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

[hoosierdaddy]

The primary difference is that the Catholic Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus, and therefore, she cannot err on matters of faith and morals. And, no, disagreements are not precluded - but they are ENDED when Rome speaks.

How come when Rome speaks it tends to contradict Scripture?

It is not the Church that cannot err on matters of faith and morals (we’ve seen the Church’s actions through the ages) but it is the Bible and the Bible alone that is inerrant of matters of faith and morals. I cannot trust an organization that wants me to throw this basic truth out the window. Here I stand…

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hey hoosierdaddy,

I am going to start a separate thread just 4 U on purgatory and all the Scriptures that support it. AND I won’t even use 2 Maccabees.

Please look for it tomorrow. I will title it Purgatory in Scripture.

Peace,
Jacobaer

Will do, thanks.

Can I ask a question too? Can Mary really be the Mother of God but not God? Sorry, two questions. Can a Christian be a Christian when they don’t believe that Mary is the Mother of God?

My bad, three questions. Even if purgatory is in Scripture, how come you Catholics can’t come to a consensus on what it is? First it’s a “purification” and not a punishment. But then I read of people talking about suffering in purgatory. Which is it? Punishment or not? And if it’s not punishment, why would one want to avoid it? I WANT to be purified and I would be horrified if someone tried to buy my way out of purgatory if indeed purgatory were true. So would God. God bless.

 

[maurin]

You are too deep for me maurin. Thanks for the conversation.

only because you shoot first and ask questions later. You may consider asking questions first, then shooting.

I repeat: sola Scriptura, the maker of light, not Light Himself.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hey Sola,

I asked you another question and you haven’t answered yet.

I’ll ask it again.

Can a Christian who believes that Jesus is fully God and fully man believe any of the following:

A) Jesus has two natures and is two separate persons in one body.

B) Jesus is one person and has one nature, a combination of the human and divine natures.

Jacobaer

The can believe anything they want, would it be orthodox Christianity? The answer is no.

 

[mikeledes]

Do we see through a glass darkly or do we not?

You can put your trust in a Magisterium…I will put mine in the Lord Jesus Christ and the written Word He left us so that we would not be deceived by man. You keep forgetting (and this is THE last time I’m going to say it) that Protestants are not divided on issues of the Gospel. The true Christians anyways.

They’re not divided on issues on the Gospel? So, Baptists believe in eternal security and most Pentecostals do not. Some belive tongues are a sign of salvation and the Holy Spirit. Others say its a demonic experience because tongues have ceased. Many Protestants believe in the immortality of the soul, but Adventists do not. How about the Arminian vs. Calvinist debate. Is it free will or predestination? There are several fundamental issues that directly pertain to the Gospel that Protestants disagree on.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The primary difference is that the Catholic Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus, and therefore, she cannot err on matters of faith and morals. And, no, disagreements are not precluded - but they are ENDED when Rome speaks.

How come when Rome speaks it tends to contradict Scripture?

It is not the Church that cannot err on matters of faith and morals (we’ve seen the Church’s actions through the ages) but it is the Bible and the Bible alone that is inerrant of matters of faith and morals. I cannot trust an organization that wants me to throw this basic truth out the window. Here I stand…

It contradicts erroneous interpretations of Scripture. Like I’ve said time and time again. God protects His Church from falling into error. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail over His Church. In order for Protestantims to be correct, Christ must have failed to fulfill His Promise. The Gates of Hell prevailed for over a thousand years until 1517. And even after 1517, the confusion that followed is a sign that something was terribly wriong because God does not contradict Himself, His truth is one, and God is not the author of confusion.

We see “through a glass darkly” is a reference to God, hooosierdaddy, not to His Revelation (note the refernce to “face to face”) We will see God clearly when we meet him face to face.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

The can believe anything they want, would it be orthodox Christianity? The answer is no.

Yes or no… Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that the Scriptures are the sole [infallible] rule of faith for the Church today? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

 

[SolaScriptura]

hoosierdaddy:

Do we see through a glass darkly or do we not?

You can put your trust in a Magisterium…I will put mine in the Lord Jesus Christ and the written Word He left us so that we would not be deceived by man. You keep forgetting (and this is THE last time I’m going to say it) that Protestants are not divided on issues of the Gospel. The true Christians anyways.

They’re not divided on issues on the Gospel? So, Baptists believe in eternal security and most Pentecostals do not. Some belive tongues are a sign of salvation and the Holy Spirit. Others say its a demonic experience because tongues have ceased. Many Protestants believe in the immortality of the soul, but Adventists do not. How about the Arminian vs. Calvinist debate. Is it free will or predestination? There are several fundamental issues that directly pertain to the Gospel that Protestants disagree on.

God Bless,
Michael

Actually they are not. The things you have listed do not necessarily pertain to The Gospel. The problem here is that “gospel” can be used in different ways. The way that I think hoosierdaddy is using it, is as the Paul says in Romans 1, the power of God unto salvation. This we would argue is by faith alone trusting in the work of Christ( life, death, resurrection, ascension) for our salvation. Now the gospel can be used in a more generic sense which is “good news”. There are many many things in Scripture that we would say is gospel in this sense. For example, it is gospel that one day every tear will be wiped from our eyes, however this is not The Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. Likewise believing in eternal security or not is not the Gospel that saves. The same is true for the rest of your points. As a matter of fact if the above proves Protestant disagree on the Gospel then it likewise proves the same thing for Catholicism, because there are at least 4 different Catholic views on predestination.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

They’re not divided on issues on the Gospel? So, Baptists believe in eternal security and most Pentecostals do not. Some belive tongues are a sign of salvation and the Holy Spirit. Others say its a demonic experience because tongues have ceased. Many Protestants believe in the immortality of the soul, but Adventists do not. How about the Arminian vs. Calvinist debate. Is it free will or predestination? There are several fundamental issues that directly pertain to the Gospel that Protestants disagree on.

God Bless,
Michael

Nope. They are not divided on issues of the gospel. Both sides hold to salvation through Jesus Christ alone. I know because I was saved as a pentecostal and am now a baptist. So…since we have issues amongst ourselves we are wrong? But when Catholics have issues amongst themselves (and they do) it is ok? Arminians and Calvinists disagree on the “how” we come to salvation…both believe it is through Jesus Christ though so you lack a point.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yes or no… Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that the Scriptures are the sole [infallible] rule of faith for the Church today? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

I will answer you as soon as you this.

Yes or no … Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

It contradicts erroneous interpretations of Scripture. Like I’ve said time and time again. God protects His Church from falling into error. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail over His Church. In order for Protestantims to be correct, Christ must have failed to fulfill His Promise. The Gates of Hell prevailed for over a thousand years until 1517. And even after 1517, the confusion that followed is a sign that something was terribly wriong because God does not contradict Himself, His truth is one, and God is not the author of confusion.

We see “through a glass darkly” is a reference to God, hooosierdaddy, not to His Revelation (note the refernce to “face to face”) We will see God clearly when we meet him face to face.

God Bless,
Michael

The confusion existed BEFORE 1517! That was the POINT of 1517! To get back to biblical Christianity which was very much obscured by Catholic “Tradition” and superstitions. If God is not the author of confusion (and He isn’t) then why is Catholicism so gosh darn confusing?

Ok, so we will see God clearly when we meet Him face to face. I can buy that. But then you assert that tongues and prophecies are still for today then? Those are in the same passage.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You are correct on what I am speaking of SS.

 

[mikeledes]

Actually they are not. The things you have listed do not necessarily pertain to The Gospel. The problem here is that “gospel” can be used in different ways. The way that I think hoosierdaddy is using it, is as the Paul says in Romans 1, the power of God unto salvation. This we would argue is by faith alone trusting in the work of Christ( life, death, resurrection, ascension) for our salvation. Now the gospel can be used in a more generic sense which is “good news”. There are many many things in Scripture that we would say is gospel in this sense. For example, it is gospel that one day every tear will be wiped from our eyes, however this is not The Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. Likewise believing in eternal security or not is not the Gospel that saves. The same is true for the rest of your points. As a matter of fact if the above proves Protestant disagree on the Gospel then it likewise proves the same thing for Catholicism, because there are at least 4 different Catholic views on predestination.

If it is a truth revealed by God, it is to be believed by all. If God says it is eternal security, then it is not okay to says it is not. If God says it’s not, then it is not okay to say it is eternal security. I think it is a great presumption to divide God’s truth into essentials and nonessentials. Where does God make such a division, since He alone can do such a thing?

Predestination is a great mystery and difficult to reconcile with free will. But all Catholics must believe in predestination and that God incorporates free will in accomplishing the salvtion of the elect. That’s been affirmed in several binding councils, including the Second Council of Orange and the Council of Trent.

God Bless,
Michael

God Bless,
Michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Interesting Michael. Because Scripture does not teach that we have free will. In fact, it teaches the opposite. It says that we are slaves to sin. It says that we are born again of the will of God, not of the will of man or the flesh.

As for you saying that there should be no such thing as essentials and non-essentials, well, you Catholics do the same thing. The Assumption of Mary and Fatima ring a bell? Not all Catholics agree on these issues. They are non-essentials, according to Catholics. The fact is there ARE essentials and non-essentials. The Bible teaches this.

 

[SolaScriptura]

If it is a truth revealed by God, it is to be believed by all. If God says it is eternal security, then it is not okay to says it is not. If God says it’s not, then it is not okay to say it is eternal security. I think it is a great presumption to divide God’s truth into essentials and nonessentials. Where does God make such a division, since He alone can do such a thing?

No one is denying that a revealed truth is supposed to be believe by all, however God knows we are not perfect and there will not be perfect unity. Based on your reasoning everything taught in Scripture is essential. If that is the case then there is no unity amongst any two individuals. How many Catholics do you know that agree on every single thing taught in Scripture? The ECFs and tradition are all over the map on many different issues, does this mean they are all divided on essentials? I’ve heard Catholic apologist such as Mark Shea boast about the diversity of belief amongst Catholics on nonessential things, but you seem to be saying everything is essential.

Predestination is a great mystery and difficult to reconcile with free will. But all Catholics must believe in predestination and that God incorporates free will in accomplishing the salvtion of the elect. That’s been affirmed in several binding councils, including the Second Council of Orange and the Council of Trent.

God Bless,
Michael

You are missing the point. It is not good enough to say all Catholics believe in predestination. Of course they do, because the Scripture talks about it. However, they have different beliefs about what God has revealed about predestination. So based on your reasoning above it is the truth about predestination that God has revealed which we are to believe and not a belief about predestination that we make up on our own. Your position is untenable.

 

[mikeledes]

No one is denying that a revealed truth is supposed to be believe by all, however God knows we are not perfect and there will not be perfect unity. Based on your reasoning everything taught in Scripture is essential. If that is the case then there is no unity amongst any two individuals. How many Catholics do you know that agree on every single thing taught in Scripture? The ECFs and tradition are all over the map on many different issues, does this mean they are all divided on essentials? I’ve heard Catholic apologist such as Mark Shea boast about the diversity of belief amongst Catholics on nonessential things, but you seem to be saying everything is essential.

I agree that on issues that are not clear and have not been defined, there is room for discussion and debate. Since we’re on Sola Scriptura, where in the Bible is this distinction between “essential” and “nonessential” doctrines? Who has the authority to determine what is within the “pale of orthdodoxy” and what is not? What about Pentecostals who believe Jesus is God, but don’t believe in the Trinity. They says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all titles and modes of one person within the Godhead. Are they okay? I hope you know that there are also Protestant churches who believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation and in baptismal regeneration (Lutheran). That deals with salvation, the core of the Gospel.

Regarding predestination, the two basic schools of thought are the Thomists and the Molinists. Both believe in the principal of divine election (God has ordained some to eternal glory and these will infallibly reach that goal). Where they differ is the relationship between grace and free will.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Sean_Boyle]

How come when Rome speaks it tends to contradict Scripture?

It is not the Church that cannot err on matters of faith and morals (we’ve seen the Church’s actions through the ages) but it is the Bible and the Bible alone that is inerrant of matters of faith and morals. I cannot trust an organization that wants me to throw this basic truth out the window. Here I stand…

But you can trust the infallable organization to bring you the infallable word of God in the bible. The bible came from the Tradition of the Church. You can’t accept one without the other.

What truths does the Church want you to throw out the window. Is it sola scriptura? That’s not in the bible. That tradition was added by man.

When speaking of the Church you’ve gotten alittle confused. The individual believers are not the whole of the Church. If that where true then Sola Scriptura should be judged by the beliefs of Benny Hinn and Jim Jones. See the difference?

 

[SolaScriptura]

I agree that on issues that are not clear and have not been defined, there is room for discussion and debate.

It is good to see that you are at least backing away from your previous post where you made no distinction. All you said was that if God revealed it everyone should believe it and it is all essential. This reminds me of what Augustine says, “In essential unity, non-essentials charity, in all things love”. That is no different then what I’m saying.

Furthermore, in your above quote you beg to many important questions for it to be of any value or workable. For example, who determines what is clear? The clearness of a teaching is not a sign of it being essential. There are many things the Scripture teach with clarity, but no one should make them essential to the Christian faith. Also in most cases we are beyond “discussion and debate”, because both sides agree to disagree.

Since we’re on Sola Scriptura, where in the Bible is this distinction between “essential” and “nonessential” doctrines?

The essential things are those that the Scripture speak of as necessary for salvation and those things that derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. For example, the Scripture never explicitly say one must believe in the Trinity to be saved, however it logically follows if you don’t believe in the right God then you cannot be saved.

Who has the authority to determine what is within the “pale of orthdodoxy” and what is not?

Ultimately the Scriptures are the final authority, but they must be interpreted to arrive at this truth. Who interprets the Scriptures? Anyone can, but each church should setup elders as the Scriptures teaches who have authority in the church.

What about Pentecostals who believe Jesus is God, but don’t believe in the Trinity. They says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all titles and modes of one person within the Godhead. Are they okay?

No, they are not okay, because that is an essential. If you don’t have the right God then you can’t be saved. Otherwise I could believe that Jesus was not even human or God.

I hope you know that there are also Protestant churches who believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation and in baptismal regeneration (Lutheran). That deals with salvation, the core of the Gospel.

Lutherans affirm justification is by faith alone, believing this happens at baptism is not a denial to me of the Gospel. It is a difference in when the application takes place.

 

[mikeledes]

The essential things are those that the Scripture speak of as necessary for salvation and those things that derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. For example, the Scripture never explicitly say one must believe in the Trinity to be saved, however it logically follows if you don’t believe in the right God then you cannot be saved

.

What are those things that are derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture? Can you name a couple of examples? Also, regarding the Lutherans, they also believe in infant baptism and the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

.

What are those things that are derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture? Can you name a couple of examples? Also, regarding the Lutherans, they also believe in infant baptism and the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

God Bless,
Michael

The nature of God as Truine and Jesus Christ as the God-man. The Scripture doesn’t say believing in these things are necessary for salvation, but by good and necessary consequence it follows that they are, otherwise you are believing in a false god that cannot save. Or to put it another way, you have to put your faith in the right God, not a god of your own imagination.

I also believe in infant baptism and the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion as do a number of other denominations who uphold the Reformational tradition. Part of the problem here is that Catholicism has made so many things as necessary for salvation that Catholics often think Protestants should do the same. However, if you follow Scripture there is no way belief in things such as the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption of Mary should be required for salvation.