who protest as much against the Scriptures as they do against Rome. But Bible Protestants, among all their circumstantial differences, are, to a wonderful degree, agreed upon the essentials of faith and practice. Witness their hymns and devotional literature.

3rd. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure in applying faithfully the Protestant principles for which we contend. Men do not simply and without prejudice take their creed from the Bible.

4th. The Catholic church, in her last and most authoritative utterance through the Council of Trent, has proved herself a most indefinite Judge. Her doctrinal decisions need an infallible interpreter infinitely more than the Scriptures.



22. How may it be shown that the Romanist theory, as well as the Protestant, necessarily throws upon the people the obligation of private judgment?

Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he established a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended churches is the true one? Every one of these questions evidently must be settled in the Private judgment of the inquirer, before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the direction of the self-asserting church. Thus of necessity Romanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures cannot be understood, and address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argument to prove is baseless.



23. How may it be proved that the people are far more competent to discover what the Bible teaches than to decide, by the marks insisted upon by the Romanists, which is the true church?

The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by which the true church is to be discriminated from all counterfeits. These are (1.) Unity (through subjection to one visible head, the Pope); (2.) Holiness; (3.) Catholicity; (4.) Apostolicity, (involving an uninterrupted succession from the apostles of canonically ordained bishops.)--"Cat. of Council of Trent," Part 1., Cap. 10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent application of these marks involve a great amount of learning and intelligent capacity upon the part of the inquirer. He might as easily prove himself to be descended from Noah by an unbroken series of legitimate marriages, as establish the right of Rome to the last mark. Yet he cannot rationally give up the right of studying the Bible for himself until that point is made clear.

Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual power, make less exhaustive demands upon the resources of private judgment.



ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AS TO THE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, AND AS TO TRADITION, AND AS TO THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.

1st. AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.--"Decrees of council of Trent," Sess. 4.--"Moreover the same sacred and holy Synod ordains and declares, that the said old and Vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions held as authentic; and that no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees that no one, relying on his own skill shall in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother church--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy scriptures--hath held and doth hold, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published."

"Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican council," ch. 2.--"And as the things which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the sacred scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. "

2nd. AS TO TRADITION.--"Prof. Fidei Tridentinoe"--(A. D. 1564) 2. and 3. "I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastic traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. I also admit the Holy scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures, neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according, to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

"Council of Trent," Sess. 4.--"And seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles themselves the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us transmitted as it were from hand to hand."

3rd. AS TO THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE.--"Dogmatic Decisions of the Vatican Council," chap. 3.--"Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord . . . the power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is immediate, to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. . . . We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may reopen the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff."

4th. CONCERNING THE ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE AS THE TEACHER OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.--"Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council," Chap. 4.--"Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed:That the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to he held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine according to faith and morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one--which may God avert--presume to contradict this our definition:let him be anathema."

Cardinal Manning in his "Vatican Council" says, "In this definition there are six points to be noted:"

"1st. It defines the meaning of the well-known phrase loquens ex cathedra ; that is, speaking from the Seat, or place, or with the authority of the supreme teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the universal Church."

"2nd. The subject matter of the infallible teaching, namely, the doctrine of faith and morals."

"3rd. The efficient cause of infallibility, that is, the divine assistance promised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors."

"4th. The act to which this divine assistance is attached, the defining of doctrines of faith and morals."

"5th. The extension of this infallible authority to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church."

"6th. The dogmatic value of the definitions ex cathedra, namely that they are in themselves irreformable, because in themselves infallible, and not because the Church, or any part or member of the Church, should assent to them."

"Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican Council" Ch. 4.--"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles."

[GenX]

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

Let me give a concise version of Barry's hilarious post: "There is no biblical support for Sola Scriptura"

Thanks, Slugger! Ya' never fail me!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/high5.gif

[Soundbear]

I didn't expect you to actually consider the points in the post. It's not your style.

Suffice it to say that we can continue to disagree. Neither of our souls depends on precisely what we believe.

[GenX]

Barry, you are the person that called me a "cut-n-paste Christian". How do you justify to yourself the fact you pasted on this thread one of the longest cut-n-paste jobs this board has ever seen by anyone not named Camper?

[Soundbear]

Simple.

The explanation of the concept is contained in it.

If I summarized you'd ask for proof, wouldn't you??

[GenX]

Barry, why is it okay for you to copy n paste, but not me?

And that post was so long, who in their right mind would even attempt to wade through it?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Neither of our souls depends on precisely what we believe. </div></div>

Unbelievable.

Absolutely unbelievable.

Come back and try to clean up Barry's mess after this one, Ayd. I know you're still reading.

[Soundbear]

I never said you couldn't copy and paste, though it seems that you're more likely to do that, or refer to the Catechism, than give an answer yourself. And how long is the Catechism? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

In this case, with a question you've asked so many times already, this cut n paste seems to me to be a reasonable, and authoritative response.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Neither of our souls depends on precisely what we believe. </div></div>

Unbelievable.

Absolutely unbelievable.

Come back and try to clean up Barry's mess after this one, Ayd. I know you're still reading. </div></div>

Think about it, R. What's more important, that I should be a child of God, or that I should have a precise understanding of an unspecified set of doctrines???

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never said you couldn't copy and paste, though it seems that you're more likely to do that, or refer to the Catechism, than give an answer yourself. And how long is the Catechism? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
</div></div>

That makes no sense. I've never once pasted the entire Catechism, only small sections that were related to the topic at hand.

You can't copy a catechism, because you don't have one. Therefore, you rely on the teachings of some guy you probably know little about. Furthermore, you may disagree with him on most of what he believes, but happen to agree with him on one particular point.

That's a very scary way to support your beliefs.

[Soundbear]

"I've never once pasted the entire Catechism"

..and I never said you did. You need to read more carefully.

As to whether I agree or disagree with him on every little point of this doctrine or any other is not the point.

You may consider my method of supporting my beliefs scary. That's fine, and again, not going to affect the salvation of either of us. I note that the bible never tells us to confirm what someone says by checking what my church believes.

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Ac 17:11 AV)

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Ac 17:11 AV) </div></div>

Means...what?

[Soundbear]

Pray to the Holy Spirit about it.

[GenX]

"Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15)

"no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:21)



"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16)

Does "useful" mean it is the only way?

A hammer is useful in building a house. Does that mean it is the only tool needed to build a house?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pray to the Holy Spirit about it. </div></div>

I did, about fifteen years ago.

He directed me away from my father's Protestantism, and into the arms of my mother's Catholicism.

Was the Holy Spirt wrong?

[The Berean]

looks like he doesnt want to pray about it

[Soundbear]

He never does, unfortunately.

I've seen all those before, RGWR, as we have been over this before.

If you are happy with what you believe, then by all means, believe it.

Just be sure about your relationship with God.

[The Berean]

RGwr are you born again??

[GenX]

See, there you guys go. You try to 'win' the debate by attacking me, by what I believe, or how I pray. How do you know how or when I pray?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RGwr are you born again?? </div></div>

Not in your deluded Protestant sense.

[GenX]

Anyone care to provide biblical support for sola scriptura? after all, it is an incredibly important building block of your beliefs.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Just be sure about your relationship with God. </div></div>

Methinks that is a piece of advice quite useful for someone that can't trace the origins of his specific church more than one hundred years.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See, there you guys go. You try to 'win' the debate by attacking me, by what I believe, or how I pray. How do you know how or when I pray?

</div></div>

We don't. Whenever we ask you serious questions to make a joke. It isn't always about winning, believe it or not.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone care to provide biblical support for sola scriptura? after all, it is an incredibly important building block of your beliefs. </div></div>

Says who?? Only you apparently. I never even heard the term till a couple of years ago.

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RGwr are you born again?? </div></div>

Not in your deluded Protestant sense. </div></div>

Then please explane your catholic sense

[jaydee]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RGwr are you born again?? </div></div>

Not in your deluded Protestant sense. </div></div>

Then please explane your catholic sense </div></div>

just be a good person!

[Soundbear]

Unfortunately, the bible doesn't support that theory.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See, there you guys go. You try to 'win' the debate by attacking me, by what I believe, or how I pray. How do you know how or when I pray?

</div></div>

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” (1Pe 3:15 AV)

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RGwr are you born again?? </div></div>

Not in your deluded Protestant sense. </div></div>

Then please explane your catholic sense </div></div>

I'd be interested to, on a simple thing Catholic and Protestant Christians agree on.

[GenX]

Jesus is savior.

How's dat?

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jesus is savior.

How's dat? </div></div>

A start. Can't anyone say that??

[GenX]

Ummm...I'd say a non-Christan isn't really concerned with calling Jesus their savior.

[Soundbear]

Let's be specific. That's NOT what you said.

There's a huge difference between "Jesus is Saviour" and "Jesus is MY Saviour"

[GenX]

A Muslim does not even say "Jesus is Savior", of that I can guarantee you.

But as Catholics and Prots, we say "Jesus is my Savior".

So, what's the point?

[Soundbear]

Good, thanks for the clarification. Even Satan can say "Jesus is Saviour", never mind Muslims.

Onward. So what about being "born again"?? If we can say, from a sincere heart "Jesus is MY Saviour" then aren't we born again??

[GenX]

If you say it from a sincere heart, then you are born again intellectually and emotionally. But does being 'born again' require more than an intellectual and emotional commitment?

[Soundbear]

Though there may be an emotional aspect to it, and an intellectual aspect, isn't the commitment the most important part.

Like a marriage, the commitment is the most important part.

[GenX]

You say you are committed, but are you?

[Soundbear]

Ah, there's the rub. Am I?? Was I once? Am I now?? Will I be in the future??

I once prayed, "Lord I need you as Saviour, and You will be my Lord and God."

What more can I do than that?? Can I go to church every week, or do good things, or follow rules or join the "right" denomination?? Even if I did, every righteous thing I do is like a filthy rag to God.

So my understanding is that, once and forever, I commited to God, was born again into His family. And (just like my own relationship to my own son, NOT EVEN GOD CAN CHANGE THAT RELATIONSHIP!!

Did I sin after that? Yes. Do I sin? Yes. Will I sin until I die? Yes.

Will I be God's child forever? YES!!!

[GenX]

Barry, that is "once saved, always saved" theology, and it is extremely dangerous.

If a person accepts Jesus one day, and confesses to all around him he does so, yet twenty years later that person is an adultering murderer, is he still saved?

No one can 'work' their way to salvation. Salvation is a grace from God. But to believe all you need to do is accept Jesus, then nothing else matters, is wrong.

Faith is the foundation, the first step. But it does not suffice on its own.

An intellectual submission to Jesus is not enough. If it were, then how we act isn't really important. Oh, sure, it is desirable that all act good and upstanding; but under your theology in this instance it doesn't matter how we act, because once we said "Jesus, I accept you as Lord and savior", it's all done with. It's like God is no more than an equal signatory on some legal contract.

Christ “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14).

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..."(Philippians 2:12-15).

Rev 2:2
I know your works, your labor, and your endurance ...

Mt 5:16
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.

Mt 16:27
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.

Heb 6:10
For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.

Col 3:23-24
Whatever you do, do from the heart, as for the Lord and not for others, knowing that you will receive from the Lord the due payment of the inheritance.

James 2:26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.



Works cannot save a person. But then again, faith alone cannot necessarily save a person. The above Bible passages clearly teach that is so.

It is not the Protestant 'either/or' that was established 500 years ago; it is the "both/and" that has been a part of Christian teaching for 2,000 years.

God's grace allows a chance to be saved. But because we have free will, we can forfeit that grace because of our actions and uncontrite heart.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, that is "once saved, always saved" theology, and it is extremely dangerous.</div></div>

I don't think so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a person accepts Jesus one day, and confesses to all around him he does so, yet twenty years later that person is an adultering murderer, is he still saved?</div></div>

Interesting you should mention an adultering murderer, because that's exactly what King David was, a man before AND after that sin, a "man after God's own heart". I believe this verse explains:

“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” (1Co 3:15 AV)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one can 'work' their way to salvation. Salvation is a grace from God. But to believe all you need to do is accept Jesus, then nothing else matters, is wrong.

Faith is the foundation, the first step. But it does not suffice on its own.

An intellectual submission to Jesus is not enough. If it were, then how we act isn't really important. Oh, sure, it is desirable that all act good and upstanding; but under your theology in this instance it doesn't matter how we act, because once we said "Jesus, I accept you as Lord and savior", it's all done with. It's like God is no more than an equal signatory on some legal contract.

Christ “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14).</div></div>

I would note the "and" between "deed" and "purify". He redeems us from sin and then continues to purify us as we grow IN HIM.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..."(Philippians 2:12-15).

Rev 2:2
I know your works, your labor, and your endurance ...

Mt 5:16
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.

Mt 16:27
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.

Heb 6:10
For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.

Col 3:23-24
Whatever you do, do from the heart, as for the Lord and not for others, knowing that you will receive from the Lord the due payment of the inheritance.

James 2:26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.



Works cannot save a person. But then again, faith alone cannot necessarily save a person. The above Bible passages clearly teach that is so.</div></div>

I'm afraid I must disagree. The context of each verse is God speaking to those who are already His children. So He encourgaes them to continue in good works to honour God.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not the Protestant 'either/or' that was established 500 years ago; it is the "both/and" that has been a part of Christian teaching for 2,000 years.</div></div>

I certainly agree that a Christian should do good, always remembering that what he does is for the glory of God.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">God's grace allows a chance to be saved. But because we have free will, we can forfeit that grace because of our actions and uncontrite heart. </div></div>

And there is my main concern, and what I believe to be the most important aspect of salvation. When we are saved we GIVE UP OUR FREE WILL. Believe it or not. And I leave these scriptures as an example:

“If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.” (Ex 21:2-6 AV)

“[And] if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: [of that] wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day. And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust [it] through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.” (De 15:12-17 AV)

[KDawg]

How does one reconcile this "once saved, always saved" against Ezekiel 33:12-16?

Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.' If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live.

The implication in this passage is clear.

[Soundbear]

It is indeed possible to suffer physical death as a result of one's sin. This does not necessarily change one's state in relationship to God.

Remember that the relationship of a child CAN'T be changed, not even by God. My son is and will remain my son regardless of his actions. In the same way, a child of God will remain in that position regardless of his actions.

Now, as Paul says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Ro 6:1-2 AV). RWGR's fears that the believer in this doctrine can just go out and do whatever they like are groundless. There may still be consequences to sin.

[Limitations]

As you all most likely know there are a number of religions in this world.

However many have and do use that as one of a number of excuses to discount the reality of the only SUPREME and Genuinely Good POWER.

I do not belong to any religious organization.

Ms. Marisa Belsito

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting you should mention an adultering murderer, because that's exactly what King David was, a man before AND after that sin, a "man after God's own heart". I believe this verse explains: </div></div>

King David sinned and then found God. That is not what we are talking about here, and it only addresses half the story of 'once saved, always saved'.

What of the man who accepts God and Jesus, and then years later leads a very sinful life, unrepentant? Is he saved?

And you say "I believe this is what the Scripture is saying...", or "I think this is what..."

But what if you are wrong? How do you know others are wrong?

You may believe to the depths of your soul you are correct in your interpretation. But I can take you only a few blocks from your church and show you a church that differs greatly from you on some important theological question ('once saved, always saved' is obviously an extremely important theological issue as it deals with our souls). And the one reason you and the the other church will give for supporting your view is: "Because it's what the Bible says"

What does that say about sola scriptura?

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...What of the man who accepts God and Jesus, and then years later leads a very sinful life? Is he saved? </div></div>

I need to ask a question here. What about the relationship? Is the relationship changeable? If my son rebels, is he still my son? If a child of God rebels, is he still a child of God? My answer is YES!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And you say "I believe this is what the Scripture is saying...", or "I think this is what..."

But what if you are wrong? How do you know others are wrong?

You may believe to the depths of your soul you are correct in your interpretation. But I can take you only a few blocks from your church and show you a church that differs greatly form you on some important theological question ('once saved, always saved' is obviously an extremely important theological issue as it deals with our souls). And the one reason you and the the other church will give for supporting your view is: "Because it's what the Bible says"

What does that say about sola scriptura? </div></div>

It tells me that the depth of the bible , like it's author, is infinite. And since I will never, in this life, have a full understanding of it, then there must be some fundamental action that I must be willing to do. Since every righteous thing I do i know to be a filthy rag before God, then the only thing I can give to Him is my life and my will. I therfore become a child of God, irrevocably.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I need to ask a question here. What about the relationship? Is the relationship changeable? If my son rebels, is he still my son? If a child of God rebels, is he still a child of God? My answer is YES!! </div></div>

So how we act makes no difference? Once I 'accept Jesus', it's all over. No matter what I do, I am going to Heaven.

Is that correct?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It tells me that the depth of the bible , like it's author, is infinite. And since I will never, in this life, have a full understanding of it, then there must be some fundamental action that I must be willing to do. Since every righteous thing I do i know to be a filthy rag before God, then the only thing I can give to Him is my life and my will. I therfore become a child of God, irrevocably. </div></div>

That's all very eloquent and nice, truly.

But care to answer the actual question?

You may believe to the depths of your soul you are correct in your interpretation. But I can take you only a few blocks from your church and show you a church that differs greatly form you on some important theological question ('once saved, always saved' is obviously an extremely important theological issue as it deals with our souls). And the one reason you and the the other church will give for supporting your view is: "Because it's what the Bible says"

What does that say about sola scriptura?

[Soundbear]

I answered that as much as I'm going to. Whether or not either of us believes in that particular doctrine will NOT affect our eternal destination.

Relationship is the key. Seems to be something you don't understand.

[GenX]

Now, if you believe "Relationship is key", and it may well be, but another Protestant believes "relationship is very important, but not THE key thing", then what does that say about Sola Scriptura?

[KDawg]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is indeed possible to suffer physical death as a result of one's sin. This does not necessarily change one's state in relationship to God.</div></div>

Ezekiel 33:16:

"None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live."

You have to look at the WHOLE passage. Given verse 16, why would you assume a physical death is the subject?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is indeed possible to suffer physical death as a result of one's sin. This does not necessarily change one's state in relationship to God.</div></div>

My goodness, I totally missed that comment.

Barry, surely you don't believe this? You must have been trying to make another point?

Sin only causes physical death??

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is indeed possible to suffer physical death as a result of one's sin. This does not necessarily change one's state in relationship to God.</div></div>

Ezekiel 33:16:

"None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live."

You have to look at the WHOLE passage. Given verse 16, why would you assume a physical death is the subject? </div></div>

Because the man is called a righteous man. How can a non-believer be righteous? Impossible. So obviously this is one ALREADY inside the fold, but still, as we all remain, a sinner.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is indeed possible to suffer physical death as a result of one's sin. This does not necessarily change one's state in relationship to God.</div></div>

My goodness, I totally missed that comment.

Barry, surely you don't believe this? You must have been trying to make another point?

Sin only causes physical death?? </div></div>

It might. For the believer, the child of God, a relationship that CANNOT change.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, if you believe "Relationship is key", and it may well be, but another Protestant believes "relationship is very important, but not THE key thing", then what does that say about Sola Scriptura? </div></div>

Doesn't matter. BTDT.

[GenX]

Barry, you can't support THE fundamental reason for Protestantism, can you?

[KDawg]

???

Here's Ezekiel 33:12-16.

Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.' If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live.

Is the subject sin and physical death, or sin and spiritual death?

[Soundbear]

Or both??

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or both?? </div></div>

I've never known the Bible to view physical death as something bad (which is not the same as murder; a different discussion). The Bible constantly compels us to view this world and existence as transitory, as what is Real and True comes in the next life. In fact, the giving of one's life is called the greatest gift a man can offer another man.

God doesn't want us to cling to this life, like it is something so precious and dear we simply cannot fathom not having it. If He did, He would contradict Himself when He tells us (through Jesus and the prophets) that the things of this world are not important.

How can God tell us the things of this world are not important, yet at the same time use the end of this earthly existence as some penalty?

Your one supposition refutes your other supposition.

[KDawg]

OK. Both.

"Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it."

What do you think this part of the passage means? To me it says there is no single moment in a person's life that seals their fate.

[Limitations]

An immature person is expected within reason to sincerely assume responsibility for their personal growth and development.

That is true no matter whether they are going in the right or wrong direction.

Those are also facts regardless of whosever's good or bad example and influence.

The choice needs to be done with full hearted commitment.

No amount of intellectualizing without a sensible goal resolves any of those issues.

My communication is not intended to try to force agreement.

Ms. Marisa Belsito

[Soundbear]

Put this into the mix, gentlemen.

"Death" does not necessarily mean a physical or spiritual death, but a rendering useless for doing anything for the glory of God.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Put this into the mix, gentlemen.

"Death" does not necessarily mean a physical or spiritual death, but a rendering useless for doing anything for the glory of God. </div></div>

Barry, other than spiritual or physical death, what other death is there?

[Soundbear]

Exactly what I said.

Was the prodigal son dead?? His father said he was, twice. But he wasn't.

And even after he returned, he was, in a sense dead, because he had nothing left. Useless.