Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Wait, hold on there, don't run away from my question.

Explain exactly how believing in those concepts you mentioned (end of public revelation, accepting Mark and Hebrews) means that sola scriptura is false.

Show us that you're even capable of having this discussion. Or at least show us some honesty and admit that you're wrong.

---

I'm not running away from your question. I'll explain my answer so that you can better understand it …

Very simply, you claim that the bible is God's only sole source of authority. I've have provided three teachings/beliefs that are agreed upon by protestants that are NOT taught in the bible. Some other authority (NOT the Bible) had to confirm those beliefs. That authority is the Magisterium.

NOW, please present your premise of SS in ONE SENTENCE.

---

Look at what you said: "Very simply, you claim that the bible is God's only sole source of authority."


YOU STILL don't understand sola scriptura. You are REPEATEDLY getting this wrong, and making the SAME error over and over. Even after I've corrected you and others over and over and over. Would anyone here like to point out what he gets wrong here, again?

Something really is wrong with you. I realized long ago that you are too confused to have a meaningful, logical conversation with, but I gave it a chance. But this shows that it may not be possible.

It's funny how people can ignore Scripture, preferring human tradition instead.

Oldbear83 said:

---

It's funny how people can ignore Scripture, preferring human tradition instead.

---

That's because the human search for wiggle room is perpetual.

canoso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

It's funny how people can ignore Scripture, preferring human tradition instead.

---

That's because the human search for wiggle room is perpetual.

---

And that is very, very dangerous.

Ever notice that once someone becomes a Christian, Satan doesn't just stop and take the loss?

Instead, believers face a constant storm of spiritual attacks and temptations the rest of the way, which is why Jesus warns us to persevere.

That verse about working out our Salvation in 'fear and trembling' applies very much to us all. We should strengthen and protect our brothers and sisters in constant prayer for this.

Oldbear83 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

It's funny how people can ignore Scripture, preferring human tradition instead.

---

That's because the human search for wiggle room is perpetual.

---

And that is very, very dangerous.

Ever notice that once someone becomes a Christian, Satan doesn't just stop and take the loss?

Instead, believers face a constant storm of spiritual attacks and temptations the rest of the way, which is why Jesus warns us to persevere.

That verse about working out our Salvation in 'fear and trembling' applies very much to us all. We should strengthen and protect our brothers and sisters in constant prayer for this.

---

Believers need to persevere in their faith, not in their ability to do good works of obedience. One of the greatest tactics of Satan against Christians is to defeat them with temptations, and make them doubt they are saved because they still sin. This turns them towards depending on their own ability to be "good" for their salvation rather than depending completely on the finished work of Jesus and on being imputed with HIS righteousness, not ours. A huge part of a Christian's "perseverance" is to resist this, Satan's greatest lie and temptation.

Romans 5:2 KJV
[2] by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Romans 5:2 KJV
[2] by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

---

You can see in this verse that the way we gain access to God's Gtace is through our Faith.

Grace is when God does something for you that you cannot earn and cannot do for yourself.

Faith is trusting in God to the point of submission to His will.

I hope you all had a great weekend

Oldbear83 said:

---

Repeating false claims already addressed is not a way to move the discussion forward. Neither is asking leading questions also already addressed.

Be better.

---

Once again, another "drive by" post with no reference or refutation to any points.

I am trying to "be better." I've provided biblical and historical context for my posts.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Look at what you said: "Very simply, you claim that the bible is God's only sole source of authority."


YOU STILL don't understand sola scriptura. You are REPEATEDLY getting this wrong, and making the SAME error over and over. Even after I've corrected you and others over and over and over. Would anyone here like to point out what he gets wrong here, again?

Something really is wrong with you. I realized long ago that you are too confused to have a meaningful, logical conversation with, but I gave it a chance. But this shows that it may not be possible.

---

You make this claim, yet you do not present "your view" of sola scriptura.

I have asked you twice to present it. You still have not. Your post reeks of arrogance; however, offers no explanation, I can only assume is because I have demonstrated why it is sole scriptura is NOT valid and it was also made up in the 16th century (despite your misrepresentation of Augustine - which I also demonstrated was incorrect.)

I went to 6 different protestant sites and they all said something different for a definition of sola scriptura.

This is what I found for a definition:

"Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

I have presented several facts that this is a false doctrine.

1) It is self-refuting. The bible never teaches this.
2) The Bible mentions oral tradition (2 Thes 2:15) that the believers were to follow.
3) The Church determined the Canon - No where does the bible tell us what the NT should be NOR does it give us the qualifications for canon.
4) The bible calls the Church the "pillar of truth." Not the bible.
5) It is historically inaccurate. It is a man-made tradition created in the 1500's.
6) Widely held Christian beliefs exist that did NOT come from the Bible.
- Mark is a Gospel
- Public revelation has ended
- There are no more apostles

For a third time, please provide your definition of sola scriptura.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Look at what you said: "Very simply, you claim that the bible is God's only sole source of authority."


YOU STILL don't understand sola scriptura. You are REPEATEDLY getting this wrong, and making the SAME error over and over. Even after I've corrected you and others over and over and over. Would anyone here like to point out what he gets wrong here, again?

Something really is wrong with you. I realized long ago that you are too confused to have a meaningful, logical conversation with, but I gave it a chance. But this shows that it may not be possible.

---

You make this claim, yet you do not present "your view" of sola scriptura.

I have asked you twice to present it. You still have not. Your post reeks of arrogance; however, offers no explanation, I can only assume is because I have demonstrated why it is sole scriptura is NOT valid and it was also made up in the 16th century (despite your misrepresentation of Augustine - which I also demonstrated was incorrect.)

I went to 6 different protestant sites and they all said something different for a definition of sola scriptura.

This is what I found for a definition:

"Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

I have presented several facts that this is a false doctrine.

1) It is self-refuting. The bible never teaches this.
2) The Bible mentions oral tradition (2 Thes 2:15) that the believers were to follow.
3) The Church determined the Canon - No where does the bible tell us what the NT should be NOR does it give us the qualifications for canon.
4) The bible calls the Church the "pillar of truth." Not the bible.
5) It is historically inaccurate. It is a man-made tradition created in the 1500's.
6) Widely held Christian beliefs exist that did NOT come from the Bible.
- Mark is a Gospel
- Public revelation has ended
- There are no more apostles

For a third time, please provide your definition of sola scriptura.

---

Your definition is WRONG.

My definition of sola scriptura has and always been given, and even has been explained repeatedly in response to you constantly getting it wrong.

If you can't/don't discern what it is you're getting wrong about sola scriptura, then you aren't honest or intelligent enough to have this conversation with. You won't ever see that every single point you've listed has been defeated, so you'll just recycle them over and over. Again, you're just not capable. Sorry to be blunt, but this has been evident for quite a while, and like I said in another post, it's a waste of time to continually go in circles with you.

I will even bet, that in a future post, you STILL will get the concept of sola scriptura wrong.

Quote:

---

"The Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

---

This is CokeBear's definition of sola scriptura. Bonus points for anyone who can spot the error.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Repeating false claims already addressed is not a way to move the discussion forward. Neither is asking leading questions also already addressed.

Be better.

---

Once again, another "drive by" post with no reference or refutation to any points.

I am trying to "be better." I've provided biblical and historical context for my posts.

---

With respect, no you have not.

You simply repost the same claims and use the same alleged support long debunked.

It's fine for you to believe as you choose.

But your insults and arrogance do not commend the objective reader to your position.

After 597,723 views and 6102 replies, it's pretty clear one somehow gets to heaven by eternally debating an issue that was decided before the creation of all that exists, except for God..

canoso said:

---

After 597,723 views and 6102 replies, it's pretty clear one somehow gets to heaven by eternally debating an issue that was decided before the creation of all that exists, except for God..

---

If you know how it was decided, then please do share.

Yes, please do

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

"The Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

---

This is CokeBear's definition of sola scriptura. Bonus points for anyone who can spot the error.

---

Whatvisnthe error?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

"The Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

---

This is CokeBear's definition of sola scriptura. Bonus points for anyone who can spot the error.

---

Whatvisnthe error?

---

Is there a difference between "sole, infallible authority" and "sole infallible authority"?

canoso said:

---

After 597,723 views and 6102 replies, it's pretty clear one somehow gets to heaven by eternally debating an issue that was decided before the creation of all that exists, except for God..

---

I bailed out a while ago, and it's sheer bliss.

Oldbear83 said:

---

With respect, no you have not.

You simply repost the same claims and use the same alleged support long debunked.

It's fine for you to believe as you choose.

But your insults and arrogance do not commend the objective reader to your position.

---

Debunked by whom? You?

I don't even know what original point that you are referring to in your latest "drive-by".

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Reply back to my post when you do this. I don't get on this forum every day. When you make these random comments with no reference, it's difficult for people to reply.

I've asked you this several times before and even once in a PM. I'm happy to discuss any point on this forum.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

canoso said:

---

After 597,723 views and 6102 replies, it's pretty clear one somehow gets to heaven by eternally debating an issue that was decided before the creation of all that exists, except for God..

---

If you know how it was decided, then please do share.

---

Since God has already and eternally done that, my doing so would be entirely redundant.

canoso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

canoso said:

---

After 597,723 views and 6102 replies, it's pretty clear one somehow gets to heaven by eternally debating an issue that was decided before the creation of all that exists, except for God..

---

If you know how it was decided, then please do share.

---

Since God has already and eternally done that, my doing so would be entirely redundant.

---

But as you can see, obvously there are many people who just aren't getting the message. There are new generations from whom the gospel is being obscured, hidden, and even lied about. And Christians are commanded to do it. Your words, which may be scoffed at by the hard of heart, can be encouragement to others.

Coke Bear said:

---

"Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your definition is WRONG.

My definition of sola scriptura has and always been given, and even has been explained repeatedly in response to you constantly getting it wrong.

If you can't/don't discern what it is you're getting wrong about sola scriptura, then you aren't honest or intelligent enough to have this conversation with. You won't ever see that every single point you've listed has been defeated, so you'll just recycle them over and over. Again, you're just not capable. Sorry to be blunt, but this has been evident for quite a while, and like I said in another post, it's a waste of time to continually go in circles with you.

I will even bet, that in a future post, you STILL will get the concept of sola scriptura wrong.

---

I presented a generally accepted version of sola scriptura. You called it WRONG.

Apparently, you are operating with YOUR OWN definition of this false doctrine. This seems like you are making your self the pope of your own church.

I found this simple search for "Protestant definitions of Sola Scriptura"

The Formal Principle Definition (Classical Protestantism)
Definition: Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the final authority above all other authorities.

The Material Sufficiency Definition
Definition: Scripture contains all truths necessary for salvationeverything essential is either explicitly stated or implicitly present.

The Nuda Scriptura (Bare Scripture) Definition
Definition: Scripture is the only authority; tradition and church teaching are essentially unnecessary or unhelpful.

The Prima Scriptura Definition (Found in some Anglican/Wesleyan circles)
Definition: Scripture is the primary and highest authority, but secondary authorities (tradition, reason, experience) legitimately guide interpretation.

Regulative Principle of Doctrine View
Definition: Only what can be derived from Scripture (explicitly or by good and necessary consequence) may be taught as doctrine.

Revelatory Sufficiency Definition
Definition: All special God intends for the church is contained in Scripture; there are no new revelations after the closing of the canon.

The Functional Sola Scriptura Definition (Practical Evangelical View)
Definition: Scripture is functionally treated as the ultimate guide for faith, even if authority structures exist.

Confessional Sola Scriptura Definition
Definition: Scripture is the only infallible authority, but creeds and confessions summarize scriptural teaching faithfully.

I don't care which one you choose or if you want to present Pope BTD17's most-correct definition of sola scriptura, but I'll ask again for the 4th or 5th time, please present your definition.

You mock my capability for understanding sola scriptura, but protestants can't even get it "right."

Finally, this single issue represents the protestant dilemma. Christ called for his Church to be One. But protestants can't even agree on a single definition of this doctrine they all claim to believe. How can the His Church be one if, protestants can't agree on anything?

I sincerely wonder why you have such poor memory on this point.

Jesus clearly said the Church would be built on the faith, not one of His disciples. The fact that very soon after praising Peter for speaking in faith, He rebuked Peter as 'Satan' establishes this very clearly.

I am sorry this annoys you, but Scripture is clear.

Peter was a leader of the Church, not the leader nor the foundation of it.

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

"Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your definition is WRONG.

My definition of sola scriptura has and always been given, and even has been explained repeatedly in response to you constantly getting it wrong.

If you can't/don't discern what it is you're getting wrong about sola scriptura, then you aren't honest or intelligent enough to have this conversation with. You won't ever see that every single point you've listed has been defeated, so you'll just recycle them over and over. Again, you're just not capable. Sorry to be blunt, but this has been evident for quite a while, and like I said in another post, it's a waste of time to continually go in circles with you.

I will even bet, that in a future post, you STILL will get the concept of sola scriptura wrong.

---

I presented a generally accepted version of sola scriptura. You called it WRONG.

Apparently, you are operating with YOUR OWN definition of this false doctrine. This seems like you are making your self the pope of your own church.

I found this simple search for "Protestant definitions of Sola Scriptura"

The Formal Principle Definition (Classical Protestantism)
Definition: Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the final authority above all other authorities.

The Material Sufficiency Definition
Definition: Scripture contains all truths necessary for salvationeverything essential is either explicitly stated or implicitly present.

The Nuda Scriptura (Bare Scripture) Definition
Definition: Scripture is the only authority; tradition and church teaching are essentially unnecessary or unhelpful.

The Prima Scriptura Definition (Found in some Anglican/Wesleyan circles)
Definition: Scripture is the primary and highest authority, but secondary authorities (tradition, reason, experience) legitimately guide interpretation.

Regulative Principle of Doctrine View
Definition: Only what can be derived from Scripture (explicitly or by good and necessary consequence) may be taught as doctrine.

Revelatory Sufficiency Definition
Definition: All special God intends for the church is contained in Scripture; there are no new revelations after the closing of the canon.

The Functional Sola Scriptura Definition (Practical Evangelical View)
Definition: Scripture is functionally treated as the ultimate guide for faith, even if authority structures exist.

Confessional Sola Scriptura Definition
Definition: Scripture is the only infallible authority, but creeds and confessions summarize scriptural teaching faithfully.

I don't care which one you choose or if you want to present Pope BTD17's most-correct definition of sola scriptura, but I'll ask again for the 4th or 5th time, please present your definition.

You mock my capability for understanding sola scriptura, but protestants can't even get it "right."

Finally, this single issue represents the protestant dilemma. Christ called for his Church to be One. But protestants can't even agree on a single definition of this doctrine they all claim to believe. How can the His Church be one if, protestants can't agree on anything?

---

You're presenting wrong definitions. And even definitions that aren't sola scriptura, but go by a different name, like nuda scriptura. The concept is part of the five solas of the Reformation. It is the definition from there, that is the actual definition, not incorrect definitions as a result of the misconception of later churches.

Even by those definitions, save nuda scriptura, you are still wrong.

I mocked you for getting it wrong, REPEATEDLY, even after being corrected. You then returned, making the exact same error.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Oldbear83 said:

---

I sincerely wonder why you have such poor memory on this point.

Jesus clearly said the Church would be built on the faith, not one of His disciples. The fact that very soon after praising Peter for speaking in faith, He rebuked Peter as 'Satan' establishes this very clearly.

I am sorry this annoys you, but Scripture is clear.

Peter was a leader of the Church, not the leader nor the foundation of it.

---

Thank you VERY much for clarifying your point. I sincerely appreciate that.

With respect to building his Church on his faith alone. We will have to agree to disagree.

We've discussed this ad nauseum so there's no real point in repeating what said, but in synopsis, I'll say that Jesus changed Simon's NAME to Peter (Rock). Not his faith.

Jesus gave Peter the "Keys to the Kingdom." Not his faith. These are the same keys mentioned in Isaiah 22 when Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. He is in charge when the master is away.

When Jesus rebuked Peter, it was because he didn't understand God's plan of Jesus' Passion, which he just predicted. If Jesus rebuked him because Peter's faith failed, then His Church would have failed immediately.

Please note that later in Luke when Jesus prayers specifically for Peter to strengthen his brethren when Satan desires to sift them as wheat.

Finally, I'm not trying to say that the Church absolutely wasn't built on Peter's faith. Many Church fathers agree that it was. However, it is NOT an "either/or" situation. Many of them will claim that it's a "both/and" situation.

The Church was built on both. Peter was the undisputed leader.

Your belief doesn't annoy me.

I strongly disagree with your claim that " Scripture is clear" on this matter. It's not like Catholic just started this believe 500 years ago. It is what was believed and practiced for nearly the last 2000 years.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

"Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your definition is WRONG.

My definition of sola scriptura has and always been given, and even has been explained repeatedly in response to you constantly getting it wrong.

If you can't/don't discern what it is you're getting wrong about sola scriptura, then you aren't honest or intelligent enough to have this conversation with. You won't ever see that every single point you've listed has been defeated, so you'll just recycle them over and over. Again, you're just not capable. Sorry to be blunt, but this has been evident for quite a while, and like I said in another post, it's a waste of time to continually go in circles with you.

I will even bet, that in a future post, you STILL will get the concept of sola scriptura wrong.

---

I presented a generally accepted version of sola scriptura. You called it WRONG.

Apparently, you are operating with YOUR OWN definition of this false doctrine. This seems like you are making your self the pope of your own church.

I found this simple search for "Protestant definitions of Sola Scriptura"

The Formal Principle Definition (Classical Protestantism)
Definition: Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the final authority above all other authorities.

The Material Sufficiency Definition
Definition: Scripture contains all truths necessary for salvationeverything essential is either explicitly stated or implicitly present.

The Nuda Scriptura (Bare Scripture) Definition
Definition: Scripture is the only authority; tradition and church teaching are essentially unnecessary or unhelpful.

The Prima Scriptura Definition (Found in some Anglican/Wesleyan circles)
Definition: Scripture is the primary and highest authority, but secondary authorities (tradition, reason, experience) legitimately guide interpretation.

Regulative Principle of Doctrine View
Definition: Only what can be derived from Scripture (explicitly or by good and necessary consequence) may be taught as doctrine.

Revelatory Sufficiency Definition
Definition: All special God intends for the church is contained in Scripture; there are no new revelations after the closing of the canon.

The Functional Sola Scriptura Definition (Practical Evangelical View)
Definition: Scripture is functionally treated as the ultimate guide for faith, even if authority structures exist.

Confessional Sola Scriptura Definition
Definition: Scripture is the only infallible authority, but creeds and confessions summarize scriptural teaching faithfully.

I don't care which one you choose or if you want to present Pope BTD17's most-correct definition of sola scriptura, but I'll ask again for the 4th or 5th time, please present your definition.

You mock my capability for understanding sola scriptura, but protestants can't even get it "right."

Finally, this single issue represents the protestant dilemma. Christ called for his Church to be One. But protestants can't even agree on a single definition of this doctrine they all claim to believe. How can the His Church be one if, protestants can't agree on anything?

---

You're presenting wrong definitions. And even definitions that aren't sola scriptura, but go by a different name, like nuda scriptura. The concept is part of the five solas of the Reformation. It is the definition from there, that is the actual definition, not incorrect definitions as a result of the misconception of later churches.

Even by those definitions, save nuda scriptura, you are still wrong.

I mocked you for getting it wrong, REPEATEDLY, even after being corrected. You then returned, making the exact same error.

---

Is mocking someone, Christ-like? I never recall Jesus mocking anyone. I imagine people are flocking to be part of your church with behavior like that.

I have obtained ALL those definitions from prominent protestant sources. Yet, you claim that they are wrong.

I've asked you five times to present YOUR DIFINITION of sola scriptura. You won't. You "mock" me and others.

Doesn't the fact that protestants can't even agree with a simple definition of sola scriptura concern you?

If your version of sola scriptura superior and irrefutable, why haven't other protestants embraced it?

You could be YouTube famous with your undefeatable premise. Please, for the last time, share it or drop it.

I'm happy to discuss it point by point to ensure that I fully understand your position.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

"Bible is the sole, final, and infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice."

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your definition is WRONG.

My definition of sola scriptura has and always been given, and even has been explained repeatedly in response to you constantly getting it wrong.

If you can't/don't discern what it is you're getting wrong about sola scriptura, then you aren't honest or intelligent enough to have this conversation with. You won't ever see that every single point you've listed has been defeated, so you'll just recycle them over and over. Again, you're just not capable. Sorry to be blunt, but this has been evident for quite a while, and like I said in another post, it's a waste of time to continually go in circles with you.

I will even bet, that in a future post, you STILL will get the concept of sola scriptura wrong.

---

I presented a generally accepted version of sola scriptura. You called it WRONG.

Apparently, you are operating with YOUR OWN definition of this false doctrine. This seems like you are making your self the pope of your own church.

I found this simple search for "Protestant definitions of Sola Scriptura"

The Formal Principle Definition (Classical Protestantism)
Definition: Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the final authority above all other authorities.

The Material Sufficiency Definition
Definition: Scripture contains all truths necessary for salvationeverything essential is either explicitly stated or implicitly present.

The Nuda Scriptura (Bare Scripture) Definition
Definition: Scripture is the only authority; tradition and church teaching are essentially unnecessary or unhelpful.

The Prima Scriptura Definition (Found in some Anglican/Wesleyan circles)
Definition: Scripture is the primary and highest authority, but secondary authorities (tradition, reason, experience) legitimately guide interpretation.

Regulative Principle of Doctrine View
Definition: Only what can be derived from Scripture (explicitly or by good and necessary consequence) may be taught as doctrine.

Revelatory Sufficiency Definition
Definition: All special God intends for the church is contained in Scripture; there are no new revelations after the closing of the canon.

The Functional Sola Scriptura Definition (Practical Evangelical View)
Definition: Scripture is functionally treated as the ultimate guide for faith, even if authority structures exist.

Confessional Sola Scriptura Definition
Definition: Scripture is the only infallible authority, but creeds and confessions summarize scriptural teaching faithfully.

I don't care which one you choose or if you want to present Pope BTD17's most-correct definition of sola scriptura, but I'll ask again for the 4th or 5th time, please present your definition.

You mock my capability for understanding sola scriptura, but protestants can't even get it "right."

Finally, this single issue represents the protestant dilemma. Christ called for his Church to be One. But protestants can't even agree on a single definition of this doctrine they all claim to believe. How can the His Church be one if, protestants can't agree on anything?

---

You're presenting wrong definitions. And even definitions that aren't sola scriptura, but go by a different name, like nuda scriptura. The concept is part of the five solas of the Reformation. It is the definition from there, that is the actual definition, not incorrect definitions as a result of the misconception of later churches.

Even by those definitions, save nuda scriptura, you are still wrong.

I mocked you for getting it wrong, REPEATEDLY, even after being corrected. You then returned, making the exact same error.

---

Is mocking someone, Christ-like? I never recall Jesus mocking anyone. I imagine people are flocking to be part of your church with behavior like that.

I have obtained ALL those definitions from prominent protestant sources. Yet, you claim that they are wrong.

I've asked you five times to present YOUR DIFINITION of sola scriptura. You won't. You "mock" me and others.

Doesn't the fact that protestants can't even agree with a simple definition of sola scriptura concern you?

If your version of sola scriptura superior and irrefutable, why haven't other protestants embraced it?

You could be YouTube famous with your undefeatable premise. Please, for the last time, share it or drop it.

I'm happy to discuss it point by point to ensure that I fully understand your position.

---

Jesus: "Are you still so dull?" - Matthew 15:16.

"Mocking" was YOUR word. I was really just saying to you exactly what Jesus said there.

Here's the issue: I'VE TOLD YOU the definition. OVER AND OVER. We even had a long debate about Augustine affirming sola scriptura. The concept of "infallible source of authority" was harped on, repeatedly, because you and others were CONSTANTLY forgetting.

It's because of this, and the fact that you STILL continued to get it wrong with subsequent posts, which made me give up on your cognitive ability and ability to be honest with regard to this topic.

You asked "is that Christ-like". Well, to that, I ask you: is it Christ-like to worship Mary?

Agree to disagree. You should know, of course, that anytime you make the assertion that Peter was the Christ-anointed Church, rather than one of the leaders of the Church built on Faith, I will challenge the claim.

One reason the early Church survived the persecutions, after all, was because the leadership was decentralized and the Church would not be undone by the imprisonment or death of any one leader.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Agree to disagree. You should know, of course, that anytime you make the assertion that Peter was the Christ-anointed Church, rather than one of the leaders of the Church built on Faith, I will challenge the claim.

One reason the early Church survived the persecutions, after all, was because the leadership was decentralized and the Church would not be undone by the imprisonment or death of any one leader.

---

The church was built on Christ, not Peter.

I Corinthians 10:4 NKJV
[4] and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Oldbear83 said:

---

Agree to disagree. You should know, of course, that anytime you make the assertion that Peter was the Christ-anointed Church, rather than one of the leaders of the Church built on Faith, I will challenge the claim.

One reason the early Church survived the persecutions, after all, was because the leadership was decentralized and the Church would not be undone by the imprisonment or death of any one leader.

---

Correct.

In the end, God is the one who determines who gets to heaven and who doesn't…and that's ok. We don't have to live with some constant reassurance of our personal salvation if we live with the constant assurance of who God is.

I don't know if at the end of my life I will be welcomed into heaven by Christ or told to depart because He never knew me. Neither do any of you, because that would assume a level of knowledge humans are incapable of this side of heaven.

I certainly hope for the former, but I know that whatever His decision is, it will be the right one.

Realitybites said:

---

In the end, God is the one who determines who gets to heaven and who doesn't…and that's ok. We don't have to live with some constant reassurance of our personal salvation if we live with the constant assurance of who God is.

I don't know if at the end of my life I will be welcomed into heaven by Christ or told to depart because He never knew me. Neither do any of you, because that would assume a level of knowledge humans are incapable of this side of heaven.

I certainly hope for the former, but I know that whatever His decision is, it will be the right one.

---

Well that's false because the Bible clearly tells us what we must do to be saved.

Romans 10:9,10,13 tells us that if we confess Jesus Christ as our Lord and believe in our heart that He died and rose again, we will be saved. It goes on to say for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I know I am going to heaven because my faith is in what He did for me on the cross to pay for my sins.