The Risen Lord sending forth His Apostles
-
[ KUNG SINASABI MO NA YOU ALSO ACCEPT TRADITIONS NA COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE THEN WINAWASAK MO NA ANG SOLA SCRIPTURA. KASI BIBLE + TRADITIONS KA NA]
Opo, let's make it clear... when i say traditions i don't mean apostolic traditions or specific traditions from a specific groups... pero what i mean is traditions according to the Bible... at maaring practiced by most Churches today....
[IBIG SABIHIN SINASALANGSANG MO ANG BIBLIA. KASI HINDI TINUTURO NG BIBLIA ANG SOLA SCRIPTURA.]
Hindi ko po madescribe e, pero kunwari po sa historians na naniniwala na "bones alone" can prove something, ayaw niya knwari ng mga paper documents... nacocontradict b ng "bones alone" ung srili niya, dhl ung concept ng "bones alone" ay hindi nakasulat sa buto na nakuha niya? Hindi na po ksi kelangan magkaroon pa ng self-description or prang 'meta'... "We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message" sbi po sa link ko po of which I agree... take note nyo po... it must not contradict, un po ung isa sa mga essence ng Sola Scriptura e...
[NOW, IF YOU UPHELD TRADITIONS THEN IT MEANS SOLA SCRIPTURA IS WRONG. THE FORMULA 'BIBLE ALONE' IS AN ABSOLUTE REJECTION OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS.
YOUR POSITION, KENSTON, IS CONTRADICTORY AND ILLOGICAL. IT DOES NOT JIBE WITH REALITY.]
Sabi po sa link: "Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice" .... katunayan po nagbabasa po ako dti ng Cathecism of the Catholic Church, at gnun po yung issue, na ang dami pong citations sa mga Church documents like LG etc... nahihirapan po ako magtrace kng sa LG na nakacite sa Bible ba mag-eend...
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
.jpg "Fr. Abe, CRS")
-
[ KUNG SINASABI MO NA YOU ALSO ACCEPT TRADITIONS NA COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE THEN WINAWASAK MO NA ANG SOLA SCRIPTURA. KASI BIBLE + TRADITIONS KA NA]
[Opo, let's make it clear...]
IT IS GOOD THAT YOU HAVE ADMITTED IT. BY ACCEPTING TRADITIONS THEN SOLA SCRIPTURA IS DESTROYED. IF SCRIPTURES IS CO-EXISTING WITH TRADITIONS THEN IT IS NO LONGER SOLA SCRIPTURA.
[when i say traditions i don't mean apostolic traditions]
YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND. I ALREADY EXPLAINED IN MY POSTS ON THIS TOPIC THAT ORAL TRADITION IS THE SAME AS SACRED TRADITION OR APOSTOLIC TRADITION. THEN, YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU ARE NOT REFERRING TO APOSTOLIC TRADITION. SO, YOU ARE OUT OF THE TOPIC. THIS POST IS ABOUT SOLA SCRIPTURA AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
[or specific traditions from a specific groups...]
THAT IS TRADITION OF MAN... WE REJECT THAT AS A DOCTRINE.
[pero what i mean is traditions according to the Bible...]
HA, HA, HA... TRADITION ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE? THE BIBLE IS NOT THE ONE PRODUCING TRADITION BUT THE BIBLE IS PART OF APOSTOLIC TRADITION. THE BIBLE IS THE ENSCRIPTURATED TEACHING OF THE CHURCH WHICH SHE INHERITED FROM CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES.
APOSTOLIC TRADITION DIDN'T ORIGINATE FROM THE BIBLE BUT THE BIBLE ORIGINATED FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
[at maaring practiced by most Churches today...]
ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE OUT OF THE TOPIC. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PRACTICES. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION REFERS TO THE BODY OF TEACHING WHICH THE APOSTLES HANDED, PART OF WHICH WERE WRITTEN AND THE OTHERS REMAIN IN ORAL FORM.
-
[IBIG SABIHIN SINASALANGSANG MO ANG BIBLIA. KASI HINDI TINUTURO NG BIBLIA ANG SOLA SCRIPTURA.]
[Hindi ko po madescribe e, pero kunwari po sa historians na naniniwala na "bones alone" can prove something, ayaw niya knwari ng mga paper documents... nacocontradict b ng "bones alone" ung srili niya, dhl ung concept ng "bones alone" ay hindi nakasulat sa buto na nakuha niya?]
SIEMPRE CONTRADICTORY YON. TANGA LANG ANG MAGTUTURO NG 'BONES ALONE'. KUNG TEACHER KA THEN MAGTURO KA NG 'BONES ALONE' TAPOS SINABI MO NA BESIDES THE BONES THERE ARE ROCKS THEN YOU MADE AN IDIOT OUT OF YOURSELF IN FRONT OF THE CLASS. IF YOU WILL SAY BONES ALONE MAKE IT SURE THAT THERE ARE NO OTHERS BUT BONES.
IN CASE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, IF YOU THINK THAT THE GUIDE FOR TRUTH AND SALVATION IS BIBLE ALONE THEN THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ORAL TRADITIONS.
IF YOU DONT WANT TO APPEAR STUPID THEN REMOVE THE WORD 'ALONE' IETHER IN 'BONES ALONE' OR 'SCRIPTURES ALONE'.
[ Hindi na po ksi kelangan magkaroon pa ng self-description or prang 'meta'... "We know that the Bible is the Word of God.]
THE BIBLE IS NOT THE ONLY WORD OF GOD. JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD. AND NOT ALL WORDS OF GOD ARE WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. THE TERM WORD OF GOD IS NOT SYNONYMOUS TO THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE TERM WORD OF GOD IS NOT LIMITED TO THE SCRIPTURES ALONE. PRIMARILY THE WORD OF GOD IS A PERSON, NOT A BOOK.
[The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed,]
THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT "THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY GOD-BREATHED". ONLY THE IDIOTS BELIEVE THAT ONLY THE BIBLE IS GOD-BREATHED.
IN GEN. 2:7 ADAM IS GOD-BREATHED:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
SEE, MAN IS GOD-BREATHED ALSO. BUT NO IDIOT EVER FORMED THE DOCTRINE "MAN ONLY" OR "ADAM ONLY". THAT IS HERETICAL, ILLOGICAL AND STUPID.
THE APOSTLES ARE ALSO GOD-BREATHED OR CHRIST-BREATHED OR LORD-BREATHED:
John 20:20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost
SO, THE LORD JESUS BREATHED ON THE APOSTLES. BUT THE LORD JESUS AND THE APOSTLES NEVER GAVE A DOCTRINE "APOSTLES ONLY" OR "DISCIPLES ONLY". THAT IS STUPID AND ILLOGICAL.
THUS, YOUR ARGUMENT FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA USING THE 'GOD-BREATHED' ARGUMENT IS BAD BREATH. THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT IF A PERSON OR A THING IS GOD-BREATHED THEN IT MUST BE THE ONLY GUIDE FOR TRUTH OR SALVATION. NO, NO, NO...
[inerrant, and authoritative.]
THE BIBLE IS NOT THE ONLY INERRANT AND AUTHORITATIVE. THE BIBLE DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE THE ONLY AUTHORITY. THE APOSTLES BEING GOD-BREATHED ARE ALSO AUTHORITY AS CLEARLY EXPRESSED IN MATTHEW 16:18-19 AND MATTHEW 18:18. THE POWER TO BIND AND TO LOOSE IS GIVEN TO THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH.
THERE IS NO STATEMENT IN THE BIBLE THAT "THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY". THAT IS WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA IS DEMONIC. IT IS UNBIBLICAL.
-
[We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself.]
YES, GOD DOES NOT CHANGE HIS MIND. BUT GOD NEVER TAUGHT SOLA SCRIPTURA. INSTEAD, GOD MADE THE CHURCH "THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH" [1 TIMOTHY 3:15] AND NOT THE BIBLE.
[So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message"]
SOLA SCRIPTURA CONTRADICTS THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT TAUGHT BY THE BIBLE. IT IS INVENTED BY MARTIN LUTHER AND DEMONICALLY UPHELD BY HIS FOLLOWERS AND YOUR KIND. THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA WHETHER EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT, DIRET OR INDIRECT. NOT AT ALL.
[sbi po sa link ko po of which I agree... take note nyo po... it must not contradict, un po ung isa sa mga essence ng Sola Scriptura e...]
KAYA NGA ARAL NG DEMONIO ANG SOLA SCRIPTURA KASI NGA IT CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE NGA. THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THAT IT IS THE "ONLY" AUTHORITY YET SOLA SCRIPTURA TEACHES OTHERWISE. YON ANG MASAMA SA POSITION NINYO. ANTI-BIBLICAL KAYO.
-
[NOW, IF YOU UPHELD TRADITIONS THEN IT MEANS SOLA SCRIPTURA IS WRONG. THE FORMULA 'BIBLE ALONE' IS AN ABSOLUTE REJECTION OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS.
YOUR POSITION, KENSTON, IS CONTRADICTORY AND ILLOGICAL. IT DOES NOT JIBE WITH REALITY.]
[Sabi po sa link: "Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions.]
IT NULLIFIES. KAYA NGA SOLA SCRIPTURA E. BIBLE ALONE. IT REJECTS CHURCH TRADITIONS AND CHURCH AUTHORITY. THE CLEAREST MEANING GIVEN BY THE REFORMERS FOR THAT FORMULA IS THAT: "ME AND THE BIBLE ALONE"... THE CHURCH IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.
IF THEY ACCEPT CHURCH TRADITIONS THEN THEY SHOULD REMOVE THE 'ALONE' THERE.
ANO YAN LOKOHAN. ALONE NA HINDI PALA ALONE. HE, HE, HE...
-
[Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions.]
WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE? WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A SOLID FOUNDATION TO BASE CHURCH TRADITIONS? WHERE?
THAT IS SATANIC. THAT IS NOT BIBLICAL
THE CHURCH CAME FIRST BEFORE THE BIBLE. JESUS ENTRUSTED THE POWER TO TEACH AND TO PREACH AND TO GUIDE PEOPLE TO SALVATION TO HIS APOSTLES AND NOT TO THE BIBLE:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
THE AUTHORITY ARISING FROM THE POWER OF CHRIST IS GIVEN TO THE CHURCH LEADERS AS WELL AND NOT TO THE BIBLE ALONE.
[There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions,]
OURS ARE RESULTS OF APOSTOLIC TRADITION AND THEREFORE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.
[not the explicit teaching of Scripture.]
HA, HA, HA.... HULI KA. YOU ARE CAUGHT IN YOUR MOUTH. HA, HA, HA...
YOU ADMITTED ABOVE THAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT BY SCRIPTURES. NOW YOU ARE REJECTING THOSE THAT ARE NOT THE EXPLICIT TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE. HE, HE, HE... SO, YOU ARE VOMITING SOLA SCRIPTURA. HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE LIKE A DOG EATING YOUR OWN VOMIT IF YOU CONTINUALLY HOLD ON TO THAT TEACHING.
-
[It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions.]
THEN YOU HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR FORMULA. IT MUST NOT BE SOLA SCRIPTURA BUT SCRIPTURES AND SACRED TRADITIONS. I'M GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU CONSIDER TRADITIONS AS 'NECESSARY'.
[Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice.]
NOT ONLY THAT. THE BIBLE ITSELF IS A FRUIT OF APOSTOLIC TRADITION. AND IT IS THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION THAT THE LORD HAD HANDED ON TO HIS APOSTLES... ONLY A PORTION OF THIS APOSTOLIC TRADITION HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN THE SCRIPTURES.
[At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word.]
THE BIBLE MUST AGREE WITH TRADITION AND TRADITION MUST AGREE WITH THE BIBLE. THAT IS WHY THE APOSTLES GAVE US BOTH:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold THE TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our EPISTLE."
THE APOSTLES HANDED US THE TRADITIONS, SOME OF WHICH IS ORAL [BY WORD] AND SOME WRITTEN [BY EPISTLE]. THAT IS WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA IS UNBIBLICAL AND CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES.
[They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture.]
THE BASE, THE GROUND, THE FOUNDATION OF TRUTH IS NOT THE BIBLE BUT THE CHURCH. THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH IS NOT THE BIBLE BUT THE CHURCH. THE BIBLE ITSELF IS ENTRUSTED BY GOD TO THE MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH. JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT FORMED AND ESTABLISHED FIRST THE CHURCH BEFORE THE BIBLE. THAT IS WHY IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT THE FOUNDATION IS THE BIBLE. BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY THE CHURCH BEFORE THE BIBLE.
[The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures.]
I THINK YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE TRADITION THAT IS BASED ON TRADITION THAT IS BASED ON TRADITION. EXCUSE ME, ONLY FOOLS MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT. IT IS AN EMPTY ACCUSATION.
[That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice"]
UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU IS THAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT EACH SOLA SCRIPTURA. SO YOUR POSITION IS UNBIBLICAL, ILLOGICAL AND PATHETIC. HA, HA, HA...
[.... katunayan po nagbabasa po ako dti ng Cathecism of the Catholic Church, at gnun po yung issue, na ang dami pong citations sa mga Church documents like LG etc... nahihirapan po ako magtrace kng sa LG na nakacite sa Bible ba mag-eend...]
TALAGANG TANGA KA NGA. WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS IT PROHIBITED TO QUOTE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER BOOKS THROUGH CITATIONS? THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A HIGHLY SCHOLARLY BOOK THEREFORE IT PROVIDES NOT ONLY BIBLICAL CITATIONS BUT ALSO THE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY THE EARLY CHRISTIANS AS WELL AS THE SCHOLARS OF THE CHURCH THROUGHOUT HISTORY. THE POINT THERE IS THAT OUR DOCTRINES ARE FOUNDED ON SACRED SCRIPTURES AS PROVEN BY SO MANY BIBLICAL VERSES QUOTED AND CITED... AND IT IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE DOCUMENTS CITING THE SUPPORT OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS SUCH AS THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.
THE BIBLE NEVER TAUGHT THAT IN WRITING A BOOK WE MUST RELY ON BIBLE ALONE. THAT IS DEMONIC. THAT IS UNBIBLICAL.
No comments:
Post a Comment