Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Page 149 of this thread (cut and pasted):

BusyTarpDuster2017 (ME):
"You STILL do not understand what sola scriptura is. You're getting this wrong over and over and over again. You won't even bother to learn what you're arguing about, which means you're not really caring about what the truth is, you're just concerned with preserving your tradition. That isn't truth seeking. That's indoctrination.

Sola scriptura, put simply, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority for the Church. It doesn't mean there can't be other types of authority that Church members should submit to. It means that ultimately, all doctrine must be weighed against the final authority, which is Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in the Church's possession that is the infallible word from God. It's essentially what Augustine was saying in all those quotes I provided. A fact that all of you just want to conveniently ignore.


Now HERE IS ONE OF YOUR RESPONSES to my posts about this topic on that very same page:

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I suggest that before you argue against this, that you first learn what sola scriptura actually means. Too many here are trying to argue against it without even knowing what it is in the first place.

---

CokeBear: "You are arguing that Scripture is the ONLY infallible rule of faith."


It's right there in front of your face. I gave the definition (over and over) and YOU EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED IT. And then you spent countless posts arguing against it. And now, you're DEMANDING from me to give my definition? Please.... I'm not going to keep going in circles with you and waste my time. You just end up coming back and REPEATING your same error, over and over and over. You're showing yourself incapable of having the level of discussion that I want. I'm only writing this post to you now, to demonstrate to the forum exactly what I'm talking about.

---

Once again, thank you for once again providing your version of sola scriptura.

Obviously, I disagree with it, but in the interest of ensuring that I don't make a strawman out of your argument,

I have a number of questions that I have about your version of sola scriptura, I'll only ask one at a time so as to not Gish Gallop and we can have a fair and open discussion about your version.

You have stated that "all doctrine must be weighed against the final authority, which is Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in the Church's possession that is the infallible word from God."

I'm sure that we would both agree that Baptism is an important question/doctrine in the true Christian community (LDS and JW's need not apply.)

Using your paradigm, how do settle the argument between those that believe in baptismal regeneration vs. baptism being an outward symbol of an already completed inward regeneration?

---

This has all been discussed before. To briefly summarize all that's been said:

1) Rightly understanding Scripture is how you get the answer. Scripture does not support the belief that salvation only comes only after one is water baptized, and even if there is no concurrent faith. Scripture, rather, argues against it.

2) EVEN IF an issue can't be settled amongst those who disagree, that does NOT impact the concept (or truth) of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura only means that Scripture is the only infallible authority for the church. It does NOT mean that Scripture can clearly answer ALL things or settle all differences. Nor does sola scriptura mean that Scripture will always be interpreted correctly.

3) To illustrate point #2, consider the following: One church believes in baptismal regeneration, because they believe that's what Scripture says; another church is against baptismal regeneration because they believe that's what Scripture says. BOTH are using Scripture as the infallible authority against which to measure the truth of their view. Therefore, BOTH are adhering to sola scriptura, even though they are reaching different conclusions.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

< chuckle >

I am not abandoning the thread, much as you seem to hope.

But you and I have both made our arguments, and since you keep ignoring the evidence in Scripture and Reason you dislike, while continuing to make the same claims already addressed, there is no sane purpose for me to once again present what you are so determined to ignore.

You are wrong in your Peter-first hierarchy, and I understand why, that theory being so popular among the Roman Catholics. But because you cling to that error, I and others are compelled to point this out.

Have a good day and week.

---

Most protestants will deny that Peter was the first Pope (Bishop of Rome.)

However, according to the Protestant scholars, W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, they write, "To deny the preeminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from the preeminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would've been a far less consequence."

---

How does it follow from Albright and Mann saying that Peter had preeminence among the disciples, that: 1) there was a singular bishop of Rome during Peter's time; 2) Peter was that bishop; 3) the bishop of Rome, i.e. the pope, is the supreme ruler over all of Christianity?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This has all been discussed before. To briefly summarize all that's been said:

1) Rightly understanding Scripture is how you get the answer. Scripture does not support the belief that salvation only comes only after one is water baptized, and even if there is no concurrent faith. Scripture, rather, argues against it.

---

I disagree with this. And so do the Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and some Methodists. Nor does it jive within the history of the Christian age, but that's not a point that we did to discuss here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) EVEN IF an issue can't be settled amongst those who disagree, that does NOT impact the concept (or truth) of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura only means that Scripture is the only infallible authority for the church. It does NOT mean that Scripture can clearly answer ALL things or settle all differences. Nor does sola scriptura mean that Scripture will always be interpreted correctly.

---

We both agree that scripture is infallible. Is it possible that other infallible sources exist since it was decades before scripture was written and centuries before canon was recognized?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) To illustrate point #2, consider the following: One church believes in baptismal regeneration, because they believe that's what Scripture says; another church is against baptismal regeneration because they believe that's what Scripture says. BOTH are using Scripture as the infallible authority against which to measure the truth of their view. Therefore, BOTH are adhering to sola scriptura, even though they are reaching different conclusions.

---

I would agree that both sides are using scripture to help determine their view; however, it seems like in this situation, your version of sola scriptura is actually Relativism. "I have my truth and you have your truth." Both truths can't be right.

How is your version different than modern-day Relativism?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

< chuckle >

I am not abandoning the thread, much as you seem to hope.

But you and I have both made our arguments, and since you keep ignoring the evidence in Scripture and Reason you dislike, while continuing to make the same claims already addressed, there is no sane purpose for me to once again present what you are so determined to ignore.

You are wrong in your Peter-first hierarchy, and I understand why, that theory being so popular among the Roman Catholics. But because you cling to that error, I and others are compelled to point this out.

Have a good day and week.

---

Most protestants will deny that Peter was the first Pope (Bishop of Rome.)

However, according to the Protestant scholars, W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, they write, "To deny the preeminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from the preeminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would've been a far less consequence."

---

How does it follow from Albright and Mann saying that Peter had preeminence among the disciples, that: 1) there was a singular bishop of Rome during Peter's time; 2) Peter was that bishop; 3) the bishop of Rome, i.e. the pope, is the supreme ruler over all of Christianity?

---

Their quote wasn't meant to establish or prove your three conditions/questions.

It was in refutation of OldBear83's comment denying a "Peter-first hierarchy."

Coke Bear: " Who do YOU say is the FIRST Pope (Bishop of Rome) in the Catholic Church?
Why do YOU choose that person?
What is your evidence to support your claim?"

** sigh **

This is just what I mean. You don't even realize what you revealed about yourself, so I will lay it out again:

1. Your fixation on Peter, and your assumption about Popes as a set of Most Important Person over the years since Jesus established His Church, is a major problem for other Christians. We should focus on Christ, not human leaders, when we attend church and seek the Lord's will.

2. Christ's Church is present everywhere there are believers, and no one place of worship is greater than the others on Earth. Obsessing on Rome as if that place was holy, verges on idolatry.

3. You are not simply discussing matters of doctrine or Scripture; you are acting like you are the professor who gets to grade whether the students get the answers right. You - putting it bluntly - do not have that status. We are equals here, and a productive discussion means treating others as equals, not subordinates you get to judge.

To put it in context, my father attended Crescent Hill Baptist Church in Louisville, and South Main Baptist Church in Houston. Can you say who was the first Pastor at each of those churches?

Why was that person chosen?

I would expect you to say that the answers to those questions are irrelevant to the matter of Salvation and our faith journey with our Lord Jesus Christ. The truth is, the same can be said about Rome.

Rome was the center of evil against the early Church, and that the Church took root there matters because it demonstrates Christ's victory over Evil, and obsessing on one human over another is going the wrong way.

I respect keeping records of who did things, but everything deserves its place, not primacy, and one great sin of the Roman leaders, was demanding power over the whole Church out of Pride, Greed and Jealousy.

Jesus very plainly set up a team of leaders, teaching and training anyone who believed. Not only the disciples, but others who were sent out to evangelize. Paul is important in that respect not because he was greater than other apostles, but because Christ proved His Sovereignty even over those who had opposed Him.

I have pointed out before, that one reason Rome could not crush the early Church, was precisely because Christ decentralized authority in the Church. No one person was the Church, so no arrest or execution could wipe out the Church.

That speaks against Popes.

I respect those Popes who lead their congregation, walk humbly before God, and do not presume to disrespect or bully the rest of the Church. Just the same as any minister, preacher or servant of God.

Our focus must be on the Lord, not titles and human arrogance.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This has all been discussed before. To briefly summarize all that's been said:

1) Rightly understanding Scripture is how you get the answer. Scripture does not support the belief that salvation only comes only after one is water baptized, and even if there is no concurrent faith. Scripture, rather, argues against it.

---

I disagree with this. And so do the Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and some Methodists. Nor does it jive within the history of the Christian age, but that's not a point that we did to discuss here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) EVEN IF an issue can't be settled amongst those who disagree, that does NOT impact the concept (or truth) of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura only means that Scripture is the only infallible authority for the church. It does NOT mean that Scripture can clearly answer ALL things or settle all differences. Nor does sola scriptura mean that Scripture will always be interpreted correctly.

---

We both agree that scripture is infallible. Is it possible that other infallible sources exist since it was decades before scripture was written and centuries before canon was recognized?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) To illustrate point #2, consider the following: One church believes in baptismal regeneration, because they believe that's what Scripture says; another church is against baptismal regeneration because they believe that's what Scripture says. BOTH are using Scripture as the infallible authority against which to measure the truth of their view. Therefore, BOTH are adhering to sola scriptura, even though they are reaching different conclusions.

---

I would agree that both sides are using scripture to help determine their view; however, it seems like in this situation, your version of sola scriptura is actually Relativism. "I have my truth and you have your truth." Both truths can't be right.

How is your version different than modern-day Relativism?

---

1) You disagree with it, but you can't biblically or logically support your position. I've repeatedly challenged your view with questions, such as how can water baptism be what saves you, when your own literal interpretation of John 6 clearly says otherwise? And you guys have repeatedly balked on the questions.

2) If Scripture is God-breathed, and only God's word is infallible, then it follows that only God's breathed word (Scripture) is the only infallible authority for the church. If you are arguing that Tradition is also God-breathed, and not just derived by fallible man, then it's up to you to prove that. We have the proof that the Old Testament is infallible (because Jesus himself affirmed it) and that the word of the apostles is also infallible (because Jesus affirmed it). On the other hand, your Tradition has been proven false. Therefore, the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the infallible word of God is in Scripture.

Your argument that scripture wasn't written for decades is irrelevant for us today, because today we have written Scripture. During the time that it wasn't written yet, people had the direct verbal testimony of the apostles, which was infallible by Jesus' affirmation. The apostles are all gone now. We only have their written testimonies, which is ONLY CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURE and nowhere else. Sola scriptura is a principle for US TODAY, not during the time when the apostles were alive and there wasn't written scripture yet.

3) This is NOT "Relativism". Relativism is the belief that there is no ultimate standard of truth, that truth depends on a person's subjective experience and values. Having differences in interpretation of Scripture is NOT saying that there isn't an absolute standard of truth - both sides believe that there IS a standard, and its God's word. You are applying the concept of "relativism" incorrectly.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

< chuckle >

I am not abandoning the thread, much as you seem to hope.

But you and I have both made our arguments, and since you keep ignoring the evidence in Scripture and Reason you dislike, while continuing to make the same claims already addressed, there is no sane purpose for me to once again present what you are so determined to ignore.

You are wrong in your Peter-first hierarchy, and I understand why, that theory being so popular among the Roman Catholics. But because you cling to that error, I and others are compelled to point this out.

Have a good day and week.

---

Most protestants will deny that Peter was the first Pope (Bishop of Rome.)

However, according to the Protestant scholars, W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, they write, "To deny the preeminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from the preeminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would've been a far less consequence."

---

How does it follow from Albright and Mann saying that Peter had preeminence among the disciples, that: 1) there was a singular bishop of Rome during Peter's time; 2) Peter was that bishop; 3) the bishop of Rome, i.e. the pope, is the supreme ruler over all of Christianity?

---

Their quote wasn't meant to establish or prove your three conditions/questions.

It was in refutation of OldBear83's comment denying a "Peter-first hierarchy."

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: " Who do YOU say is the FIRST Pope (Bishop of Rome) in the Catholic Church?
Why do YOU choose that person?
What is your evidence to support your claim?"

** sigh **

This is just what I mean. You don't even realize what you revealed about yourself, so I will lay it out again:

1. Your fixation on Peter, and your assumption about Popes as a set of Most Important Person over the years since Jesus established His Church, is a major problem for other Christians. We should focus on Christ, not human leaders, when we attend church and seek the Lord's will.

---

I'm not fixating on Peter. The Church states that Peter was the first Pope (Bishop of Rome.) You denied that claim. We both presented evidence for our positions.

I, not the Church, have ever claimed that the Popes are a "set of Most Important Person over the years since Jesus established His Church." The Church does really measure people with respect to importance. If she were to judge the greatness measured by holiness, love, and conformity to Christ, then the picking order might be something like Mary, St. Joseph, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and those saints already in heaven.

Oldbear83 said:

---

2. Christ's Church is present everywhere there are believers, and no one place of worship is greater than the others on Earth. Obsessing on Rome as if that place was holy, verges on idolatry.

---

The Church, nor I, claim that the Vatican (Not Rome or anywhere else) is a "place of worship is greater than the others on Earth."

The Catholic Churchdoes focus on Jesus. Mass is said 364 days year. (Good Friday is a communion service with some other varying traditions.) The Mass is 100% Christ-focused. The actual name for the Mass is The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Each mass is a representation of once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary. If you are ever in Waco, I'd be happy to attend a daily mass with you and explain what is happening. Daily masses are typically 30-ish minutes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

3. You are not simply discussing matters of doctrine or Scripture; you are acting like you are the professor who gets to grade whether the students get the answers right. You - putting it bluntly - do not have that status. We are equals here, and a productive discussion means treating others as equals, not subordinates you get to judge.

To put it in context, my father attended Crescent Hill Baptist Church in Louisville, and South Main Baptist Church in Houston. Can you say who was the first Pastor at each of those churches?

Why was that person chosen?

---

I apologize if you feel that I am acting like a professor. The claim on this site that Peter was (generalizing here) Peter was not the first Pope/Bishop of Rome/leader of the early Christian community/leader of the apostles. You presented your evidence. I presented mine.

We both agree that the office of the Pope/Bishop of Rome exists. Based on our claims, I wanted to know when you believed that that office was established and by whom. The only reason that I requested your rationale was so that I could understand what you considered as being the first leader.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I would expect you to say that the answers to those questions are irrelevant to the matter of Salvation and our faith journey with our Lord Jesus Christ. The truth is, the same can be said about Rome.

---

If Jesus TRULY established the Catholic Church as His Church, then it certainly does matter. I only want to belong to the Church that Christ established so that I can do His will.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Rome was the center of evil against the early Church, and that the Church took root there matters because it demonstrates Christ's victory over Evil, and obsessing on one human over another is going the wrong way.

---

I agree that the Emperors in Rome treated Christians poorly until the Edict of Milan; however, I disagree with contention that the early Church "took root there matters because it demonstrates Christ's victory over Evil."

The Church took root in Rome because it was viewed as the supreme power in the Mediterranean. The Roman Empire was a super power. During the Pax Romana, it was a golden age of peace and prosperity and rapid expansion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I respect keeping records of who did things, but everything deserves its place, not primacy, and one great sin of the Roman leaders, was demanding power over the whole Church out of Pride, Greed and Jealousy.

---

I really don't understand what you are trying to imply without citing a specific. It seems like you may be reading some biases/traumas into this statement.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jesus very plainly set up a team of leaders, teaching and training anyone who believed. Not only the disciples, but others who were sent out to evangelize. Paul is important in that respect not because he was greater than other apostles, but because Christ proved His Sovereignty even over those who had opposed Him.

I have pointed out before, that one reason Rome could not crush the early Church, was precisely because Christ decentralized authority in the Church. No one person was the Church, so no arrest or execution could wipe out the Church.

That speaks against Popes.

---

I disagree. Peter was killed BECAUSE he was an outspoke leader of the Church. Linus took over and Cletus followed him. This is apostolic succession. Many leaders were martyred: Paul, Ignatius (Bishop) of Antioch, Polycarp Bishop of Symrna, etc.

Yes, Jesus set up a team of leaders, but that team was to be led by Peter when Jesus was gone. You and I disagree with this.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I respect those Popes who lead their congregation, walk humbly before God, and do not presume to disrespect or bully the rest of the Church. Just the same as any minister, preacher or servant of God.

Our focus must be on the Lord, not titles and human arrogance.

---

Have some Popes abused their "power?" Absolutely. We've had about 10-12 terrible men serve as pope. Fortunately, the vast majority of the 267 men that have held the office understand the their role is an office of SERVICE, not superiority.

We are back to disagreeing. The difference, of course, is that you depend on the traditions of Rome while my argument depends on Scripture, especially Christ's teachings.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) You disagree with it, but you can't biblically or logically support your position. I've repeatedly challenged your view with questions, such as how can water baptism be what saves you, when your own literal interpretation of John 6 clearly says otherwise? And you guys have repeatedly balked on the questions.

---

I can absolutely refute your claim, but this topic is "solely" (pardon the pun) concerned with your version of sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) If Scripture is God-breathed, and only God's word is infallible, then it follows that only God's breathed word (Scripture) is the only infallible authority for the church. If you are arguing that Tradition is also God-breathed, and not just derived by fallible man, then it's up to you to prove that. We have the proof that the Old Testament is infallible (because Jesus himself affirmed it) and that the word of the apostles is also infallible (because Jesus affirmed it). On the other hand, your Tradition has been proven false. Therefore, the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the infallible word of God is in Scripture.

---

The exact quote that Jesus says in Luke 24:44 is

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
It is a STRETCH to says that Jesus is affirming the scriptures here.

• He is only saying that everything written in them must be fulfilled in him.
• He doesn't say the "Writings," he only says the Psalms.
• This negates your "affirmation" ideas.

Jesus never affirmed Mark, not Hebrews.

Tradition has never been "proven false."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument that scripture wasn't written for decades is irrelevant for us today, because today we have written Scripture. During the time that it wasn't written yet, people had the direct verbal testimony of the apostles, which was infallible by Jesus' affirmation. The apostles are all gone now. We only have their written testimonies, which is ONLY CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURE and nowhere else. Sola scriptura is a principle for US TODAY, not during the time when the apostles were alive and there wasn't written scripture yet.

---

Did these stories exist in the ether? No, they were passed on with tradition for decades for the NT and centuries for the OT until they were written down.

Scripture itself demands tradition. We have many passages like 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim 1:13, and 1 Cor 11:2. And of course, John (21:25) tells us that there are many things that Jesus did the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.

The fact that the NT canon of scripture was discerned, debated, and defined by the Church demonstrates that Sacred (infallible) tradition was needed to establish the canon.

We can discuss these points in a different post with other questions that I have. My main focus of question is the third point below. I really want to flesh out your point here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) This is NOT "Relativism". Relativism is the belief that there is no ultimate standard of truth, that truth depends on a person's subjective experience and values. Having differences in interpretation of Scripture is NOT saying that there isn't an absolute standard of truth - both sides believe that there IS a standard, and its God's word. You are applying the concept of "relativism" incorrectly.

---

It is a subset of Relativism, but I'll yield to move the conversation. Irrespective of what you call it; it is still a contradiction.

How can BOTH truths be correct? What is the point of sola scriptura if it can't lead to TRUTH?

To me, your version of sola scriptura is worthless if it can't guide us to a truth. Help me understand your point better, please.

Oldbear83 said:

---

We are back to disagreeing. The difference, of course, is that you depend on the traditions of Rome while my argument depends on Scripture, especially Christ's teachings.

---

I don't believe that is a fair statement. I have provided scriptural texts and contexts for the Church's viewpoint. You don't accept them. To say that I rely only on " traditions of Rome" in not true.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) You disagree with it, but you can't biblically or logically support your position. I've repeatedly challenged your view with questions, such as how can water baptism be what saves you, when your own literal interpretation of John 6 clearly says otherwise? And you guys have repeatedly balked on the questions.

---

I can absolutely refute your claim, but this topic is "solely" (pardon the pun) concerned with your version of sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) If Scripture is God-breathed, and only God's word is infallible, then it follows that only God's breathed word (Scripture) is the only infallible authority for the church. If you are arguing that Tradition is also God-breathed, and not just derived by fallible man, then it's up to you to prove that. We have the proof that the Old Testament is infallible (because Jesus himself affirmed it) and that the word of the apostles is also infallible (because Jesus affirmed it). On the other hand, your Tradition has been proven false. Therefore, the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the infallible word of God is in Scripture.

---

The exact quote that Jesus says in Luke 24:44 is

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
It is a STRETCH to says that Jesus is affirming the scriptures here.

• He is only saying that everything written in them must be fulfilled in him.
• He doesn't say the "Writings," he only says the Psalms.
• This negates your "affirmation" ideas.

Jesus never affirmed Mark, not Hebrews.

Tradition has never been "proven false."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument that scripture wasn't written for decades is irrelevant for us today, because today we have written Scripture. During the time that it wasn't written yet, people had the direct verbal testimony of the apostles, which was infallible by Jesus' affirmation. The apostles are all gone now. We only have their written testimonies, which is ONLY CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURE and nowhere else. Sola scriptura is a principle for US TODAY, not during the time when the apostles were alive and there wasn't written scripture yet.

---

Did these stories exist in the ether? No, they were passed on with tradition for decades for the NT and centuries for the OT until they were written down.

Scripture itself demands tradition. We have many passages like 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim 1:13, and 1 Cor 11:2. And of course, John (21:25) tells us that there are many things that Jesus did the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.

The fact that the NT canon of scripture was discerned, debated, and defined by the Church demonstrates that Sacred (infallible) tradition was needed to establish the canon.

We can discuss these points in a different post with other questions that I have. My main focus of question is the third point below. I really want to flesh out your point here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) This is NOT "Relativism". Relativism is the belief that there is no ultimate standard of truth, that truth depends on a person's subjective experience and values. Having differences in interpretation of Scripture is NOT saying that there isn't an absolute standard of truth - both sides believe that there IS a standard, and its God's word. You are applying the concept of "relativism" incorrectly.

---

It is a subset of Relativism, but I'll yield to move the conversation. Irrespective of what you call it; it is still a contradiction.

How can BOTH truths be correct? What is the point of sola scriptura if it can't lead to TRUTH?

To me, your version of sola scriptura is worthless if it can't guide us to a truth. Help me understand your point better, please.

---

1) If you can refute my claim, then why do you keep avoiding my questions? Go ahead, let's hear your answer to my question about water baptism vs. the Eucharist for salvation.

2) If you can't understand that Jesus saying that "everything must be fulfilled" in the Scripture is AFFIRMING the infallible truth of those Scriptures and that they are from God himself, then I can't help you there. This is another example of an intellectual impasse that hampers having worthwhile discussions with you. Frankly, it's quite puzzling, how you can't make the connection.

3) Jesus affirmed the word of his apostles. Mark and Hebrews were written by those who were either apostles or who knew their teaching.

4) Tradition has been proven false many times on this thread, for example with regard to icon veneration. You're just not either intelligent or honest enough to realize it. Again, which makes for unworthwhile discussions.

5) You're trying your best, but you're just not able to argue around this incontrovertible fact: today, all we have that came from the apostles is in Scripture and nowhere else. The councils did not have the "authority" to decide which books were authentic - that was an inherent trait of the works themselves, not something that was decreed by a council of men.

6) It's not a subset of Relativism. It doesn't meet the primary requirement to be relativism, e.g. there needs to be a rejection of an absolute standard of truth.

Regardless, the truth of sola scriptura does not depend on whether it can lead to agreed upon truth, but only that the only source of infallible truth comes from Scripture because it's God-breathed. Even the interpretation of your "Tradition" isn't even agreed upon (and it never was throughout the history of the councils), so ironically, what you're arguing about sola scriptura can be used to argue against Tradition as well.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

---

The enemy sows seeds of his own. His seeds need to be broken so as not to choke out the seeds of grace.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) You disagree with it, but you can't biblically or logically support your position. I've repeatedly challenged your view with questions, such as how can water baptism be what saves you, when your own literal interpretation of John 6 clearly says otherwise? And you guys have repeatedly balked on the questions.

---

I can absolutely refute your claim, but this topic is "solely" (pardon the pun) concerned with your version of sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) If Scripture is God-breathed, and only God's word is infallible, then it follows that only God's breathed word (Scripture) is the only infallible authority for the church. If you are arguing that Tradition is also God-breathed, and not just derived by fallible man, then it's up to you to prove that. We have the proof that the Old Testament is infallible (because Jesus himself affirmed it) and that the word of the apostles is also infallible (because Jesus affirmed it). On the other hand, your Tradition has been proven false. Therefore, the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the infallible word of God is in Scripture.

---

The exact quote that Jesus says in Luke 24:44 is

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
It is a STRETCH to says that Jesus is affirming the scriptures here.

• He doesn't say the "Writings," he only says the Psalms.

---

I wanted to separate out this point of yours to highlight it.

First of all, Jesus is affirming the 3-fold division of the Hebrew Tanakh. The "Psalms" refers to the Ketuvim, which includes the other writings.

What's interesting, is this: if you don't accept that Jesus affirmed the other Writings besides Psalms, then aren't you arguing against YOUR OWN Catholic Bible which accepts these as canon? On what basis does your church accept them, then?

**Here's a question for you**: how did the Jews during the time before Jesus know which books were the words of God, and thus were Scripture? In other words, how did the Jewish people know that the book of Isaiah was the word of God?

** Second question**: who interpreted Isaiah 53 for the Jewish people, and did they interpret this as talking about Jesus?

Answer, please.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We are back to disagreeing. The difference, of course, is that you depend on the traditions of Rome while my argument depends on Scripture, especially Christ's teachings.

---

I don't believe that is a fair statement. I have provided scriptural texts and contexts for the Church's viewpoint. You don't accept them. To say that I rely only on " traditions of Rome" in not true.

---

I believe it's a completely fair statement.

The 'context' you provide is just your opinion, not actual text in Scripture. And you have cut out at least one major Scripture which strongly refutes your claim.


So yes, you depend completely on your tradition. You should at least admit that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

---

The enemy sows seeds of his own. His seeds need to be broken so as not to choke out the seeds of grace.

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

---

The enemy sows seeds of his own. His seeds need to be broken so as not to choke out the seeds of grace.

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

---

Well said.

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

---

The enemy sows seeds of his own. His seeds need to be broken so as not to choke out the seeds of grace.

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

---

And then there are times when you have to shakedown the Temple like Jesus, call out the "brood of vipers", say "O foolish Galatians!" like the apostle Paul, and say to the enemies of Jesus' gospel:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." - Jesus Christ, in Matthew 23:15.

The Roman Catholic church did exactly that ^^.

Anyone who knows my posting history knows that I always treat people with gentleness and respect - UNTIL you demonstrate that you're intellectually dishonest, you argue in bad faith, you play games, or you're just a flat out liar and you bear false witness about me. Then, you don't deserve respect and you deserve criticism.

If you read the verse you referenced closely, it's talking about when you're asked about why you believe what you do. But I'm not doing that. I'm contending against false and evil teaching.

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

---

The enemy sows seeds of his own. His seeds need to be broken so as not to choke out the seeds of grace.

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

---

Well said.

---

Right

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) You disagree with it, but you can't biblically or logically support your position. I've repeatedly challenged your view with questions, such as how can water baptism be what saves you, when your own literal interpretation of John 6 clearly says otherwise? And you guys have repeatedly balked on the questions.

---

I can absolutely refute your claim, but this topic is "solely" (pardon the pun) concerned with your version of sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) If Scripture is God-breathed, and only God's word is infallible, then it follows that only God's breathed word (Scripture) is the only infallible authority for the church. If you are arguing that Tradition is also God-breathed, and not just derived by fallible man, then it's up to you to prove that. We have the proof that the Old Testament is infallible (because Jesus himself affirmed it) and that the word of the apostles is also infallible (because Jesus affirmed it). On the other hand, your Tradition has been proven false. Therefore, the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the infallible word of God is in Scripture.

---

The exact quote that Jesus says in Luke 24:44 is

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
It is a STRETCH to says that Jesus is affirming the scriptures here.

• He doesn't say the "Writings," he only says the Psalms.

---

I wanted to separate out this point of yours to highlight it.

First of all, Jesus is affirming the 3-fold division of the Hebrew Tanakh. The "Psalms" refers to the Ketuvim, which includes the other writings.

What's interesting, is this: if you don't accept that Jesus affirmed the other Writings besides Psalms, then aren't you arguing against YOUR OWN Catholic Bible which accepts these as canon? On what basis does your church accept them, then?

**Here's a question for you**: how did the Jews during the time before Jesus know which books were the words of God, and thus were Scripture? In other words, how did the Jewish people know that the book of Isaiah was the word of God?

** Second question**: who interpreted Isaiah 53 for the Jewish people, and did they interpret this as talking about Jesus?

Answer, please.

---

Anyone who opposes sola scriptura is free to answer this as well. Any takers?

Guys, plainly wrong and stupid argumentation and intellectual dishonesty, especiallly if done in a repeating pattern, is going to get called out. Respectfully, if you're respectful. But if done with snark and/or arrogance, then you're gonna get humbled.

4th and Inches said:

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

---

I'd recommend against using the ESV.

(1) "In fact, the ESV translators did not even translate most of the ESV, and hence did not even need to develop a robust translation philosophy for their translation, as the ESV is based on the RSV (Crossway apparently bought the copyright). The ESV "translators" have simply "corrected" or made the RSV to conform to their particular translational or theological agenda (is it legitimate to call a translation one's own if over 90% of it was done by someone else, simply by buying the copyright? What if an author bought the copyright of a book by another author, changed less than 10% of it and then put his or her own name on it as author?"

(2) We Need Stable English Bibles (Why I No Longer Use the ESV)

"As it stands right now, the ESV is subject to the whims of a publishing company (Crossway's Board of Directors) and their translation committee. That is not sufficient accountability. The danger is that churches commit to the ESV (as many have), and then a small group of people can change the text in minor or major ways, with churches either not knowing changes were made or knowing but having already committed to the version. Instead of committing to an ever-changing English Bible text, we should commit to stable, permanent texts (such as the KJV, NKJV, or NASB 1995)."

This permanent revision model is not a good way to handle what is supposed to be the Word of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

---

The enemy sows seeds of his own. His seeds need to be broken so as not to choke out the seeds of grace.

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

---

And then there are times when you have to shakedown the Temple like Jesus, call out the "brood of vipers", say "O foolish Galatians!" like the apostle Paul, and say to the enemies of Jesus' gospel:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." - Jesus Christ, in Matthew 23:15.

The Roman Catholic church did exactly that ^^.

Anyone who knows my posting history knows that I always treat people with gentleness and respect - UNTIL you demonstrate that you're intellectually dishonest, you argue in bad faith, you play games, or you're just a flat out liar and you bear false witness about me. Then, you don't deserve respect and you deserve criticism.

If you read the verse you referenced closely, it's talking about when you're asked about why you believe what you do. But I'm not doing that. I'm contending against false and evil teaching.

---

you are not coming against the teacher but the taught

In your eyes, you are chasing the one.. "If you love me, feed my sheep"(paraphrased)

Once, a person was asked: "What have you gained by regularly praying to God?"
He replied: "I can say that I've lost - anger, selfishness, greed, depression, insecurity, and the fear of death."

Very often, when we pray, we don't gain anything, but we lose... And this is the greatest gain.

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

---

I'd recommend against using the ESV.

(1) "In fact, the ESV translators did not even translate most of the ESV, and hence did not even need to develop a robust translation philosophy for their translation, as the ESV is based on the RSV (Crossway apparently bought the copyright). The ESV "translators" have simply "corrected" or made the RSV to conform to their particular translational or theological agenda (is it legitimate to call a translation one's own if over 90% of it was done by someone else, simply by buying the copyright? What if an author bought the copyright of a book by another author, changed less than 10% of it and then put his or her own name on it as author?"

(2) We Need Stable English Bibles (Why I No Longer Use the ESV)

"As it stands right now, the ESV is subject to the whims of a publishing company (Crossway's Board of Directors) and their translation committee. That is not sufficient accountability. The danger is that churches commit to the ESV (as many have), and then a small group of people can change the text in minor or major ways, with churches either not knowing changes were made or knowing but having already committed to the version. Instead of committing to an ever-changing English Bible text, we should commit to stable, permanent texts (such as the KJV, NKJV, or NASB 1995)."

This permanent revision model is not a good way to handle what is supposed to be the Word of God.

---

One should study all the various translations, and how and why they differ. Online bibles are great for this.

The ESV makes good faith decisions why it translates the way it does. It doesn't do it on a "whim". Besides - what does the ESV say that you think is an improper distortion of God's word? In what way does it change or distort Biblical truths? Can you give specific examples?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

You have just made up what YOU think "preeminent position" means.

You are trying to make it fit your point of view. This seems to happen a great deal in your post. Words, phrases, and clauses get morphed into your viewpoint and you declare them as authoritative.


Preeminent Position -
Google AI - holding the highest, most authoritative, or most distinguished standing within a field, group, or, domain.
Cambridge - more important or better than others
Merriam-Webster something more important, skillful, or successful than their counterparts or peers.
Dictionary.com - eminent above or before others; superior; surpassing.
Oxford - the quality of being more important, more successful or of a higher standard than others
Collins - If someone or something is preeminent in a group, they are more important, powerful, or capable than other people or things in the group.

You speak of intellectual shortcomings - well, I may not be the smartest guy on this site, but I won't make up or lie about something because it doesn't fit my theology.

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

---

I'd recommend against using the ESV.

(1) "In fact, the ESV translators did not even translate most of the ESV, and hence did not even need to develop a robust translation philosophy for their translation, as the ESV is based on the RSV (Crossway apparently bought the copyright). The ESV "translators" have simply "corrected" or made the RSV to conform to their particular translational or theological agenda (is it legitimate to call a translation one's own if over 90% of it was done by someone else, simply by buying the copyright? What if an author bought the copyright of a book by another author, changed less than 10% of it and then put his or her own name on it as author?"

(2) We Need Stable English Bibles (Why I No Longer Use the ESV)

"As it stands right now, the ESV is subject to the whims of a publishing company (Crossway's Board of Directors) and their translation committee. That is not sufficient accountability. The danger is that churches commit to the ESV (as many have), and then a small group of people can change the text in minor or major ways, with churches either not knowing changes were made or knowing but having already committed to the version. Instead of committing to an ever-changing English Bible text, we should commit to stable, permanent texts (such as the KJV, NKJV, or NASB 1995)."

This permanent revision model is not a good way to handle what is supposed to be the Word of God.

---

ESV is more of a come to Jesus Bible, whereas one like the LSB is a deep in the word Bible

Cross referencing multiple translations is always a benefit to deeper understanding

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

---

The enemy sows seeds of his own. His seeds need to be broken so as not to choke out the seeds of grace.

---

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) encourages believers to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Peace to all who are part of the conversation.

---

And then there are times when you have to shakedown the Temple like Jesus, call out the "brood of vipers", say "O foolish Galatians!" like the apostle Paul, and say to the enemies of Jesus' gospel:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." - Jesus Christ, in Matthew 23:15.

The Roman Catholic church did exactly that ^^.

Anyone who knows my posting history knows that I always treat people with gentleness and respect - UNTIL you demonstrate that you're intellectually dishonest, you argue in bad faith, you play games, or you're just a flat out liar and you bear false witness about me. Then, you don't deserve respect and you deserve criticism.

If you read the verse you referenced closely, it's talking about when you're asked about why you believe what you do. But I'm not doing that. I'm contending against false and evil teaching.

---

you are not coming against the teacher but the taught

In your eyes, you are chasing the one.. "If you love me, feed my sheep"(paraphrased)

---

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I'm holding both teacher/taught accountable.

Your lecturing is noted. I'm going to continue debating the merits, or lack thereof, of certain beliefs here, and do it with the intellectual rigor it deserves. This means that bad, sloppy, or outright false arguments, as well as intellectual dishonesty, are going to be called out. First or second time, I'm gonna be gracious. However, if you do this repeatedly, especially with pride and arrogance, I'm gonna choose to start being blunt. Not to attack you, but just to tell you as it is, because you need to hear it to be humbled. My advice to people is before you think you can argue against EVERY SINGLE sentence that I utter, and write huge, long posts in response, that you actually know what you're talking about so you don't waste people's time and forum space. I'm not asking people to be bible scholars and intellectuals, but just to be intellectually honest and actually THINK instead of regurgitate arguments using concepts that you don't even understand and can't apply correctly.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We are back to disagreeing. The difference, of course, is that you depend on the traditions of Rome while my argument depends on Scripture, especially Christ's teachings.

---

I don't believe that is a fair statement. I have provided scriptural texts and contexts for the Church's viewpoint. You don't accept them. To say that I rely only on " traditions of Rome" in not true.

---

I believe it's a completely fair statement.

The 'context' you provide is just your opinion, not actual text in Scripture. And you have cut out at least one major Scripture which strongly refutes your claim.


So yes, you depend completely on your tradition. You should at least admit that.

---

Are you hellbent on having the LAST word? Fine, this is my last response to you on this specific topic. Reply all you want after this.

I presented text like Matt 16:18-19, which explicitly states that Jesus will build His Church on PETER. You, and other protestants added/assumed the word "faith" into this. That is YOUR opinion. Please let me know when you find the word "faith" in that passage.

I also presented Luke 22:31-32 - when Jesus tells the apostles that Satan wants to sift ALL of them like wheat, but Jesus only prays for PETER and tells him to strengthen his brothers.

In John 21:15-17, Jesus tells PETER alone to feed his sheep, tend his sheep, and feed his lambs.

You presented ONE passage where Jesus calls Peter Satan. So what? Does Jesus really mean that Peter was Satan? NO, of course not. Peter was being used as a vessel of temptation. This mirrors the very temptation in the desert.

In all of Peter's failings, Jesus still loved him and always brought him back into the fold. If Peter was really Satan, why does Luke spend the first have of Acts speaking about Peter? Why do we have 2 books in the bible written by Peter?

Finally, I don't know what "traditions of Rome" are/is? I am looking at history. Irenaeus writing in AD 180 lists Peter as the first pope. That's not tradition. That's history. This is why I asked you when you believed that the papacy was first instituted, but you dodged the question. You don't want to go down that historical rabbit hole to discover the truth I that have been stating. It is an historical FACT that protestantism started in the 1500's. It's an historical fact that Catholicism started in AD 33.

So, forgive me when I get offended when you claim that I "depend completely on your tradition."

That is completely UNTRUE. I presented my case BIBLICALLY. You don't accept my interpretations. I don't accept yours.

Again, please, have the last word. I don't care. I'm done discussing this topic with you.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

You have just made up what YOU think "preeminent position" means.

You are trying to make it fit your point of view. This seems to happen a great deal in your post. Words, phrases, and clauses get morphed into your viewpoint and you declare them as authoritative.


Preeminent Position -
Google AI - holding the highest, most authoritative, or most distinguished standing within a field, group, or, domain.
Cambridge - more important or better than others
Merriam-Webster something more important, skillful, or successful than their counterparts or peers.
Dictionary.com - eminent above or before others; superior; surpassing.
Oxford - the quality of being more important, more successful or of a higher standard than others
Collins - If someone or something is preeminent in a group, they are more important, powerful, or capable than other people or things in the group.

You speak of intellectual shortcomings - well, I may not be the smartest guy on this site, but I won't make up or lie about something because it doesn't fit my theology.

---

I'm not "making up" anything. You were asserting that there was no difference between "preeminent in importance and consequentiality" and "preeminence in rank or authority". There clearly is, and it's just not worth arguing with you if you can't understand this.

If you don't want to be criticized for intellectual shortcomings, then please try not to repeatedly argue using concepts you don't even understand and can't apply correctly, and repeatedly failing to understand simple reasoning like you did above.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) If you can refute my claim, then why do you keep avoiding my questions? Go ahead, let's hear your answer to my question about water baptism vs. the Eucharist for salvation.

---

Once again, that is not the purpose of this specific post. This one is to discover what you consider as sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) If you can't understand that Jesus saying that "everything must be fulfilled" in the Scripture is AFFIRMING the infallible truth of those Scriptures and that they are from God himself, then I can't help you there. This is another example of an intellectual impasse that hampers having worthwhile discussions with you. Frankly, it's quite puzzling, how you can't make the connection.

---

It is NOT saying that those are the ONLY scriptures that are infallible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) Jesus affirmed the word of his apostles. Mark and Hebrews were written by those who were either apostles or who knew their teaching.

---

Where does the bible teach that? This is a tradition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4) Tradition has been proven false many times on this thread, for example with regard to icon veneration. You're just not either intelligent or honest enough to realize it. Again, which makes for unworthwhile discussions.

---

Proven by whom, you? What is your authority? You completely misunderstand or misconstrue what icon veneration is. This is not the nature of this post. The tradition that I speak of is the Apostolic tradition that is the living deposit of faith that is handed on by Christ to the Apostles, transmitted through the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The apostles passed on tradition long before there was a bible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

5) You're trying your best, but you're just not able to argue around this incontrovertible fact: today, all we have that came from the apostles is in Scripture and nowhere else. The councils did not have the "authority" to decide which books were authentic - that was an inherent trait of the works themselves, not something that was decreed by a council of men.

---

Another circular argument from you. No where does scripture say that Mark and Hebrews are scripture. The Church could have included Clement I, who is IN the bible and knew the apostles. It could have used the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), written by those that knew the apostles. The Church discerned what is scripture. Not the scripture itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

6) It's not a subset of Relativism. It doesn't meet the primary requirement to be relativism, e.g. there needs to be a rejection of an absolute standard of truth.

Regardless, the truth of sola scriptura does not depend on whether it can lead to agreed upon truth, but only that the only source of infallible truth comes from Scripture because it's God-breathed. Even the interpretation of your "Tradition" isn't even agreed upon (and it never was throughout the history of the councils), so ironically, what you're arguing about sola scriptura can be used to argue against Tradition as well.

---

I don't understand. I agree that the Bible is an infallible truth, but I don't understand how it's the ONLY infallible truth. Where does the Bible claim that it is the ONLY infallible source?

You and I can read the same passages and derive completely different beliefs from them. How do we determine what is true? If we can't determine what it true, then it is worthless because anyone can make up what they want using bible passages. Is this exactly what happened when those who defended slavery in England and the States prior to the Civil war?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not "making up" anything. You were asserting that there was no difference between "preeminent in importance and consequentiality" and "preeminence in rank or authority". There clearly is, and it's just not worth arguing with you if you can't understand this.

If you don't want to be criticized for intellectual shortcomings, then please try not to repeatedly argue using concepts you don't even understand and can't apply correctly, and repeatedly failing to understand simple reasoning like you did above.

---

I may have intellectual shortcomings, but your post introduced the word "consequentiality" into a post that wasn't addressed to you CLAIMING that the quote from protestants scholars meant something different.

Your post CHANGED the WORD to fit your meaning.

The exact quote was "preeminent position of Peter among the disciples".

It means, "holding the highest rank, status, or importance above all others in a particular field, profession, or context."

Protestant John MacAuthur says that the Greek (in Matt 10:2), "Protos, doesn't refer to the first in a list. It speaks of the chief, the leader of the group."

I'm glad that you feel that this isn't worth arguing about.