faith alone?

[Cassian]

Oh my goodness do you know the definition of denomination. I never even came close to saying Christ has "established a man made denomination". Do you truly not know what the true Church of Christ is? It is also painfully obvious that you do not read your Bible (except maybe what your "church" tells you to read). Oh my gosh you are unbelievable in your understanding of even the basic understanding of the church.

Actually not just that one, but this also is a blasphemous statement.

Ok so you follow what your leaders say just like any other puppet of a man made church. Do you check what they teach against God's Word or do you follow blindly trusting them?

As I stated, you are not arguing against either scripture or me, but your own philosophical definitions. Christ's Church is NOT a puppet of a man made church.

I was describing Christ's established Church in this world. So, the Head of that Church is Christ. And yes, I do follow the leader of that Church.

You are going in circles with your own definitions. You ascribe them to me but they are your own strawmen.

 

[elf3]

Again you are disagreeing with your own philosophical definitions. I don't hold to the concept that the text has authority in and of itself. You hold to the idea that it is the sole source of faith and practice, but a faith and practice developed by individual men.

I believe that Christ is the authority, not the text. He is not preserving a text per se. The Holy Spirit is preserving God's revelation to man, the whole revelation.

If scripture is authoritative as a text, then I would presume that it would give the same meaning to everyone. But alas, that has not happened which manifestly shows it does not have authority as a text.

I hold to the authority of Christ who gave and is preserving his whole revelation, Gospel, not just the text.
The point is you cannot prove your position that scripture as authority. You are part of the sola scriptura melieu that uses a text, notwithstanding it is inspired and impose one's own personal interpretations upon that text. The fact that man has done this for 500 years manifestly shows scripture has no authority in itself. There are ONLY two authorities. It is either Christ or man. I hold to Christ, you hold to man.

You do realize that all these differing interpretations have all been developed by men. Arrogant and egoistic men/women besides, who put their names on their new innovation or church. Hardly the authority of Christ.

Um...skippy your the one who doesn't believe in the authority of the Bible but you use it to defend your stance. That is called a contradiction. So who is wrong? Me who believes in the authority of the Bible and uses it as truth and explanation. Or you who doesn't believe in the authority of the the Bible but uses it anyway as truth and explanation.

You cannot say something isn't truth and then try to use it to defend your stance.

 

[Cassian]

Um...skippy your the one who doesn't believe in the authority of the Bible but you use it to defend your stance. That is called a contradiction. So who is wrong? Me who believes in the authority of the Bible and uses it as truth and explanation. Or you who doesn't believe in the authority of the the Bible but uses it anyway as truth and explanation.

You cannot say something isn't truth and then try to use it to defend your stance.

I don't hold to the concept that the text has authority. You do and cannot prove it does.
I have already given you examples, as well as 500 years of history, that manifestly shows scripture as a text has no authority.
If you disagree, then show that scripture has authority, give evidence of that authority.
Let's give it a test. How can you show that Universalism is not in scripture?
I can tell you that John Murray, Hosea Ballou, Elhanan Winchester, who founded the modern day belief have used the Bible to prove that it does exist in scripture. What authority can either show that will prove one right and one wrong?
This is the same problem you already have in this thread dealing with "fath only". All a sola scripturist can do is throw out text after proof text and his best opinion. Why? because scripture does not have authority as a text. In this test it is man that is imposing his opinion, best interpretation.

Just an historical note, Universalism was declared heretical in the Fifth Ecumenical Council 553. They did not use scripture as a sola scripturist does. They employed the "the rule of faith". That which has not been believed and practiced from the beginning, by all, everywhere is false/heretical. It was the Body of Christ that made that determination final. It is through the Body that the Holy Spirit preserves His Gospel. Which means that the Revelation given, including the eventual text has an original meaning and still has not changed.

To make your point you need to give evidence that the Holy Spirit failed to preserve the Gospel and the Body that it was entrusted to. So far, you have not cited one belief/doctrine that has changed, nor that the Church established here on earth does not exist any longer.

 

[elf3]

I don't hold to the concept that the text has authority. You do and cannot prove it does.
I have already given you examples, as well as 500 years of history, that manifestly shows scripture as a text has no authority.
If you disagree, then show that scripture has authority, give evidence of that authority.
Let's give it a test. How can you show that Universalism is not in scripture?
I can tell you that John Murray, Hosea Ballou, Elhanan Winchester, who founded the modern day belief have used the Bible to prove that it does exist in scripture. What authority can either show that will prove one right and one wrong?
This is the same problem you already have in this thread dealing with "fath only". All a sola scripturist can do is throw out text after proof text and his best opinion. Why? because scripture does not have authority as a text. In this test it is man that is imposing his opinion, best interpretation.

Just an historical note, Universalism was declared heretical in the Fifth Ecumenical Council 553. They did not use scripture as a sola scripturist does. They employed the "the rule of faith". That which has not been believed and practiced from the beginning, by all, everywhere is false/heretical. It was the Body of Christ that made that determination final. It is through the Body that the Holy Spirit preserves His Gospel. Which means that the Revelation given, including the eventual text has an original meaning and still has not changed.

To make your point you need to give evidence that the Holy Spirit failed to preserve the Gospel and the Body that it was entrusted to. So far, you have not cited one belief/doctrine that has changed, nor that the Church established here on earth does not exist any longer.

What? I have given proof that Scripture has authority, you just denied it.

This has nothing to do with universalism. I never said universalism was Biblical. And besides show me Biblical proof if you say it's Biblically proven. You are trying to change the subject because you cannot defend yourself.

And like I said before you obviously have no idea what "sola Scriptura" means.

 

[Cassian]

What? I have given proof that Scripture has authority, you just denied it.

Yes, I stated that scripture as a text has no authority and you failed to prove that it does. Citing scripture, as my example shows, means nothing. Every sola scripturist employs scripture to prove his suppositions.

This has nothing to do with universalism. I never said universalism was Biblical. And besides show me Biblical proof if you say it's Biblically proven. You are trying to change the subject because you cannot defend yourself.

I have not changed it at all. It is the bedrock of your premise, scripture has authority.
Never claimed you believed in Univeralism. I actually stated that you did not. But you cannot prove from scripture as a sola scripturist that it does not.
I stated that the founders of modern day Universalism also use scripture to establish their interpretation.

The key active question you missed completely. Explain to me what authority you could appeal to determine which interpretation was correct?

And like I said before you obviously have no idea what "sola Scriptura" means.

I know what it means. But then you may have adopted another variation or a whole new concept as well. However, I even cited the foundational principle for sola scriptura several times. You never disagreed with it, so I must assume you agreed with it. The fact is, you keep asserting the principle.

 

[Atwood]

Yes, I stated that

Yes, you do a lot of asserting, but no proving. Your epistemology is bankrupt. You just say things.

It is self-evident that the God of the Bible exists and that the Bible is the Word of God (axioms 1 & 2).

The God of the Bible is authoritative, inasmuch as He is omnipotent & sovereign. He is the King.
Thus His word has authority.
QED

By way of illustration it is noted that the Lord Jesus said "It is written" & that the Scripture cannot be broken. He settled the argument with Scripture quotes.

It is circular reasoning to say: "The Eastern Orthodox Denomination is true because the EOD says so."

It is no reasoning at all to just make unfounded assertions.

 

[Atwood]

ONLY BELIEVE!

While there appears to be a departure from the immediate topic, let it be kept in mind that ONLY BELIEVE is asserted over & over, specifically twice, but over & over by way of offering salvation just for believing/Faith/trusting the Savior with no additions. Whosoever believes, everyone who believes, all who believe -- that sort of language rules out any essential addition to faith.

Luke 8:11-12
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved.
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

John 1:12
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

John 3:14-18
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; 15 that
whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. 16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only Son of God.

[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

John 6:40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholdeth the Son, and believes on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

John 6:47
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

John 5:24
2Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

John 10:27
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

JOHN 20:30
Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.
[NO WORKS, NO WATER]

Sirs what must I do to be saved?
Answer: Believe in the old goats with beards & their traditions & you shall be saved!
(not in my Bible).

 

[elf3]

No point arguing with Cassian in any way shape or form. Since he denies the authority of Scripture no matter what verse you use he will deny it. The only way Cassian can back up anything he says is by what his "orthodox church" says. But they sure will use Scripture "if" it backs up their belief.

 

[Cassian]

No point arguing with Cassian in any way shape or form. Since he denies the authority of Scripture no matter what verse you use he will deny it. The only way Cassian can back up anything he says is by what his "orthodox church" says. But they sure will use Scripture "if" it backs up their belief.

Strawmen always work when you do not have any substantive content.

I NEVER denied the authority of scripture, It is part of God's word. What I stated is that scripture as a text has no authority. You are the one claiming that the text has authority and you have presented no evidence. I gave you an example and you could not answer the question.

So, try again. Read what I state, understand it as I state it, and not interpret it into your bias, or create a strawman.

 

[elf3]

Strawmen always work when you do not have any substantive content.

I NEVER denied the authority of scripture, It is part of God's word. What I stated is that scripture as a text has no authority. You are the one claiming that the text has authority and you have presented no evidence. I gave you an example and you could not answer the question.

So, try again. Read what I state, understand it as I state it, and not interpret it into your bias, or create a strawman.

Whatever dude as I posted Scripture that proved my point yet you ignored it. The only evidence you will accept is from your leaders in the "orthodox church".

 

[JamesFlash]

Love is the greater quality of the three because God is love and it outlasts them all. Long after faith and hope are no longer necessary, love will still be the governing principle that controls all that God and his redeemed people are and do. Faith works through love, yet we won't need faith and hope in heaven.

someone understands the letter good job.

 

[Cassian]

Whatever dude as I posted Scripture that proved my point yet you ignored it. The only evidence you will accept is from your leaders in the "orthodox church".

And the Leaders of my Church are Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus as you do with my statements, I can say that you have denied that both Christ and the Holy Spirit have authority.

But I will give you another chance to redeem yourself.

I will use the same example as before.

Person A believes in Universalism and has established many proof texts from scripture to support his supposition.
Now, Person B says Universalism is not found in scripture and posits his proof texts to the contrary.

What authority do you appeal to in order to determine which is correct or heretical?

 

[JamesFlash]

scripture as a text has no authority. You are the one claiming that the text has authority and you have presented no evidence.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

(God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God - theopneustos)

 

[Kerry]

If not faith then what?

 

[newbirth]

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

(God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God - theopneustos)

The same scripture is used to create false doctrine....one has to pray that God gives him the spirit to discern ....
Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

[Kerry]

The same scripture is used to create false doctrine....one has to pray that God gives him the spirit to discern ....
Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

But how do you get to the meat? is it not by faith and God proving that faith that builds faith. Faith is a seed that grows and like the mustard seed that is the smallest of all seed grows into a tree that the birds flock under. Faith begats faith and doubt begats doubt.

 

[elf3]

And the Leaders of my Church are Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus as you do with my statements, I can say that you have denied that both Christ and the Holy Spirit have authority.

But I will give you another chance to redeem yourself.

I will use the same example as before.

Person A believes in Universalism and has established many proof texts from scripture to support his supposition.
Now, Person B says Universalism is not found in scripture and posits his proof texts to the contrary.

What authority do you appeal to in order to determine which is correct or heretical?

I have never denied Christ or the Holy Spirit. And as if I need to "redeem" myself to you. Who are you to me?

 

[newbirth]

But how do you get to the meat? is it not by faith and God proving that faith that builds faith. Faith is a seed that grows and like the mustard seed that is the smallest of all seed grows into a tree that the birds flock under. Faith begats faith and doubt begats doubt.

even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

[Kerry]

even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Yes, you will sin no matter how hard you try not too, even if you understand the meat of the word, that's why we need the cross. Think of it you never had an angry thought you never told a white lie, Man do we need the cross and faith in it. But faith begats faith. So we have hope and that hope is in the work of the cross and not our own.

 

[JamesFlash]

The same scripture is used to create false doctrine....one has to pray that God gives him the spirit to discern ....
Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

i'm not denying praying for discernment is good and advisable.
but your proof text doesn't say that. it says by use.
that means by study. and prayer.