A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[hoosierdaddy]

hoosierdaddy,

The concept of purgatory is ROOTED in the New Testament Scriptures. I would be glad to show you. It is based on more than just 1 Corinthians 3.

Jacobaer

Please do. I believe there is nothing of the sort in Scripture.

(Moderator note: Please open a seperate thread on this topic.)

 

[hoosierdaddy]

1. Jesus is called the Son of God. John 3:16 says He is the Son of God. John, chapter 1 teaches that the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. In order to be the Son of God he had to be fully man and fully God. This is why I have a hard time with the Mother of God description of Mary as she is not God so I find it hard to see how she could be the Mother of God. The Pharisees understood this same thing.
2. If you believe that Jesus was only a Man, then you cannot be saved. He had to be God as well.
3. I almost took this as an attempt to insult me but I thought about it and don’t think this is the case. You said, “Oh, my! Do I believe hoosierdaddy or SolaScriptura? Somebody please help me!!! ” I reply, “don’t believe either of us. Check out Scripture before you believe man. 'tis the Protestant way.”

 

[jacobaer]

Hi Sola,

I said: “Is it necessary for my salvation that I believe that Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature?”
*You replied: “*No, but it is necessary that you do not deny it. All the people that are saved in the Scriptures when were they asked if they believed that doctrine? Do you believe all the uneducated people in theological disputes are not saved until they confess belief in the above?”

ME: I am not asking uneducated people. I am asking you.

Are you saying that you can show me that Jesus was a single divine Person with two natures, human and divine, from Scripture alone? Why can’t a Christian believe that Jesus was: a) a divine person and a human person in one body; or b) that He is one person with one nature, a mixture of the divine and human natures?

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[Reformed1]

Sorry, Reformed1, I couldn’t let this whopper go by without a comment.

Whenever St Paul refers to scripture in his letters, it IS the Septuagint, like he quotes at 2 Cor 12:21 (or OT of the Catholic bible). The other scrolls, or codices, were not gathered into one volume (what we know as the Bible) nor was there any reason to do so since witnesses to Jesus’ teaching and death and resurrection were preaching the revelation to all nations.

Any argument by St Paul to convince other Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is the Messiah had to, by necessity and by fact, be limited to the OT.

One more time, Reformed1, St Paul taught non-Jews from the Jewish scripture (the ONLY ‘bible’ in existence at the time!).

You’re making that great, PERSONAL, Protestant leap of ‘implicit in scripture.’

If you think the Bible as you hold it (courtesy of the Magisterium of the Church) is what is being discussed and written about in ANY reference in the OT to ‘scripture’ you are naively and fatally mistaken.

Don’t Presbytarians use the Catholic lectionary (from Vatican II) for their liturgy???

Fact 1:
Paul refers to the gospel of Luke as scripture.
ESV 1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

This refers back to Luke 10:7.
ESV Luke 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

So it is simply not true that “Whenever St Paul refers to scripture in his letters, it IS the Septuagint, like he quotes at 2 Cor 12:21 (or OT of the Catholic bible).”

Fact 2: I don’t think it is in dispute that the septuagint was quoted widely in the NT. However, it is not possible to conclude from that fact that Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles thought your deuterocanonical books were scripture. The septuagint contained books that both you and I agree are not canonical.

Fact 3:
2 Timothy 3:15-16
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,…

Paul does not have the extent of scripture in mind in the above verses or any verses anywhere near 2Tim 3:15-16.

Now, if I somewhere stated that the apostles formed the canon in its entireity for the church, I completely misstated my point. What I was trying to get across is the fact that even from the very beginning there seemed to be some knowledge, however incomplete, of the canon.

As to your question about whether we use a Catholic lectionary, the answer is no. I don’t know that we couldn’t other than we of course wouldn’t read from the book of Tobit for example but for the time being we don’t.

 

[Reformed1]

Reformed1: Your assertion, which is highlighted, is in all ways incorrect.

ALL of the Gospels were written from a quarter of a century to half a century AFTER St Paul’s letters. And this is not from some misunderstanding of what the Magisterium teaches, but from Christian and non-Christian exegetes and scholars.

Please respond with a source for this assertion. I can’t find any, in fact, I noticed how St Luke’s version of St Paul’s conversion story varies from St Paul’s own references to it.

Dang! Why don’t those writers get it right! Don’t they know that thousands of personal interpretations (all hail Sola Scriptura) are dependent upon what is WRITTEN???

When was Luke written?

When was 1 Timothy written?

 

[geraldffff]

I am impressed by the quality of thought given to these posts. I’m much to ignorant to enter into debate on the proceeding issues but I do have a couple questions. #1 Has any person ever compiled a list from the new testament of references to particular gospels epistles, letters that are specificly mentioned in the new testament? #2 Is there any protestant posting on this fourm who is intending to get one or more ignorant Catholics to convert to their particular protestant denomination? Peace in Jesus.

 

[Reformed1]

Dang! Why don’t those writers get it right! Don’t they know that thousands of personal interpretations (all hail Sola Scriptura) are dependent upon what is WRITTEN???

Are you suggesting that there are errors in scripture?

 

[RNRobert]

Are you suggesting that there are errors in scripture?

No, I think Jonathan was being a tad sarcastic, and pointing out that those who follow Sola Scriptura are unable to agree on interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Reformed1]

No, I think Jonathan was being a tad sarcastic, and pointing out that those who follow Sola Scriptura are unable to agree on interpretation of Scripture.

Heres what he wrote "…I noticed how St Luke’s version of St Paul’s conversion story varies from St Paul’s own references to it.

Dang! Why don’t those writers get it right!"

I guess we will have to wait until he responds.

Nonetheless, it is very hypocritical of catholics to point out disagreements on scriptural interpretation among non-catholics when you guys have the exact same issue.

 

[RNRobert]

Nonetheless, it is very hypocritical of catholics to point out disagreements on scriptural interpretation among non-catholics when you guys have the exact same issue.

While there may be differences in how Catholics may understand a verse of Scripture, we respect the authority of the Magisterium as the final authority on the matter. While some Catholics reject this authority, they are in dissent, and many leave to start their own church or find one that is more accomodating to their views. The thing with Protestantism is that everyone can set themselves up as their own authority on what scripture says, and no one can say who’s wrong or right. Take for example the Lord’s Supper. Lutherans and Episcopalians believe Jesus is really present in the Eucharist (although not in the same way as Catholics and Orthodox see it), while other denoms deny it, and say it’s just a memorial supper, nothing more. According to Scripture, who is correct? How can they both be right? If the Lutherans and Episcopalians are wrong, then they are guilty of idolatry. If the other groups have it wrong, they may be guilty of blasphemy.

 

[Bishopite]

I know there are a lot of posts and it is basically impossible to read them all and neither is it fun. But the substance of your post has already been answered before and I’m not repeating myself. I’m already outnumbered 1 to 100. Sorry.

No problem, I can see you are out numbered. But if you would like I have another question.

Perhaps though you or another Protestant on this thread can answer this question. Perhaps it has been answered before but I’ll ask it anyway.

Jesus died for you and me and He has taken away all sin away as far as the eternal punishment of sin, that’s true, however, in Protestant theology one is first justified (made righteous) and then sancified (made holy througout his life) if he is growing in his faith. So the question I pose is…

When you die, will you have repented from all sin?

In other words are you completely sanctified?

And I mean all sin with full and complete repentance?

 

[Bishopite]

While there may be differences in how Catholics may understand a verse of Scripture, we respect the authority of the Magisterium as the final authority on the matter. While some Catholics reject this authority, they are in dissent, and many leave to start their own church or find one that is more accomodating to their views. The thing with Protestantism is that everyone can set themselves up as their own authority on what scripture says, and no one can say who’s wrong or right. Take for example the Lord’s Supper. Lutherans and Episcopalians believe Jesus is really present in the Eucharist (although not in the same way as Catholics and Orthodox see it), while other denoms deny it, and say it’s just a memorial supper, nothing more. According to Scripture, who is correct? How can they both be right? If the Lutherans and Episcopalians are wrong, then they are guilty of idolatry. If the other groups have it wrong, they may be guilty of blasphemy.

Right. Protestants and Catholics deal with controversial theological and moral issues distinctly different:

When Protestants disagree with what Scripture teaches they simply break-up and start another church which then breaks up eventually and they start another church and the cycle continues…in which the inception was the reformation. Even Luther didn’t like what he was seeing in the reformations infancy.

When Catholics on the other hand argue about what is truth both in Scripture and Tradition, they don’t go out and start another church, they appeal to the Pope, the Magisterium who if needed, proclaims something as a dogma (that which has to be believed in order to be Catholic), so then the case is settled.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Right. Protestants and Catholics deal with controversial theological and moral issues distinctly different:

When Protestants disagree with what Scripture teaches they simply break-up and start another church which then breaks up eventually and they start another church and the cycle continues…in which the inception was the reformation. Even Luther didn’t like what he was seeing in the reformations infancy.

When Catholics on the other hand argue about what is truth both in Scripture and Tradition, they don’t go out and start another church, they appeal to the Pope, the Magisterium who if needed, proclaims something as a dogma (that which has to be believed in order to be Catholic), so then the case is settled.

This sounds so nice. Would that it were true.

The Catholics and Protestants are nearly identical in this respect, with one difference: When Catholics argue about what is truth both in Scripture and Tradition, one side labels the other side a “heretic”, then the “heretic” goes and starts another church such as the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church, the Hutterite Bretheren Church, and others. Protestants are also into namecalling at such time, but usually refrain from the use of the “heresy” label.

 

[Redbandito]

This sounds so nice. Would that it were true.

The Catholics and Protestants are nearly identical in this respect, with one difference: When Catholics argue about what is truth both in Scripture and Tradition, one side labels the other side a “heretic”, then the “heretic” goes and starts another church such as the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church, the Hutterite Bretheren Church, and others. Protestants are also into namecalling at such time, but usually refrain from the use of the “heresy” label.

Well it would be pretty hypocritical for a heretic to call someone a “heretic.” As Jesus stated in Mt 7:3-5, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” God bless!

 

[Philthy]

1. Jesus is called the Son of God. John 3:16 says He is the Son of God. John, chapter 1 teaches that the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. In order to be the Son of God he had to be fully man and fully God. This is why I have a hard time with the Mother of God description of Mary as she is not God so I find it hard to see how she could be the Mother of God.

The fact that you have a hard time with it is irrelevent to everyone except yourself. The fact that you admit that it plays a part in your decision making is quite revealing. Let me help stretch your mind - from Scripture of course. Elizabeth said in reference to Mary:

“How is it that the MOTHER OF MY LORD…” you can look it up yourself. Now that is holy Scripture and Mary is addressed as the “Mother of my Lord”. Who is Elizabeth’s Lord? Jesus Christ. Who is Jesus Christ? He is the very same individual that Thomas described as “my Lord and my GOD”. Again, look it up. It is very simply impossible not to grant that Mary is the mother of God unless you wish to deny that Jesus is God. I know its really, really hard to think first and then type, but you might consider practicing it.
I dont expect a response - youve been ducking me for some time now after I pointed out that you seem to have difficulty admitting when you are wrong. I dont expect you to benefit from this - I write this for anyone who may have been remotely misled by your weak response above.

 

[Philthy]

I’ll try to answer these posts in more depth tonight but I want to leave with this thought. I repeat, the key word is ‘WRITE’.

Also, I did not do eisegesis. But isn’t that what Catholics do with their doctrine of purgatory? They read that into the passage of 1 Corinthians. If I’m guilty of it, I guess you guys are too.

Have a good day (and don’t read into that, I mean what I say).

• The key word is not “write” simply because you say so.
• You absolutely did eisegesis
• Your continuing attempts to prove a point by criticizing the individual behavior of Catholics does nothing to justify the errors which you are unable to adequately defend regarding your own theology. It does, however, discredit your character.

 

[geraldffff]

• The key word is not “write” simply because you say so.
• You absolutely did eisegesis
• Your continuing attempts to prove a point by criticizing the individual behavior of Catholics does nothing to justify the errors which you are unable to adequately defend regarding your own theology. It does, however, discredit your character.

I have read daddie’s posts and am to ignorant to make any sufficent reply so I thank you that do reply. One thing I have noticed just using common sense and reason. I can envision daddie as a rumpled haired 12 year old looking at his suffeling feet, winking and mumbling out of the side of his mouth when faced with a powerfull argument he cannot refute. LOL Peace

 

[Reformed1]

I have read daddie’s posts and am to ignorant to make any sufficent reply so I thank you that do reply. One thing I have noticed just using common sense and reason. I can envision daddie as a rumpled haired 12 year old looking at his suffeling feet, winking and mumbling out of the side of his mouth when faced with a powerfull argument he cannot refute. LOL Peace

and you guys complain about the treatmet you receive at carm…

 

[geraldffff]

Your question asks us to give you an example of something that is different between Church teaching and what is contained in the Bible. This we cannot do since the Church’s teaching is based upon the Scriptures. As you already know, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient - as is evidenced by the alternative interpretations of it even among Protestants.

However, we can easily give you examples of non-Catholic teachings that are different from what the Bible teaches - *sola scriptura *and sola fide being among the most egregious examples.

In a previous posting concerning your nickname, you commented that you really should have just chosen “Sola” which would be more useful depending upon the doctrine you were defending. While you spoke in jest, the underlying reality is that you really are “alone” - just you and your Bible seeking to establish what it means and working out an understanding of salvation for yourself. This is Pelagianism.

Jesus told us “there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16). Paul said, "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

You seek to enter heaven by means other than the Church that Christ established. Jesus spoke of this when he said, “I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1) If you deny this and declare your desire to enter by Jesus, the gate, then you must find the one who holds the keys to unlock the mysteries of the Gate. Peter and his successors, the popes, who hold those keys. The scripture is plain enough on this. (cf. Mt 16:18-19)

You hold false doctrines, and by your arguments, you seek to convince others to hold them as well. Thus, you try to steal sheep from the flock of Christ. If you deny this and declare yourself to be a member of the flock of Christ, then you would do well to listen to Peter, who was charged with tending and feeding you. “Feed my sheep. Take care of my lambs. Feed my lambs.” (cf. John 21)

Finally, you may argue that you have the TRUE interpretation of the Word of God and that you seek only to save those who are following a false gospel. Are you infallible? Is your interpretation of the scripture infallible? Are you infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach us what the scriptures mean? No, I do not recognize your authority to teach us what the scriptures say. I do not recognize your voice at all, and all who hear you “will run away…because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” (John 10:5)

But I do hear echoes of distant voices; those of Arius, Marcion, Pelagius, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus, Henry VIII, Tyndale, Wesley and many others. Anyone who rejects the Church founded by Jesus Christ and led by the Holy Spirit in order to build a “better” church, participates in the sins of irreligion: heresy, schism and apostasy. Their efforts are those of mere human beings aping what God has already done. The charge of Pelagianism rests squarely on their shoulders.

This is such a great statement it should be reposted. You have rallied me and as just a simple stable boy it makes me happy to have the privelage of grooming your horse before you mount it and go in to battle against the heathens.

 

[Redbandito]

and you guys complain about the treatmet you receive at carm…

I know. Why go to Carm, when you guys can come over here and treat us uncharitably? At least we are at home amongst friends during the abuse.