LO. L. ... I love the way you preempt by projecting.

The context of 2 Thess 2:15 is clear.


As to 1Tim 3:15 ... The Greek and Russian Orthodox as well as all who profess that Jesus is Lord and Savior are certainly included.

Thank you for proving my point once again.



It absolutely is. Its just not saying what you're trying to force it to.

Just as you try to manipulate and force Scripture to say a lot of other things which it doesn't actually say.

Ec2 wrote:



That's right Ec2, & what medium did he use to mentor Paul? The Church!

Acts 9,
6 And he, dazed and trembling, asked, Lord, what wilt thou have me do? 7 Then the Lord said to him, Rise up, and go into the city, and there thou shalt be told what thy work is.

17 So Ananias set out; and as soon as he came into the house he laid his hands upon him, and said, Brother Saul, I have been sent by that Lord Jesus who appeared to thee on thy way as thou camest here; thou art to recover thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. 18 And with that, a kind of film fell away from his eyes, and his sight was recovered. He rose up, and was baptized; 19

If Jesus considered scripture to be the sole rule of faith surely He would have directed Paul back to restudying the OT but instead we see Jesus using His Church to minister to Paul. Paul submits to the authority of the church by allowing himself to be baptized.


Gal 1:18, where Paul says that he came to “confer” with Peter. The Greek word here is “historesai,” which means to “inquire” or “ask of,” as from an oracle! So, while Paul’s Apostolic commission came directly from Christ, he also took instruction from Peter and the other Apostles (Galatians 2:2).

Galatians 2:2:

I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

So clearly Paul acknowledged church authority & not the authority of scripture alone.

Your claim that 1Tim 3:15 pertains to all "churches" is absurd. I'm sure Paul would disagree with you as to him it was important that he preached what the apostles preached.

This is how Jesus verified that his words and all of Scripture was true and valid:
Matt 20:
17And Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples apart, and said to them: 18Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. 19And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day he shall rise again.

Ec2 wrote:



Muslims say that Mohamad's miracle was the koran.

Besides, ultimately you have to admit that your acceptance of the veracity of Matthew 20 relies on the church which determined that Matthew was an inspired book.

Again, that's not the issue.

You've used Sproul to assert something that you both are reading into Scripture and are using that assumption to conclude that "the bible alone is the word of God."

The reason that the Church has never taught this or believed it is because the Church has always proclaimed that Jesus is the word of God, not the Bible alone. The Word of God is not only a book or a collection of books, it is a Person, a divine Person.

And Jesus reveals Himself to His Church through ways other than Scripture alone.

Hold on a second! I know the point you are making here, but there is something in the wording that is not quite right. Jesus' words and all of the Scriptures are true and valid. The Church has always taught this and believed this. She has also taught and believed that not all of Jesus words are recorded in the Scriptures, and there are other means besides the Scriptures for gaining what is also true and valid.

Ok. Carry on .

Already made slight alteration to my wording, thanks.


My point is that proper ecclesiology says that the primary source and meaning of "the Word of God" is Jesus, and that Jesus is the head of His Body, the Church.

Through baptism and the Eucharist the people of God, the Church, abide with and in Christ through the Holy Spirit. So by virtue of the Covenant the Church IS Christ.

Therefore Jesus is the Church's "divine imprimatur" and why the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the Truth."

Clearly Sproul's argument is that if anyone is going to presume to claim that their words are on the same level as Scripture then the bar, for validation, must be set at the same level that Jesus set ... and met.
He goes on to state that if that criteria were, in fact, met then those words should be made a part of the Bible... otherwise, not.

And Sproul's argument is circular and frankly rather absurd.



Which again is also circular and frankly rather absurd. We've already gone over how and why. No reason to go over it again.

Surely you have the right to have that opinion if you want. But let's not pretend that it's "scripture" much less true.

And it creates a plethora of problems for all of the protestant doctrines and practices which are at the least extra-biblical.

Matthew 16:17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Over and over again Scripture confirms, as well as God's providence in history, that the Church, and not the Bible alone, speaks Jesus' words with His authority.

Binding and loosing has absolutely nothing to do with creating new doctrine and giving it the level of scripture. Paul condemned anyone who would do that. In fact Paul severely rebuked Peter for falling into that trap almost immediately after Jesus went back to heaven ... and Paul marveled at the fact that Christians so easily fall into it.

In that case Paul must have used circular absured reasoning as well when he stated that Peter could not add a new doctrine .. which was not doctrine at all..

More eisegesis.

You have yet to prove that anything that the Church has ever taught or teaches is "new doctrine".

OTOH there are several things which protestants teach which are "new doctrine".

Ec2 wrote:






Binding & loosing has everything to do with it. It is because Christ conferred upon St Peter & the apostles the authority to bind & loose that they did in fact "claim that their words are on the same level as scripture"......

Genesis 17:10-14 – The Covenant of Circumcision

...."But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.".....

This is what Peter said:

'"My brothers, you know that ... God made a choice ... that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleaning their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus just as they will."' (Acts 15:7b-11)

so here you have St peter the 1st Pope & the leader of the early church arguing against circumcision & therefore scripture. At the council of Jerusalem Peter & the apostles contradicted scripture by deciding circumcision was not required thus creating a new doctrine.

You make too much of Paul's rebuke of Peter. It doesn't change the fact that St Peter excercised his authority to bind & loose & created a new doctrine.

If there's no new doctrine then we're agreed that the Bible is sufficient.

Ec2 wrote:





Initially, Protestant apologists attempted to distort the clear meaning of Mt 16:18-19 with the
bogus argument that Jesus declared he would build his Church on faith not the man Peter.
However, this approach collapsed within Protestant circles when Oscar Cullmann in his famous
book Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr convincingly demonstrated that Christ meant Peter
himself and not Peter’s faith or profession. Subsequently, numerous Protestant scholars
conceded Peter’s primacy.1


http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/Papal% ... ective.pdf

It seems your interpretation of scripture is at odds even with your fellow protestant brothers & sisters.

Peter wanted us to be judaisers. Paul uncompromisingly followed Jesus and rebuked Peter for not doing the same. He called those that were judaisers anathema.

People can say whatever they think and come up with any justification that suits their conclusion. The Church is built on Christ.

Ec2 wrote:



Are you speaking ex-cathedera?

But doesn't Jesus describe himself as the builder in Matt 16:18.

Im not into ridicule/ games.

Jesus is Lord. I follow him. You can follow whomever you choose.