Bible alone

[theefaith]

[QUOTE="CadyandZoe,

Bible yes
But in the church taught by the apostles

Bible alone no

tradition that which is taught, handed down, made known

1. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
   Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
   
   2 John 1:12
   Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Find the secret word and divide a hundred dollars,
it’s a common word you always have with you! Lol

explain Jn 3:22 And Jn 4:1

What do you want to know about them?

 

[CadyandZoe]

simply that a pope never leads a council but calls the council, names a delegate, sets the agenda and at the conclusion by his apostolic authority approved or rejects the decrees of the council

Have you not heard that a Pope's word is considered infallible when speaking "ex cathedra"? Do you accept this idea uncritically? Do you take it on faith? And where is that faith actually placed?

 

[CadyandZoe]

To clarify, as I've stated, "water" there either refers to the Spirit or to the Word. "Water of the Word". I'm fine with either.
What I cannot accept, because of what I'd explained, is that "water" there refers to any kind of literal water (either baptismal waters or amniotic fluids).

But you haven't yet explained why you think that. I was hoping you would choose an option or come up with one of your own. You are leaving me guessing. If Jesus meant to say, "water and also spirit" then literal water makes sense. You need a reason to rule out literal water. Right?

 

[CadyandZoe]

(Born of God) faith and baptism

Jn 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1 Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1 Peter 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: see Ez 36

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (baptism rom 6:3-4)


1 Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us!
(Ark of Noah a type of the church, member of Christ and his church and salvation by baptism!)
(Outside the ark none were saved, outside the church none are saved)

We don't study the Bible this way because we have found that verses taken out of context can be forced to say what we already "think" the passage means. But if we want to hear what Jesus and the Apostles actually say to us, we need to avoid these types of mistakes.

 

[amadeus]

Find the secret word and divide a hundred dollars,
it’s a common word you always have with you! Lol
...

Wow... you and Groucho Marx! I do remember when...!

 

[GracePeace]

But you haven't yet explained why you think that. I was hoping you would choose an option or come up with one of your own. You are leaving me guessing. If Jesus meant to say, "water and also spirit" then literal water makes sense. You need a reason to rule out literal water. Right?

Already provided the reasons. You haven't cared to read I guess? I shouldn't be asked to repeat myself.

One was that there is a phrase linking a metaphorical "water" with Spirit in John 7--and it is probably speaking of the Word of God since we already have other verses saying we are born of incorruptible seed (the word of God).

Another is that your reading is an apples to oranges comparison error--we are not a race of amniotic fluids so that an amniotic fluid gave birth to an amniotic fluid, but the Spirit is a Being from Whom we are born. Amniotic fluid isn't pregnant, it is merely present when the female human being is pregnant.

Another is that it would be redundant to tell a human (for whom it would already have been granted they've been "born of amniotic fluid" (to use your phraseology)) that, in order to inherit His Kingdom, they must now be born of amniotic fluid--that wouldn't be a requirement for entering God's Kingdom they would need to be informed of.

Not sure if I gave another.

 

[GracePeace]

But you haven't yet explained why you think that. I was hoping you would choose an option or come up with one of your own. You are leaving me guessing. If Jesus meant to say, "water and also spirit" then literal water makes sense. You need a reason to rule out literal water. Right?

We need to wrap this up on this thread because it is off topic. If you want to continue with the conversation then another thread should be created. I've remained unmoved (not just here on the thread, but in my heart), for the aforementioned reasons, by any of your arguments for your view anyway (though you seem impressed by them).

 

[theefaith]

What do you want to know about them?

baptism is born again
Born from above
New birth
Regeneration

 

[theefaith]

Have you not heard that a Pope's word is considered infallible when speaking "ex cathedra"? Do you accept this idea uncritically? Do you take it on faith? And where is that faith actually placed?

yes in the strict sense
On the authority of Christ
Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13
Lk 10:16

 

[theefaith]

We don't study the Bible this way because we have found that verses taken out of context can be forced to say what we already "think" the passage means. But if we want to hear what Jesus and the Apostles actually say to us, we need to avoid these types of mistakes.

mall scripture is inspired says nothing about context or apologetics or exegesis?

 

[GRACE ambassador]

We need to wrap this up on this thread because it is off topic.

Amen! RUINS the thread, correct?

Where does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Bible alone?

Ok, back on topic! God's Answer, IF The Bible Is God's WRITTEN Word:

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to
myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us

NOT to think above That Which Is WRITTEN,

that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."
(1_Corinthians_4 : 6 KJB!)

Be blessed!

 

[theefaith]

Wow... you and Groucho Marx! I do remember when...!

good fun

 

[theefaith]

Amen! RUINS the thread, correct?


Ok, back on topic! God's Answer, IF The Bible Is God's WRITTEN Word:

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to
myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us

NOT to think above That Which Is WRITTEN,

that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."
(1_Corinthians_4 : 6 KJB!)

Be blessed!

the Bible yes!

alone? Where’s that

acts 2:42 Lk 3:2 something other than scripture

 

[theefaith]

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

is that not divine revelation outside the church scripture alone?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Already provided the reasons. You haven't cared to read I guess? I shouldn't be asked to repeat myself.

I apologize if I missed them. No you should need to repeat yourself.

One was that there is a phrase linking a metaphorical "water" with Spirit in John 7--and it is probably speaking of the Word of God since we already have other verses saying we are born of incorruptible seed (the word of God).

Yes, you said that. But again, you didn't make the connection between the two passages for me. What other connection do the two passage have besides the fact that they both mention water?

Another is that your reading is an apples to oranges comparison error--we are not a race of amniotic fluids so that an amniotic fluid gave birth to an amniotic fluid, but the Spirit is a Being from Whom we are born. Amniotic fluid isn't pregnant, it is merely present when the female human being is pregnant.

A category error exists only if Jesus was referring to two new things, rather than one new thing. My response to your objection was to list the various ways that the term "and" can be understood. And I asked you which meaning of "and" you understand to be the correct one. Unfortunately for the sake of our conversation, you didn't answer. The category error exists, if and only if Jesus meant to say two additional things must be added: water and Spirit. But if he meant to say, "spirit in addition to water." Then no error exists.

Another is that it would be redundant to tell a human (for whom it would already have been granted they've been "born of amniotic fluid" (to use your phraseology)) that, in order to inherit His Kingdom, they must now be born of amniotic fluid--that wouldn't be a requirement for entering God's Kingdom they would need to be informed of.

Again, the redundancy only exists if Jesus is listing TWO NEW things. If not, then no redundancy exists. Nicodemus was the one who attempted to understand the new birth in terms of the old one. Not only this, but it was Nicodemus who described the old birth in terms of reentering a mother's womb.

So, please believe me when I say that I haven't ignored your arguments. And thank you for summarizing them for me. Rather, my communication skills are inadequate to provide clarity for my own position. For that, I apologize.

 

[CadyandZoe]

We need to wrap this up on this thread because it is off topic. If you want to continue with the conversation then another thread should be created. I've remained unmoved (not just here on the thread, but in my heart), for the aforementioned reasons, by any of your arguments for your view anyway (though you seem impressed by them).

Well, one could argue that we are demonstrating "Bible alone" Yes? (smile) Okay. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Amen! RUINS the thread, correct?

40 pages in?

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, you said that. But again, you didn't make the connection between the two passages for me. What other connection do the two passage have besides the fact that they both mention water?

Where does the Book of John ever mention "amniotic fluid"? I'm drawing on what the author is providing me, you're having to import. The "connection" is self-explanatory : the author says "rivers of living water will flow from his belly refers to the Spirit" and "born of water and Spirit". I'm making the connection the author wants me to make, you have your own ideas you are importing to the text.

A category error exists only if Jesus was referring to two new things, rather than one new thing. My response to your objection was to list the various ways that the term "and" can be understood. And I asked you which meaning of "and" you understand to be the correct one. Unfortunately for the sake of our conversation, you didn't answer. The category error exists, if and only if Jesus meant to say two additional things must be added: water and Spirit. But if he meant to say, "spirit in addition to water." Then no error exists.

I don't know if this really pertains to this point--the point was that if you wanted to say "water" and "Spirit" refer to the two different births, it wouldn't work, because "the Spirit" is a "sentient Being" whereas "amniotic fluid" is not. Show me which animal on earth is amniotic fluid. Where are the infant amniotic fluids that grow to be adult amniotic fluids. Amniotic fluid isn't pregnant and doesn't give birth. It's not a being. I have repeated this argument now many times without a coherent response.

Again, the redundancy only exists if Jesus is listing TWO NEW things. If not, then no redundancy exists. Nicodemus was the one who attempted to understand the new birth in terms of the old one. Not only this, but it was Nicodemus who described the old birth in terms of reentering a mother's womb.

Nicodemus didn't understand "born again". Jesus simply clarifies what being born again means. No necessity is laid upon me to read "water" as "old birth" at all. You're trying to say just because two things were mentioned before that now two things have to correspond to those two things. I don't see it that way at all--and the context helps me understand why that wouldn't be the way to read it (again and again, amniotic fluid isn't a being, isn't pregnant, and doesn't give birth).

 

[theefaith]

Tradition

divine revelation to the apostles

Matt 16:17 from the father

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.