Regulative principle) “The theory of church government and worship that stipulates that not only church doctrine but also church practice must be based on clear scripture warrant. That is we must have a clear Biblical command or precedent, expressed or implied, for all we introduce into the work and worship of the church. It is the position laid down in the Westminster Confession of Faith and is the opposite of the normative principle espoused by Lutherans and Anglicans.” Alan Cairns Dictionary of Theology
Authority of the scriptures
Psa 33:4-19 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works. There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. A horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength. Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy; To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.
Many of us who read the Word of God don’t understand just who is talking to us. The authority of the Word of God created the universe we live in six days. Yet we think it is not authoritative over man!
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Liberal Protestants and Catholics who deny the fact of God’s creation have started their gospels blaspheming God and specifically Jesus Christ.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The way we view the authority of the Word of God is going to reflect on the way we understand God and Christ. If we truly believe in God we will understand his omniscience and omnipresence. Once we have truly understood the sovereignty of God we respect his deity and reject the religious sovereignty of man.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
The word of God is pure
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.
Regulative instruction
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
The proponents of Catholicism and the normative principle interpret this in a very ignorant way. They simply spout off that that if this passage were to be taken literally we could have no more books than the torah. However, the text is not concerned with whether there would be any more revelation or not. We simply look at the clause “word which I command you” and also “that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD” it is obvious this was a prescribed hermeneutic. Since the words of God are pure we must give all of the message authority and not simply shrink back from difficult laws or passages. We should not reinterpret the revelation brought to us from Jehovah but instead receive them.
Make it plain.
Hab 2:2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.
It is the contention of all God mimicking false religion that the Word of the Lord is not understandable. That God has went about the effort of preserving Bible and the faith of billions throughout the millennia but only to give us a mysterious code which most Christians will be incapable to understand.
Cain and abel
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Aaron’s Sons
Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Saul’s disobedience of the regulative principle
1Sa 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
1Sa 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
The phrase “repenteth me” basically means that God is going to change his relationship with Saul. Since Saul has not followed Jehovah’s commandments.
1Sa 15:12 And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal.
1Sa 15:13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.
And here we see Saul greeting Samuel with the claim that he has indeed been obedient to Jehovah. This is interesting because it appears Saul may really believe he has done this; since he has made the claim before even asked on the subject.
1Sa 15:14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
1Sa 15:15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.
So here we see Saul reinterpreting a commandment. He has decided that he may take away from the commandment of God; since has decided not to destroy everything of the Amalekites. Then he has decided to add to the commandment of God by instituting a sacrifice of the meats from there cattle. Both of these are a contradiction to the regulative principle.
1Sa 15:16 Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
1Sa 15:17 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel?
1Sa 15:18 And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
1Sa 15:19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?
1Sa 15:20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
1Sa 15:21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.
Here Samuel starts his case with reminding Saul of his humble beginning. This reminds us of how small human authority is. There is also the possible indictment that Paul was not simply motivated by God but by greed since he kept their treasures. Saul believed he obeyed in a “normative” sense. He did not contradict the commandment outright he simply made a few adjustments to it. Then he argues that this was made up for anyway because he had the people sacrifice unto God.
1Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
This is a key point toward true and Godly Christian faith. Man’s worship is nothing if it is brought with the hypocrisy of disobedience. Worship is a statement of faith. Yet obedience is proof of faith. The fact of disobedience disproves the statement of faith in worship.
1Sa 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
1Sa 15:25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.
1Sa 15:26 And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.
1Sa 15:27 And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.
1Sa 15:28 And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
The indictment sticks. Saul tries to persuade Samuel to forgive his sin. He does not however petition the Lord as David later would and as a result; we see the “straight talk” of Samuel. The Lord is not like a man who can be manipulated. The Lord is unchanging and His word is unchanging. Therefore obedience to God must be complete, where we neither add nor subtract from his holy commands.
The Wisdom of the Regulative principle
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Here we have a very obvious admonition in the book of proverbs not to add to God’s word. Here we will here the echoes of mindless pigs snorting “if that’s true then we should stop the Bible at proverbs!” The only question is, if we are not supposed to add to God’s word then what does this passage mean???
The uniform lordship of the law
Deu 11:8 Therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that ye may be strong, and go in and possess the land, whither ye go to possess it;
Who are we to declare the word of God null and void? If God’s Word tell us that a command does not apply, then that is one thing. But when we think that man has the authority to change the Word of God we are quite frankly degenerate idiots. We are like toddlers who are screaming at mommy and Daddy “NO!!!!”, when in fact we have no authority. The problem when a toddler traditionally does this they are asking for a spanking. This is what the religious world is in for. We have played the whore and have ruined the family name of God. So now we are in for a spanking.
The temptations of Christ
Of the necessity of Scripture
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Jesus proclaims that the authority of the word of God is so essential that one may live by it even with out bread. Yet many sacramental churches practice the giving of bread with out the complete word of God.
Of manipulating God’s authority
Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
To save his life and reveal himself to be who he is Jesus would isolate and abuse one verse from the word of God.
… of other authorities
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Mat 4:11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
Jesus would not bow to any other authority than God even if it lost him the adulation of the world. Yet today preachers will revere pagan doctrine for just an ounce of popularity.
Jesus on the Pharisees and traditions of men
Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Jesus is specific here in making a distinction between God’s Word and it’s authority against man’s word and it’s authority. Those who claim the power of human tradition are assaulting the Sovereign Lord. This type of worship of God is empty and worthless. It is truly pitiful to see these dead churches waste so much energy.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
When the religious authorities degrade the authority of the word of God they are able to magnify themselves to God-like status. When ever we approach a minister of God and they give us a sense of superiority or celebrity. They also have the hypocritical tendency to have higher standards for the disciples than for themselves.
No other foundation
1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
When we claim Christianity and try to produce our own works and traditions and impose them upon His church we are building the house of God with wood hey and stubble. These are useless hindrances to ministry and they will be burned up in the Day of the Lord.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
Jesus wants build our lives upon him and his teachings. Man made teachings will not last. Remember that, manmade teachings will not last.
Authority for the church
2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
If Peter was the 1st Pope, then it would be wise for Catholics to adhere to his teachings. Specifically, to follow the teachings of the OT prophets and the NT apostles. We may have no record of the invention of apostolic succession. Yet we have clear testimony of the authority of the scriptures.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
One thing that many forget is the past tense nature of this record. By “gave” we see that the ministers put in place were able to accomplish the perfecting of the saints without the future offices of new popes, prophets, cardinals, Apostles, priests and so on. God had equipped the saints of the NT.
Prohibitions on will worship
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Without the authority of scripture we are simply using our imaginations as it concerns the spiritual realm. Religion becomes manmade. Yet man has no qualifications for true religion and spirituality.
Prohibitions on legends
Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Fables 3454 muthos {moo'-thos}
perhaps from the same as 3453 (through the idea of tuition); TDNT - 4:762,610; n m
AV - fable 5; 5
1) a speech, word, saying 2) a narrative, story 2a) a true narrative 2b) a fiction, a fable 2b1) an invention, a falsehood
Here we see that the idea of following fables is ludicrous to Paul. This contradicts the liberal attitude about the Bible. If legends are prohibited then Scripture can not be legend.
Prohibitions on philosophy
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Here we see again that neither traditions nor philosophy may be added to the Word of God. Yet in the Catholic Church, the priests were trained in pagan philosophy as soon as they controlled the Roman Empire. In the case of the Alexandrine churches the pagan philosophy was instituted almost initially. The New Testament church is based solely on the scriptures. Not to say that NT are impervious to error. But their foundation is in the divine.
Revelations curses
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So here we see the regulative principle in action for the book of revelation. Now the apologist for liberal and Catholics argue this principle is only commanded of this individual book. Yet these same characters treat all the scriptures including revelation without applying those same principles. The liberals and Catholics deny the tribulation. The liberals deny the final judgement. The Catholics want to add millions of years of purgatory. The Mormons want add two other heavens deny hell and make Joseph Smith a judge in a panel with Christ and Elohim. The Muslims want to add 70 virgins, deny the Deity of Christ, change the name of God to Allah, and claim that Muslims will take the world over by force. The Jehovah’s witness want to only admit 144,000 who will no longer be Jewish, deny the reality of hell and have the power to claim the date of Christ return even though they have failed a dozen times.
If we want a true relationship with God then we must listen to him and be careful that he is not misrepresented. Ultimately we must ask our selves as we worship the only wise Jehovah. Is it about him or us? Who gets the glory?
We must remember the great request of our Lord’s recommended prayer. (The same one omitted by liberals and Catholics.)
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
In Christ,
Matt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
117 comments:
I don't believe it! He was actually stupid enough to try it.
I am going to thouroghly enjoy destroying this point by point.
LOL
Can you just appreciate the irony?
He starts off with a brash statement that "not only church doctrine but also church practice must be based on clear scripture warrant. That is we must have a clear Biblical command or precedent, expressed or implied, for all we introduce into the work and worship of the church." Yet, through an exhaustive exposition of Scripture, he is wholly unable to produce a clear (or even murky) Scripture warrant for Sola Scriptura.
In esscence, I really didn't have to refute Matt's arguments as much as I merely had to demonstrate how he refuted them himself .
Now you see why we must have a Church. A Bible in the hands of someone like Matt is dangerous. He will only suceed in dragging himself, an countless others, into hell, with his crazed interpretations.
Poor Matt. I just reread my piece on his alleged defense of Sola Sciptura and it's clear that I throttled him.
He really does himself in by demanding a simplistic interpretation of scripture and then failing to produce exactly that.
It's true what they say about fundamentalists...
no fun
no mental
The entire ideaology of protestantism stands on two pillars;
1) Sola Fide
2) Sola Scriptura
I have destroyed them both to the point where there is nothing left.
You now have no choice but to come back to the Catholic church or be in grave danger of dying in your sins and being damned to a fiery hell.
Your choice really is that simple.
What blinds you is hate . It is not the complexity of scripture- though parts of the scriptures are complex. It is not the difficulty of overcoming translation problems- though they can be problematic. It is not your misunderstanding of many things that Catholics believe- though those misunderstandings are many and deep.
You are blinded by your sinful arrogance that allows for your forgiveness at the hand of God but disqualifies all others as ''snorting pigs'' and murderers and idolators and perverts.
Even if all of your doctrines were correct- and they certainly are not- you would be in danger of hell.
Why? because you are guilty of the sin Jesus condemned most of all- hypocrisy.
Even if you did have the light of truth, do you fancy that you would have it through your own efforts or through the graciousness and mercy of God?
Shouldn't a God who has been so kind to you motivate you to stop being so evil to everyone else?
You hide behind the lie of ''truth in love'' but everything about you does violence to the concept of Christian love and proves you are not a genuine Christian even if your silly doctrines didn't.
look at your moniker, "Bible Smack". What a wonderful image of Christian charity *rolling my eyes*.
Hypocrites like you send more souls to hell than a secularist like Barack Obama could dream of doing.
The greatest commandments are "Love the Lord with all your heard, mind strength and soul'' and ''love your neighbor as your self''.
I do not hate you, I hate only your arrogance and hatefulness. Given the opportunity, I would plead to God for your parden. However, I will doubtfully gain such an opportunity. You must change your heart.
You hate your neighbor and you will be judged for it, accordingly.
Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
The reverse is true, as well. If you change, you have yet a hope of salvation.
James 5:20
remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
James 5:19-20 (in Context) James 5 (Whole Chapter)
1 Peter 4:8
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
Jesus said he who shows mercy will receive mercy. Love covers sin, not chest pounding, finger pointing and name calling. Do not be deceived into thinking vain, empty ''professions of faith'' will shield you from God's wrath.
"Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
The reverse is true, as well. If you change, you have yet a hope of salvation."
It is ironic that you have been doing nothing but name calling this whole site. And then you want to proclaim judgement on me.
It is so obvious that maybe I am wasting my timepointing out how hypocritical you have been. The worst I have done is be dragged down to your level which I have hade to repent of.
Yet the Bible is used for rebuke 2Tim 3:15-17.
I think the greatest Irony is your smoke and mirrors argument. Not once have you made a single point to refute my essay. You called me a bunch of names as if you were in highschool. Then you claimed I refuted myself. Yet you did not come close to explaining why? The most I could is because I am a hater or something.
Which is the usual charge that the ungodly throw at the followers of Christ.
I think it is kind of funny looking at the timing of the blogs, because you spend several hours trying to figure out your response. But then you have nothing to say but hope that people are overwhlmed by your garbage that they will think you made the point somewhere within it.
I also nottice how you consistently fail to deal with the text.
The other thing that is said is that few people if any have read your blog responses but you still have to get on and like you are a super star catholic preacher.
Sorry, but I doubt if even a dozen have read even a piece of your responses.
So you could focus on me. It takes you about a page or two to even make one actual point. You would do your cause a lot better if you would stop the name calling and focus on making points and getting to the truth.
Propaganda only works on idiots. The problem is that idiots are not attracted to this type of blog.
Maybe you would do better arguing on porn blogs.
I think the greatest Irony is your smoke and mirrors argument. Not once have you made a single point to refute my essay. You called me a bunch of names as if you were in highschool. Then you claimed I refuted myself. Yet you did not come close to explaining why? The most I could is because I am a hater or something.
Which is the usual charge that the ungodly throw at the followers of Christ.
obviously you did not read my article that I posted the link to. I destroyed ALL of your arguments, you self rightous snot
It is ironic that you have been doing nothing but name calling this whole site. And then you want to proclaim judgement on me.
It is so obvious that maybe I am wasting my timepointing out how hypocritical you have been. The worst I have done is be dragged down to your level which I have hade to repent of.
anyone can go all the way back to your first article where you call all catholics perverts and drunks and idolators. Let's not be silly
LOL
Matt's feelings are hurt because I dealt with and destroyed every argument he made.
May I point out that he still has not defended Sola Scriptura Scripturally.
He has not produced a single quote from Scripture supporting the notion that the Bible is the one and only authority.
...and he won't either.
Here it is again, since you are pretending you missed it.
http://deepertruthblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/sola-scriptura-sola-balogna.html
If Matt is a Christian, I am the King of England
I think it is kind of funny looking at the timing of the blogs, because you spend several hours trying to figure out your response. But then you have nothing to say but hope that people are overwhlmed by your garbage that they will think you made the point somewhere within it.
...we call this 'projection'.
Let's do a simple review, shall we.
1) Matt asserts that any doctrine or practice must be found clearly in the Scriptures or it is invalid.
2) Matt cannot show that very doctrine in the Scriptures.
Thus, he refutes himself.
At least when non-Catholics assert (incorrectly) that a particular doctrine is untrue because it contradicts Scripture, they are making an argument that passes the test of simple logic.
No, Matt claims that any doctrine not expressly visible on the face of scripture is untrue.
I think it is more than reasonable to expect him to produce such a scriptural ban.
Why can't he?
Apparently, he feels picked on.
Calling all Catholics drunks, molesters, idolators and snorting pigs is ok, though.
I also nottice how you consistently fail to deal with the text.
It is difficult when you write 1500 words affirming that which was never in dispute.
The points that are actually in dispute, you never defend. You merely insist they be accepted as given.
Sorry, debate doesn't work that way.
Matt is trying to say that I am picking on him. The truth is that it wasn't Matt who decided to act like a pompous jerk from the onset, this could have been a civil discussion.
He attempts to put it on me but that dog just don't hunt.
Some of my very best, lifelong friends are baptists. One in particular died in 2002 and I have very high hopes she is with Our Lord.
Now, of course, Matt is free to believe that only baptists are saved and all others are idolotors and child molesters but it is more than fair to demonstrate the stupidity of such a position.
I think the greatest Irony is your smoke and mirrors argument. Not once have you made a single point to refute my essay. You called me a bunch of names as if you were in highschool. Then you claimed I refuted myself. Yet you did not come close to explaining why?
Any one else appreciate the irony of how Matt fails to identify any smoke or mirrors in my critiques?
My arguments are rock solid...and he knows it.
If Matt but understood that I know for a fact that my Roman Catholic faith is 100% right, 100% of the time, he would realize how heartily I laugh at his misguided notions.
Catholics don't even believe 80% of the stuff he claims we are wrong for believing.
With his every utterance, Matt unwittingly affirms the infallible truth of my Holy Church.
and in my faith, Jesus is the Superstar. I live only to magnify Him and do His will.
Only by being a Catholic can I do that.
You will notice that Matt still has not made a scriptural defense of Sola Scriptura.
He has defended;
* Bible inerrancy.
* Scriptural Inspiration.
* God's Omniscience and Omnipotence.
* God's sovereignty.
....none of which has ever been disputed.
He has also defended Divine Justice and the retribution of sin, thus refuting Sola fide...but that's another matter.
What Matt has done is prescribe, as an absolute mandate , that no religious truth can exist that does not appear clearly (his word, not mine) on the face of scripture.
Therefore, by Matt's own prescription, the doctrine that the written word alone is our rule of faith (Sola Scriptura), is to be clearly found on the face of Scripture.
All I am asking for is the Chapter and verse that gives me that instruction. Provide it and I will abandon the Catholic faith today.
Provide it not and, by your own measure , you have refuted Sola Scriptura and have no choice but to join the Catholic church today.
So...those are the stakes...
provide it.
just try....
I dare you.... I have been daring you...
Stop dancing, stop name calling and produce the Scripture citation right now ...
or shut your hypocritical yap and admit defeat and humiliation so that you may at last find God.
Tell ya what...
Since you say that you don't get to read this very often and since I'm sure you have a long Easter weekend ahead of preaching to the unwashed heathens in appalachia, I'll give it until monday morning at the same time.
If by then, you can show me a quote from any scripture , showing me that Scripture alone is God's means of communicating with us, then I will renounce my Catholic faith.
So, climb up in them thar hills and git all yer klan brothers to crack open dem Bibles and finish this unwashed romanist once and fer all dad gum it.
...or fail to do so and have your entire Easter weekend ruined by the prospect of my monday morning gloating at Bible beater being taken down a peg or three.
I have $1000 that says he can't do it. Let's see how sure he is vs how sure he claims he is.
heck...make it $2000
I'll send a $2,000 check to your church if you can produce a text that shows that only written scripture can be used as our rule of faith.
$2000 and a defeated papist.
What Bible beater would hesitate a second to cash in on such an offer?
....if he could, that is....
Just find me that scripture. Afterall, according to you, if'n it ain't in thar *points to Bible* then it jes izn't true.
put up.
Come Monday morning, someone is going to be looking awful silly.
.... It won't be the Romanist , that much is a certainty .
Let's see.
Since first challenging Matt, I have been called;
*Romanist
*murderer
*idolator
*pervert
*godless
*idiot
*snorting pig
and who knows what else?
yet....the clock continues ticking and it is Matt who continues to be unable to support his positions.
Not me.
You know why? becaue there is not one Catholic position that contradicts the Scriptures.
Not ONE !
The only Catholic positions that " violate scripture " result from;
A) A misrepresentation of the Catholic position.
B) A misrepresentation of the Scriptures.
C) BOTH
Usually, the answer is "C".
That's why I don't fear the Scriptures. It is our book and every single thing we believe, without a single exception, is in perfect harmony with it.
It is the Protestants who go around propogating invented doctrines...as the current challenge is demonstrating.
Matt is not responding because he knows that he is trapped. He has tried all of his slight of hand arguments on me to no avail.
Yes, the Bible says that God's word is pure. Yes, the Bible says that man lives on every word of God. Yes, the Bible says that the Word of God is without error. Yes, the Bible says the word of God is inspired and useful and God breathed and to be obeyed and not contradicted or modified or perveted or added to or subtracted from.
Matt will keep making all of those arguments to no avail because not one of those characteristics of Sacred Scripture have ever been denied- in word or practice- by Catholics.
What the Bible does not say...what the Bible does not say ANYWHERE is that ALL of God's revealed truth is clearly expressed in the pages of Scripture, to the exclusion of all else.
Folks, Scripture just plain does not make any such assertion. It is futile to suggest that it does.
Wow!
It just gets more pathetic.
one scripture that claims we should not add or take away from God's Word.
Deuteronomy 4:2
you could read it and I know the pathetic reponse of the canon. I disproved your claim by asking for an interpretation. Which you are apparently mentally incapable of.
Now repent of sins, give me the $2000 dollars
and come to Jesus to recieve Salvation.
You make up names that I have called you.
I quote Jesus saying don't cast your pearls before swine and you identify yourself as a snorting pig then you are simply identify yourself as the pig not to throw pearls before.
Wow!
It just gets more pathetic.
one scripture that claims we should not add or take away from God's Word.
Close your eyes and imagine a dog chasing his tail. That is Matt *LOL*
Your quote says that we may not add to God's word . It does not say that we cannot add truth to the canon of Scripture.
All Scripture is God's word but not all God's word is Scripture... and you will not attempt to prove it is.
Your argument is, thus, circular. Your Conclusion- that only Scripture is God's word- is included in your premise.
Thus, you lose....
You make up names that I have called you.
I quote Jesus saying don't cast your pearls before swine and you identify yourself as a snorting pig then you are simply identify yourself as the pig not to throw pearls before.
"I don't have to follow the Catholic murderers and perverts"
"The snorting pigs will say..."
"that's what the ungodly say..."
I made up nothing . That you are convicted by your own words, do not blame me.
Matt's argument:
"It is because it is because it is"
The Catholic doctrine of The Immaculate Conception is every bit as infallinle as the Gospel of Luke it springs from.
That is a fact.
To deny this is heresy.
Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
anyone who disputes one word- written or spoken- of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church violates this command.
Every single letter issued from the Papal office of Benedict XVI is every bit as much God's word as every epistle penned by the Apostle Paul. There is no difference in their authoritativeness.
If Benedict gives a speech from Papal square, it holds the same weight.
That truth makes Matt furious.
You can send my $2000 to the poor. Use it to feed the hungry.
I responded to your comment on my blog. I am still laughing from it, to be honest.
Matt assumes that Deut. 4 is speaking only about Sacred Scripture.
and, as you know, we can't accept assuptions *grin*
no no no...
Nothing is true if it's not clearly in Scripture.
So, obviously, Matt is saying Sola Scriptura isn't true. I don't have to say it... MATT SAYS IT!
Poor Matt has painted himself into corner.
I'm guessing he will respond by hurling more ad homs.
After all, we know he cannot win this debate on the merits...
Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
from this Matt sees clear support for Sola Scriptura?
He is the only one. This passage doesn't even mention Scripture!
Look.
Sola Fide is refuted.
Sola Scriptura is refuted.
Shall we move on to Mary?
I am being serious here.
What topic do we discuss next?
I am 2-0 here. I know it, you know it and I know you know it. You have nothing more to add.
What's next? Mary? The Pope? The Mass?
Choose your best pitch. I will be here.
I will pray that God brings you out of your (unBiblical )Protestant faith back to authentic Biblical (Catholic) Christianity during Easter.
Apparently, the Pastor just assumes that because he learned it in "Bible college" it's true.
By that logic, a Bachelor's degree in Islam is valuable.
Garbage in, Garbage out.
A degree in Protestant theology is every bit the accomplishment of attaining a doctorate in Crayons. Suffice it to say, I am duly unimpressed.
It certainly is a pitiful match for the 2,000 years of Christian authority that I have right hear at my eager fingertips. *cracks knuckles in expectation of battle*
Still no scripture citation saying that only the written word is God's word.....
Kind of reminds you of the Scriptures don't it?
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
Big, wise, arrogant, big-mouthed fundie prod completly humbled by an insignificant Romanist.
Matt still hasn't produced a Scripture validating the -allegedly clear- doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
The Irony is just astounding . Matt insists a standard be met that, when pressed, he cannot meet!
It is just incredible!
Matt says since Scripture is the "Word of God", the "Word of God" is always Scripture.
This kind of argument is called a non-sequiter (it does not follow).
"Since all Chevy Corvettes are cars, all cars are Chevy Corvettes."
In addition to doing violence to basic logic, there is no Scriptural support for it at all.
Thus, by Matt's own measure, God disagrees with him.
The liberals and Catholics deny the tribulation.
Either a bald faced lie or just another example of your abject ignorance.
We not only affirm the tribulation, we believe it has begun!
Remember when Matt said that I was ignorant of Protestant theology!?
LOL
Protestant theology could fit on a shampoo Bible.
Step 1: Claim that you love Jesus.
Step 2: Repeat Step 1.
``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D
If it is not possible to misinterpret scripture, how then do you explain sites like this attrocity?
http://www.evilbible.com
A little advice. If you are going to promote yourself as a man of God, you might try looking a bit less like the Devil.
I mean, REALLY!
http://www.biblesmack.net/mattssite.jpg
Blood Red shirt and tie, $1000 used car salesman/politician suit and and a malevolent smirk.
The only thing missing is horns.
Wow...
this one is even creepier.
http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/97/m_e7102f8475867138ae0d84cc88e7cf27.jpg
It is obvious to any minimally objective person that you have been defeated.
On this day of Our Lord's ressurection, I invite you to find Christ in His Catholic Church.
Jesus said rhat He who does not eat His body and drink His blood has no life in him. John 6
This is the clear Scriptural warrant of which you spoke.
You, my friend, are a spiritual deadman. Jesus says so, Himself.
When you mock the Catholic church, you are equal to those who mocked Christ on the way of the cross.
Unless you repent and be converted, you risk the same end as them.
Do not die in your sin. Embrace Christ. Become Catholic.
This religious debate back and forth between the Catholic and Protestant churches is interesting.
To: Deeper Truth I was curious to your qualifications to discuss religion, the Bible and accuracy of the Catholic Faith versus Protestant Churches or the term I use which is Traditional Christianity?
Deeper Truth: Towards the bottom of the comment section you stated that we were in the tribulation were you referring to the Great Tribulation spoken of in the Book of Daniel and Revelation?
Deeper Truth: I went through and reviewed the comment section the posts and found three negative words or pharses such as stupid, crazed, and you(Pastor Matt Singleton) send more people to hell than Barrack Obama. There are more examples, but those are sufficient. It is quite clear that you are unable to debate without name calling.
Pastor Matt Singleton: I admit that I do not know everything you have stated about the Catholic faith or church it is clear that you have won the argument on this particular post. It is clear that the Old and New Testament is the inerrant word of God. The main problem is man's interpretation of the scriptures and their denial of the 100% accuracy of the Bible. So, I would encourage the person Deeper Truth not to condemn all Christians that they disagree with on doctrine and repent of their pride filled attitude.
To: Deeper Truth I was curious to your qualifications to discuss religion, the Bible and accuracy of the Catholic Faith versus Protestant Churches or the term I use which is Traditional Christianity?
My qualifications are 2000 years of Orthodox Christianity at my disposal. Whilst Pastor Singleton relies on his own understanding, and that of the ''reformers'', I can rely on what is true and revealed from the Scriptures and the Church Fathers.
Deeper Truth: Towards the bottom of the comment section you stated that we were in the tribulation were you referring to the Great Tribulation spoken of in the Book of Daniel and Revelation?
To general of a question because much is referred to in Daniel and Revelation. The fall of babylon, for instance, refers to the razing of the city of Jerusalem by the romans. It is clear, however, that the Scriptures also refer to a great and final tribulation that will befall man because of his evil.
I do believe that chastisement has begun, yes.
clint said...
Deeper Truth: I went through and reviewed the comment section the posts and found three negative words or pharses such as stupid, crazed, and you(Pastor Matt Singleton) send more people to hell than Barrack Obama. There are more examples, but those are sufficient. It is quite clear that you are unable to debate without name calling.
very interesting that you do not come to the same conclusion about your protestant brother who calls catholics everything from murders to drunks, idolators and child molesters.
and, of course, I will stand by my statement that hate-filled hypocrites, like Matt, cause more souls to be lost in hell than lost idealogues like Obama.
At least those who are merely lost can be reached.
clint said...
Pastor Matt Singleton: I admit that I do not know everything you have stated about the Catholic faith or church it is clear that you have won the argument on this particular post. It is clear that the Old and New Testament is the inerrant word of God. The main problem is man's interpretation of the scriptures and their denial of the 100% accuracy of the Bible. So, I would encourage the person Deeper Truth not to condemn all Christians that they disagree with on doctrine and repent of their pride filled attitude.
Yawn. Clint, it is laughable for you to suggest that Matt won this debate by saying It is clear that the Old and New Testament is the inerrant word of God. The main problem is man's interpretation of the scriptures and their denial of the 100% accuracy of the Bible.
You are trying to make the same silly, strawman argument Matt does. The basis by which you say Matt won the debate is by saying that he proved the inerrancy and accuracy of scripture?
That point is NOT contested. How can Matt have won the debate on the basis of what is not even being debated? hmmmm?
I do understand that you want to support your protestant friend but try injected just a little objectivity into the discussion, eh?
No one is debating the inerrancy or accuracy of scripture. We have been debating the practical sufficiency of Scripture and whether or not God's authority is based on Scripture alone .
Once again, by setting up the straw man, you concede that I have won.
As for your comments that the "problem" is "man's interpretation" of the Scriptures, even a cursory look on your part would reveal that that is MY argument and, thus, PROVES the need of an arbitor of, in fact, REFUTES Sola Scriptura.
If you would like to discuss these things further, perhaps at my blog, I'd be glad to but I will expect you to open your eyes and bring a more fair and balanced judgement before condemning me and giving this obviously hateful man a complete pass.
This is just amazing to me. Is there a protestant anywhere who does not accept the Bible alone as indisputable fact?
Yet, not one... NOT ONE can debate this fact based on Scriptural authority.
All of them want to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue Scriptural inerrancy. It is like arguing that the Savior's name is "Jesus"!
You would think that, rather than wasting my time and theirs, spending countless hours arguing that which has never been debated, they would simply point to the verse that tells me that I can only hear and obey God on the basis of Scripture alone.
It really would save a lot of time....
Oh wait...they can't. There is no such verse. I keep forgetting.
I have won.
The end.
Move on.
Let me make one final argument for Clint's sake;
A man argues that Redwoods are trees.
A second man agrees but states that Oaks are also trees.
The first man states that since Redwoods are trees, that Oaks cannot be trees.
The second man asks him for evidence to buttress such a case.
The first man simply provides evidence that Redwoods are in fact, trees.
Proving that Redwoods are trees does not prove that Oaks are not trees.
The argument is a complete non-sequiter.
What Matt is arguing is that because God can speak to us through Scripture, He cannot speak to us through the church or by any other means.
This conclusion is absurd and neither you or him will attempt to substantiate it.
Matt and Clint are both arguing that the Practical sufficiency of Scripture is inferred by the inerrancy of Scripture.
Not only is this argument a complete non-sequiter,
All Chevys are cars, therefore all cars are Chevys
but it violates the exact principle for which they are arguing! Namely, that we must reject doctrines based on inferrence.
Read, again, what Matt quotes;
“The theory of church government and worship that stipulates that not only church doctrine but also church practice must be based on clear scripture warrant. That is we must have a clear Biblical command or precedent, expressed or implied, for all we introduce into the work and worship of the church."
While it is clear that all inspired, written Scripture is authoritative as being from God, there is no clear (or even vague) direction given to us that only the written word is God's word and, less still, it is demonstrated that only the written word in these 66 books (and not in "Baruch" for example) is the word of God.
They can believe it, certainly.
They cannot prove it.
That is a fact.
"A little advice. If you are going to promote yourself as a man of God, you might try looking a bit less like the Devil.
I mean, REALLY!
http://www.biblesmack.net/mattssite.jpg
Blood Red shirt and tie, $1000 used car salesman/politician suit and and a malevolent smirk.
The only thing missing is horns."
First of all I don't promote myself as a man of God. that's your Job. I just live my life trying to be a man of God.
Secondly, my wife dressed me up, for Christmas. SO your going to have to deal with her now.
Finally the devil doesn't dress in red. He is lucifer the angel of light.(who dresses in white? the KKK? The Pope??
"While it is clear that all inspired, written Scripture is authoritative as being from God, there is no clear (or even vague) direction given to us that only the written word is God's word and, less still, it is demonstrated that only the written word in these 66 books (and not in "Baruch" for example) is the word of God.
They can believe it, certainly.
They cannot prove it."
This an example of elementary theology.
He says that we can say that there is more word of God than the Bible.
So let take this logic in its logical conclusion.
What about the gnostics? Early "christians"(not really but they claimed it) with a different canon.
Why were they wrong?
What about the muslims?
What about judaizers/ebionites?
What about the Eastern Orthodox?
What about the Waldensees?
What is the true tradition?
Is it Catholicism because they used the military and Inquisition?
Hey since muslims are over populating and have outnumbered Catholics should we change the Canon?
When you argue by the Flesh and facism you can never find the aproval of God.
Pastor Matt Singleton said...
"A little advice. If you are going to promote yourself as a man of God, you might try looking a bit less like the Devil.
I mean, REALLY!
http://www.biblesmack.net/mattssite.jpg
Blood Red shirt and tie, $1000 used car salesman/politician suit and and a malevolent smirk.
The only thing missing is horns."
First of all I don't promote myself as a man of God. that's your Job. I just live my life trying to be a man of God.
Secondly, my wife dressed me up, for Christmas. SO your going to have to deal with her now.
Finally the devil doesn't dress in red. He is lucifer the angel of light.(who dresses in white? the KKK? The Pope??
LOL Your wife dresses you?
I don't know that I would have admitted that.
Nevertheless, the deadline came and went and you did not produce the quote.
You lose Pastor. Defeated by a Romanist *g*
On my blog, I am already moving on to issue #3. I am 2-0 vs you.
You know it, I know it.
You are welcome to try and trip me up on issue #3 but that will be on my turf.
Issue #3 is the contention of people like you that we Catholics worship Mary.
I'm feeling charitable so I am going to assume you got off to a slow start on Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.
On Mary, I will expect a much better effort from you. Bring your 'A' game....you will need it.
The arguement of natural supremacy never works in the scriptures.
It didn't work for:
Cain
lot
Ishmael
Esau
Philistines
Saul
Absalom
Davids Grandkids
The Empires
the Pharisees
or the Judaizers
yet now the Roman Catholics are suddenly blest by God through natural supremacy.
Sure
Maybe we ought to apeeal to the word of God.
Especially since the RCC has failed so miserably to destroy it!
"While it is clear that all inspired, written Scripture is authoritative as being from God, there is no clear (or even vague) direction given to us that only the written word is God's word and, less still, it is demonstrated that only the written word in these 66 books (and not in "Baruch" for example) is the word of God.
They can believe it, certainly.
They cannot prove it."
This an example of elementary theology.
He says that we can say that there is more word of God than the Bible.
So let take this logic in its logical conclusion.
What about the gnostics? Early "christians"(not really but they claimed it) with a different canon.
Why were they wrong?
What about the muslims?
What about judaizers/ebionites?
What about the Eastern Orthodox?
What about the Waldensees?
What is the true tradition?
Is it Catholicism because they used the military and Inquisition?
Hey since muslims are over populating and have outnumbered Catholics should we change the Canon?
When you argue by the Flesh and facism you can never find the aproval of God.
Let's remember, good pastor. That a doctrine must be CLEARLY evident in Scripture is YOUR mandate, not mine.
That you cannot meet YOUR OWN STANDARD , do not blame me.
Nevertheless, since you asked the question, of all those groups, only the Catholics can say truthfully, that the I AM said of them "He who hears you, hears me"
Checkmate.
Game, set, match.
you are done, little man.
"Your quote says that we may not add to God's word . It does not say that we cannot add truth to the canon of Scripture.
All Scripture is God's word but not all God's word is Scripture... and you will not attempt to prove it is."
you know this reminds me of one of the dorky kids that tries play a game and when they are losing make up rules never agreed to so they don't have to lose.
Building a scarecrow of my position is really tacky.
You don't want to admit that you are a liar. Don't worry I do not believe in gambling.
I let you save that money for your next law suit.
The fact is that you have access to my confession of faith and you could easily deal with my actual position.
Which is that you can not add divine authority to God's revelation in the scriptures.
In other words you can not judge by any other standard the Bible has it all their in terms of
1 the truth it directly or implicitly conveys
2. holy living
3. salvation
if you come up with another tradition foriegn to this to explain morality or salvation. then you are wrong.
I am not saying that you might learn new information by studying frogs or what ever you do in your convent with the other nuns.
if you have
You lost.
Man up and admit it and stop lying, crying and bellayaching like a school girl.
You are embarrasing yourself.
bellyaching
Matt is a coward just like every other fundamentalist worm I ever knew.
"You lied!"
"You changed the rules"
Like everything else he says, he won't back up a syllable.
I took his own words and used them as a club to beat the bloody snot out of him. Too bad.
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it you hypocritical baby.
This is what the real church looks like you pompous idiot;
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=33149
Even as the very finger of Almighty God points to the Catholic church, you stile revile her. For more than 19 and 3/4 centuries, she has preached none but Christ cricified.
Yet you revile her...just as the master said you would...
Matthew 10:25
It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!
I pray you awake
I find it amusing that the Deeper Truth states that the Catholic Church was the original christian church. The Catholic Church is the orginal false church. All you have to do is study history to realize that the so-called first Pope (Peter who would have never taken such a haughty title) was not Peter the Apostle, but Simon the magician or Simon Magus who is really the first Pope Simon Peter.
As for the Mary question, I have attended Catholic mass and asked this very topic to lay members and local clergy in the local diocese. Many of the lay members in the Catholic faith I speak to do not know how to answer my question. The clergy always directly state that they do not pray to Mary, but through her as an intercessor to Jesus and/or God the Father. Now, this may be splitting hairs, but have never read or spoke to a local Catholic who prays to Mary. I have to say that my church and I disagree with using the Virgin Mary as an intercessor in prayer, but the Catholic church does not directly pray to Mary.
I have to say that I also agree that the Bible is the only text that we may use as the Word of God. So, only the Old and New Testaments and no other. So, it excludes all other books not in the canon whether it be the gnostic gospels, Muslim Quran, or Catholic Bible etc., The books in the Catholic Bible that do not deviate from the canon are fine. So, to be specific the Torah and the New Testament are the only place that the word is divine and comes directly from the Lord God. We can debate all day that this book or verse should have been included or not. The Bible does not specifically condemn Muhammed as a prophet or someone like Joseph Smith, but we know by studying the scripture and paying close attention to the fruit they produce on the vine of the tree.
Ephesians 4:5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
my work is done here.
Well, Deeper Truth continues in the lies of the Catholic Church. The original church the one the 12 apostles began is 100% separate from the Catholic Church who mixes pagan rituals and pomp ceremonies for the one Lord, faith, and baptism. He utters words, but does not know the meaning of them. The true New Testament church of God is the one has been around longer than the Catholic faith. He declares the himself the winner while wallowing in his ignorance. I believe that is Game, Set, and Match.
Well, Deeper Truth continues in the lies of the Catholic Church. The original church the one the 12 apostles began is 100% separate from the Catholic Church who mixes pagan rituals and pomp ceremonies for the one Lord, faith, and baptism. He utters words, but does not know the meaning of them. The true New Testament church of God is the one has been around longer than the Catholic faith. I believe that is Game, Set, and Match.
YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN
The vanquished claim victory even as they further prove their ignorance."The lies of the catholic church" - unsubstantiated, unsupported, nothing to respond to. Thus, by the very rhetorical definition, a meaningless statement.The original church the one the 12 apostles began is 100% separate from the Catholic Church who mixes pagan rituals and pomp ceremonies for the one Lord, faith, and baptism.Examples? evidence? I thought not.He utters words, but does not know the meaning of them.Examples? evidence? I thought not. The true New Testament church of God is the one has been around longer than the Catholic faith.Evidence? I thought not.He declares the himself the winner while wallowing in his ignorance. Actually, I won by exposing your ignorance. You had ever opportunity to prove your case. Do not blame me that you were impotent to do so.I believe that is Game, Set, and Match.It is indeed. Now pick up the shattered piece of your wounded, defeated pride, little man...and run along.
Issues #1 and #2 are closed and victory is mine.
Of course, if either of you puffed up little men want to risk further humiliation for a chance at getting back in the game and atoning for your inept performances to date, you can try to take apart my treatise on Mary.
Notice I said try. If not, it's all the same to me.
I won. You know it, I know it.
seen one fundie prod, seen 'em all. full of bluster and hot air but no substance...ever
Any exhaustive investigation will show that the New Testament writers clearly preferred the Septuagent to the incomplete Masoretic canon. This is clear.
Matthew relies on the Septuagint for the assertion that the Messiah's mother was to be a virgin (Matthew 1.23). Jesus himself follows the traditional Septuagint wording in condemning the Pharisees' traditions (Matthew 15.8-9). The Septuagint clearly prophesies that Jesus will heal the blind (Luke 4.18-19) - but the Masoretic text is more obscure. The Septuagint foretold that the Messiah's death would be unjust (Acts 8.32-33) and that the Gentiles would seek the Lord (Acts 15.16-17). The Hebrew has the nations being "possessed" along with Edom. Paul knows that a remnant of Israel will be saved because he was reading the Old Testament in Greek (Romans 9.27-28). Perhaps if his topic were the return to the Holy Land and not salvation, he would have found the Hebrew reading more suitable. Following the Greek, he knows that the Messiah will conquer his people's sin - not that he would come to those who had already cleansed themselves from sin, as the Hebrew would have it (Romans 11.26-27). Paul's thought that Jesus would rule the Gentiles also depends on a Septuagint reading (Romans 15.12). The author of the book of Hebrews - to prove the deity of Christ - proclaims the truth that Jesus is worshipped by all the angels of God (Hebrews 1.6). But the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain that verse. Also on the basis of the Greek Old Testament, that author asserts that the incarnation was prophecied (Hebrews 10.5-7) - that Jesus would have a body, which he would offer for our sanctification (Hebrews 10.10). The Masoretic text at this point stresses auditory capability. Finally, where the Masoretic text described a nonviolent suffering servant, the Septuagint prophesied a sinless Messiah (1 Peter 2.22). The Old Testament book of Jeremiah even refers explicity to the Scripture of Baruch. Jeremiah 36:10, 13.
Even you fundieprods call the first book of the Bible by the GREEK "Genesis" rather than the Hebrew "Bereshit".
Thus, you refute your own nonsense and wind up looking like clowns.
you just are not enough of a man to admit that you have been proven wrong.
you are wrong about what the Bible says on everything from salvation to the whore of babylon and you are wrong about dozens of things you accuse catholics of believing.
It is clear that you can't debate as a man because, both from an intellectual and maturaity standpoint, you are nothing more than a petulant little boy.
this really is my last words here. you lost. you can kick and scream and throw your little tantrum but that won't change the fact that I rhetorically kicked your sorry little tail from one end of cyberspace to the other.
Now, I will be at my blog, spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. Should you decide to grow up, you are welcome to stop by and engage.
But I warn you, check your lies, your hate and your snotty little 4 year old petulance at the door because I will have none of it.
capische?
good.
DEEPER TRUTH said...
Any exhaustive investigation will show that the New Testament writers clearly preferred the Septuagent to the incomplete Masoretic canon. This is clear.
Matthew relies on the Septuagint for the assertion that the Messiah's mother was to be a virgin (Matthew 1.23). Jesus himself follows the traditional Septuagint wording in condemning the Pharisees' traditions (Matthew 15.8-9). The Septuagint clearly prophesies that Jesus will heal the blind (Luke 4.18-19) - but the Masoretic text is more obscure. The Septuagint foretold that the Messiah's death would be unjust (Acts 8.32-33) and that the Gentiles would seek the Lord (Acts 15.16-17). The Hebrew has the nations being "possessed" along with Edom. Paul knows that a remnant of Israel will be saved because he was reading the Old Testament in Greek (Romans 9.27-28). Perhaps if his topic were the return to the Holy Land and not salvation, he would have found the Hebrew reading more suitable. Following the Greek, he knows that the Messiah will conquer his people's sin - not that he would come to those who had already cleansed themselves from sin, as the Hebrew would have it (Romans 11.26-27). Paul's thought that Jesus would rule the Gentiles also depends on a Septuagint reading (Romans 15.12). The author of the book of Hebrews - to prove the deity of Christ - proclaims the truth that Jesus is worshipped by all the angels of God (Hebrews 1.6). But the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain that verse. Also on the basis of the Greek Old Testament, that author asserts that the incarnation was prophecied (Hebrews 10.5-7) - that Jesus would have a body, which he would offer for our sanctification (Hebrews 10.10). The Masoretic text at this point stresses auditory capability. Finally, where the Masoretic text described a nonviolent suffering servant, the Septuagint prophesied a sinless Messiah (1 Peter 2.22). The Old Testament book of Jeremiah even refers explicity to the Scripture of Baruch. Jeremiah 36:10, 13.
Even you fundieprods call the first book of the Bible by the GREEK "Genesis" rather than the Hebrew "Bereshit".
Thus, you refute your own nonsense and wind up looking like clowns.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
This is clearly stupid. The Christ of 33A.D did not have the LXX which has the oldest manuscript around 4-500Ad.
The GReek HE quoted from does not match the LXX. Christ had to read hebrew because the greek does not contain jots and Tittles!
By the way Jeremiah cannot refer to Baruch it was written about 300 years later!
Also If the LXX was so accurate why did Jerome Correct it. Jerome and augustine disagree. but Catholics are not supposed to disagree are they?
Ephesians 4:5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
my work is done here.
**********************
one Lord:
Cathoplics can't live up to this. Because they have many popes who are their lords.
One faith:
Some catholics like hugo Cahvez are communist. I have met many Catholics who claim to be atheist and catholic. Catholics are constantly fighting over vatican one and two. They are far from one faith.
One Baptism:
They don't baptize their children they sprinkle them. So since they hardly manage that, they fail at following the lords commandments once again!
The LXX may have been rumored to be from 300 B.C.
Yet any honest scholar will find contradictory facts surrounding this origin. After thorough research with experts such as oxford scholar Floyd Nolan Jones. You will find the LXX and the 72 scholars is a myth.
While you could argue for the existence of a pre-NT OT greek manuscript, you are not going to find anything like the LXX.
Many of these quotes such as Jesus sermon at Galilee do not follow the LXX. The reason is that Jesus is preaching Sermon style and quotes from several points in the passage as oppose to line by line quoting. Which makes sense, because this was prior to intro to verses and chapters.
We have rock solid evidence that the LXX is a man made reproduction in the hexapla. This is an ancient parallel Bible. That shows Origen in the process of reconstructing the text!
We have NO copy of the LXX prior to the 4-5th century. We only have rumors that contradict each other.
The Church Fathers only gave the LXX a pass because at this point they were no longer jewish and did not desire to learn Hebrew.
Jeromes testamony of correcting the LXX is proof and evidence of this.
The Bible clearly teaches that the OT will be preserved by the Jews.
You do realize the things you say make you look either insane or completly ignorant?
Anyone with a half an ounce of Biblical history knows that Jesus and the Disciples quoted overwhelmingly from the LXX and that the titles and order still remain-even in your error prone KJV.
That you adopt the same Old Testament canon adopted by the false jews who rejected Christ is all anyone needs to know about you.
Enjoy your ignorance.
"Anyone with a half an ounce of Biblical history knows that Jesus and the Disciples quoted overwhelmingly from the LXX and that the titles and order still remain-even in your error prone KJV."
You say that, yet is there a single quote of Jesus taken from the apocrypha? If you will simply look at my article "The case for a closed Canon" You will find that the apocryphal book of Maccabees makes three statements which deny any prophetic validity to the Apocrypha as scripture. The only major groups which hold to the apocrypha are groups which deny the true inspiration of scripture in the first place.
The apocrypha is a part of the LXX manuscript. You believe that Jews who came to egypt in rebellion to God.(instead of going to Babylon, as recorded in Jerimiah);preserved the scripture without the levites in rebellion to God(Deut 18) and translated it into Greek which even the Apocryphal Eccesiasticus says is inferior to the Hebrew. And that it was the Hebrew Manuscript that was preserved the Old Testament through Levitical families that has warped the Word of God which Christ claims was preserved through the providence of God.(luke 16:17)
To me to claim the LXX is the accurate word of God. That is stupid.
That you adopt the same Old Testament canon adopted by the false jews who rejected Christ is all anyone needs to know about you.
I will answer these apocryphal challenges with the RCC translation New American Bible(NAB)
"Matthew 6:19-20 recalls Sirach 29:11"
"dispose of your treasure as the most high commands, for that will profit you more than gold" Sirach29:11NAB
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy where moth and decay destroy, and thievesbreak in and steal. Matthew 6:19-20NAB
Not only is this not a quote, but it is a different thought. Jesus wants us to store heavenly treasure. While Sirach is arguing for tithing to the temple!
Sirach29:12"Store up almsgiving in your treasure house, and it will save you from every evil"
"Matthew 7:12 recalls Tobit 4:15"
"do to others what you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets"Matthew 7:12NAB
"Do to no one what you yourself dislike. Do not drink wine till you become drunk, nor let druinkenness accompany you on your way." Tobit 4:15NAB
Your catholic translation does not make this text even appear like a quote!no copywrite laws infringed here!
"Matthew 7:16,20 recall Sirach 27:6"
"The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had;so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind" sirach 27:6 NAB
"By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or thistles? Just so every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. Agood tree cannot bear bad fruit , nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit."Matt 7:15-18NAB
not even close! Sirach is talking about thoughts and words. Jesus is talking about deeds.
Matthew 9:36 = Judith 11:19
"At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd" Matthew 9:36 NAB
"I will lead you through Judea, till you come to jerusalem, and there I will set up your judgement seat. You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd, and not even a dog will growl at you. This was told me and announce to me in advance, and I in turn have been sent to tell you."Judith11:19
This last one is extra pathetic because jesus is not even speaking, instead matthew is giving an editorial. All we see is a jewish phrase that both authors use. if this authenticates inspiration then the pagan poets who Paul quotes were also Holy Prophets.
GEDDDDOuTTTAHEEEAAREE......
"and on and on and on...."
Liars do have this tendency to not want to stay too close to the scriptures.
Matt
Is this a post a joke? Seriously, if not, you must have been smoking some really strong stuff in order to write this.
I'm not even Eastern Orthodox, but this is so bad and ahistorical it't almost impossible to start to critique it.
You couldn't have read any church history, nor do you have any understanding of liturgy whatsoever.
You're work is so shoddy yet you're a pastor? This is pure comedy!
Yet again,
You have no actual substance to anything you say.
"pseudointellectual"
Here I am waiting for an arguement, but all I get is smoke and mirrors.
You must be terrible with women.
Seriously try to actually contribute something if you have anything of value to say.
In Christ,
Matt
Cos,
You have only scratched the surface of Matt's ignorance. You would not believe some of the garbage he spews.
Ahistorical? Matt just makes it up as he goes along. Either that, or he simply parrots the rabid scrawlings of loons like Jack Chick.
History? Research?
This idiot isn't capable of it.
To Deeper Truth,
I haven't read the good PASTOR's article on Sola Scriptura. Maybe I will, but I'm not sure. If he wants to see a good thoughtful debate on this matter then he should check out the interchange between Jay Dyer and Craig French. These guys are civil and thoughtful. Whatever side of the issue you take you can learn from this debate.
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2009/08/craighas-respondedhe-says-his-point-is-not-to-call-upon-any-authorities-but-to-show-that-the-catholic-canon-is-a-historica.html
Compare the level of thought in the above debate with that of PASTOR's treatment of the subject of his Eastern Orthodox article.
Cos,
Matt is not interested in thoughtful debate on this- or any other- issue. His entire repetroire is jeers and smeers. You have seen it yourself. He lies and insults, insults and lies.
He is not capable of debate because he has no coherent knowledge of scripture or history so he takes the discussion immediatly into the gutter. It's all he can do.
We can see this debate breaks down into ad hominum attacks.
The fact is the scriptures existed long before the Catholic church. Therefore the church should be subordinate to the Word of God.
If we can question our foundations then we might as well think we have sovereignty over our creator.
Which I believe is what these religious folk really believe.
Mr. Singleton,
You are certainly in no position to talk about ad hominem attacks because you have used them relentlessy without apology.
Regarding your claim that the bible existed before the Catholic Church, this is pure nonsense. The earliest any book of the New Testament was written was in the early 40's of the first century. The last book, Revelation wasn't written until the late 60's at the earliest. However most modern scholars date it between about 90-105 A.D. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ through His apostles many years before these dates. We even have written evidence that predates some books of the NT, such as the Didache and the letters of Pope Clement.
You are simply making historical claims without much historical knowledge.
Costrowski... You are right. Matt's use of the Ad Hominem attack is exceeded only by his use of the strawmen and invented history.
Although, on his claim that the Bible is older than the Catholic Church, he was within 400 years of being right....
...so he is getting better.
*rolling my eyes*
You will still never see Matt (or any protestant) produce a single verse of scripture supporting Sola Scriptura... not 1.
Meanwhile, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 explicitly refutes it.
and that is the end of that.
I agree that sola scriptura is a fraud. This is why it took nearly 1500 years for someone to accept it, other than the heretics that Irenaeus mentions.
I just hope that Deeper Truth, Matt and I can have this discussion without insults.
How 'bout it, Matt?
You cannot take insults out of Matt's arsenal. It's not like he can debate this on the merits.
Afterall, Matt argues that the Bible is God. That position cannot be defended.
Deeper Truth,
I always have hope that people can change for the better. I hope that Matt can see that insults are not a good thing. We can get further by respectful dialogue.
I also wonder why Matt has such long intervals between his comments. I recieved a notice a while ago of one of his comments probably 6 months after the last comment.
Cos,
Insults are a vital part of Matt's arsenal. He uses them to obfuscate and buy himself time, when he is trapped from his own silly, heretical arguments. It's kind of like an octopus spewing ink.
As for the reason, he takes so much time, it's because he cannot debate. He cannot think on his feet because his arguments are not built on syllogistic logic but on hate and reactionism.
Therefore, he cannot follow and respond to the reasoned, cogent arguments we make. His first reaction is to simply deny. Then, after he traps himself, he tries to change his position without appearing to change it.
I could give a dozen examples- mortal sin, "mother of God", the Septuagint....
Matt will only be open to the truth when he sees with logic and faith rather than hate.
No response?
Matt must be out inventing new doctrines....
One thing is certain... you will never see him produce a single sentence of scripture supporting Sola Scriptura.
I'll eat my car if he ever does that.
Cos,
Matt cannot be coaxed. He is too much of a hate-filled, self absorbed hypocrite. He will be absolutely shocked that Christ doesn't recognize what he sees as his obvious sanctity, when his heretical, evil soul is cast into the everlasting fire.
Deeper Truth,
I'll keep trying to provide a good Christian example to Matt, but when he returns to those vile ways I'll let him have it, but not before.
Fair enough Cos...
You can start by trying to convince him to actually produce scripture to support his silly mush.
"Regarding your claim that the bible existed before the Catholic Church, this is pure nonsense. The earliest any book of the New Testament was written was in the early 40's of the first century. The last book, Revelation wasn't written until the late 60's at the earliest. However most modern scholars date it between about 90-105 A.D. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ through His apostles many years before these dates. We even have written evidence that predates some books of the NT, such as the Didache and the letters of Pope Clement."
1st the old testament was first known as the Bible several centuries before that.
2nd the early church never referred to themselves as "roman Catholic church" The first started calling themselves followers of the way. Then they were later called "christians" as a slander. the never called themselves "the church" meaning circle of the eart referring to pagan worship(druids etc.)
read my article "who is the new testament church. Constantine was the first heaof the catholic church. Jesus is the head of the new testament congregation.
"Meanwhile, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 explicitly refutes it.
and that is the end of that."
2 Thessalonians 2:15
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
you know "word" could be referring to scriptures.
"14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
He is talking about the gospels. The scriptures do have the gospels. and that is the end of that!
Post a Comment