T
tgGodsway
Guest
Rcwitness, you are right… there has been reconciliation over justification between mainline Protestants and Catholics. We call them post-protestants.
- Status
T
tgGodsway
Guest
To Nicea325, The reason why most Protestants say Sola Scriptura is because this was and is a cardinal doctrine commanded by the founders and framers of the New Testament.
Jesus Himself said, “upon the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established,”Mt.18:16 meaning that just because someone says this and such, and then tags it with thus saith the Lord!, doesn’t mean it was the Lord. The New Testament is a collection of eye-witnesses to the resurrection and the person of Christ.
The Apostle Paul, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, gave a warning about this when he said, “if we or an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached… may a curse be upon him.” Gal. 1:8 He went on to say that his doctrine did not come from MEN but was a revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:12 These things should matter to all Christians Roman and non.
Jesus Himself said, “upon the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established,”Mt.18:16 meaning that just because someone says this and such, and then tags it with thus saith the Lord!, doesn’t mean it was the Lord. The New Testament is a collection of eye-witnesses to the resurrection and the person of Christ.
The Apostle Paul, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, gave a warning about this when he said, “if we or an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached… may a curse be upon him.” Gal. 1:8 He went on to say that his doctrine did not come from MEN but was a revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:12 These things should matter to all Christians Roman and non.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Rcwitness, … you said “… the bible gives authority to the Church. Neither is above the other… But men cause the Church authority to be very difficult to discern at times.“ I so agree with your last part of that statement.
But if tradition (both Protestant and Catholic) contradict the settled doctrine of scripture, scripture, (written by eye-witness) has authority over all tradition, custom and culture. Please remember that oral tradition was always something unreliable and under suspicion from Jesus’ point of view.
The Protestant Church has its own problems properly interpreting scripture, I agree, but the Roman Church has a greater problem. They continue to write scripture in the form of Papal decrees and Oral traditions. In other words, they continue to be the mouthpiece for God even though God has finished all that He has had to say in this dispensation of Grace.
Papal decrees and Church counsels gained most of its political and religious power at the counsel of Trent in 1546. It was here that the Roman Church decided that oral tradition now has the same weight of authority as scripture with a energetic belief that there is a succession of tradition trailing back to the 1st. Century.
However, for the first three centuries, tradition and any Christian writings was limited and almost non-existent. Why? In those days to proclaim the name of Christ could cost you your life. So writings, books, commentaries were all very limited.
So 15 centuries later, non-witnesses (Oral decrees) presume to speak for God with no real connection to the founder’s intent. None of them meet the biblical standard Jesus commanded. “Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established.” These people weren’t there.
They cannot be the witnesses in either doctrine or practice to the Christian faith because by definition they were not witnesses at all. They do not have the spiritual authority to play this specific role as a successor to the founders and framers of God’s word.
We call this: extra-biblical revelation, which is a subjective and non-verifiable action. This makes it dangerous. It is like a cult leader who gathers people around and says, I have God’s word!
Then the people believe him and enthrone him as God’s mouthpiece, yet he never spoke for God. In Roman Catholicism its much more complicated because you have longer periods of time with a collection of people all claiming to speak for God.
But if tradition (both Protestant and Catholic) contradict the settled doctrine of scripture, scripture, (written by eye-witness) has authority over all tradition, custom and culture. Please remember that oral tradition was always something unreliable and under suspicion from Jesus’ point of view.
The Protestant Church has its own problems properly interpreting scripture, I agree, but the Roman Church has a greater problem. They continue to write scripture in the form of Papal decrees and Oral traditions. In other words, they continue to be the mouthpiece for God even though God has finished all that He has had to say in this dispensation of Grace.
Papal decrees and Church counsels gained most of its political and religious power at the counsel of Trent in 1546. It was here that the Roman Church decided that oral tradition now has the same weight of authority as scripture with a energetic belief that there is a succession of tradition trailing back to the 1st. Century.
However, for the first three centuries, tradition and any Christian writings was limited and almost non-existent. Why? In those days to proclaim the name of Christ could cost you your life. So writings, books, commentaries were all very limited.
So 15 centuries later, non-witnesses (Oral decrees) presume to speak for God with no real connection to the founder’s intent. None of them meet the biblical standard Jesus commanded. “Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established.” These people weren’t there.
They cannot be the witnesses in either doctrine or practice to the Christian faith because by definition they were not witnesses at all. They do not have the spiritual authority to play this specific role as a successor to the founders and framers of God’s word.
We call this: extra-biblical revelation, which is a subjective and non-verifiable action. This makes it dangerous. It is like a cult leader who gathers people around and says, I have God’s word!
Then the people believe him and enthrone him as God’s mouthpiece, yet he never spoke for God. In Roman Catholicism its much more complicated because you have longer periods of time with a collection of people all claiming to speak for God.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I was asking who you receive Communion from. Many claim to adhere to an Apostolic Church. Don’t all Christians believe their Church to be accurately following the Apostle’s Teachings? So I am curious which community you are claiming contains and preserves Apostolic Teaching.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Way too many off topic issues here. I will only say, that being able to rely on Scripture as True Scripture and not writings which were not inspired by God, the Church relied on Sacred Tradition to decree a Canon. Before the 4th century, the books found in various traditions were not all alike. How do we know which books are Scripture and which are not? The Bible you own, when was that group of books said to be the complete canon of Scripture, and who determined that?
D
Debbie_Kono
Guest
Thanks, but I will stick with the Catholic Church’s teaching on salvation: We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Faith alone easily leads to believing we need do nothing to cooperate with God’s grace…Sin boldly and all that rubbish.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Yup. I agree.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
You are right, my statement does not exactly say that. But then we must define what is scripture. What is considered to be inspired of God from that which is not inspired.
Even the Church at Rome acknowledges the inspiration of New Testament Scripture and its authority. Only until the counsel of Trent, in 1546 did they modify their belief to say that oral tradition ALSO has doctrinal weight equal to scripture. This should be a huge problem for any student of scripture.
On what authority did these men make this change? What did the eye witness have to say about it? It’s kind of like a president who creates a law all by himself and rams it down the throat of the people, instead of going through the checks and balances of congress. The congress in this case would be the eye-witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said, upon the mouth of two or three WITNESSES let every word be established. He borrowed the statement from Moses. What do the biblical eye-witnesses say about oral traditions being equal to scripture? … Paul answered this in (Gal. 1:2,8)
I’ll paraphrase it. If anyone teaches anything different than what I’ve been teaching, they are wrong. My doctrine comes directly from Christ.
The Pharisees also had spiritual authority yet Jesus did not recognize it as something that came from God, actually to the contrary. Matthew’s narrative said, this: “the scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; … they tie up heavy loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them…” Mt. 23:2,3,
The point is, these spiritual elites sat themselves in a spiritual position that God did not give them. they controlled the people by using the word of God in a bad way. They even used unbiblical TRADITIONS to control people. These were traditions that had nothing to do with God’s word. Yet Jesus knew how to separate what belong to God from what was a counterfeit. His entire ministry dealt with the opposition of the Pharisees who insisted in imposing tradition and extra laws on men’s backs.
Paul said, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction for training in righteousness…” 2Tim. 3:16. You want to argue from silence, what the bible isn’t saying, rather than what the bible already says. If you obey what it says, the rest of this issue will take care of itself.
Even the Church at Rome acknowledges the inspiration of New Testament Scripture and its authority. Only until the counsel of Trent, in 1546 did they modify their belief to say that oral tradition ALSO has doctrinal weight equal to scripture. This should be a huge problem for any student of scripture.
On what authority did these men make this change? What did the eye witness have to say about it? It’s kind of like a president who creates a law all by himself and rams it down the throat of the people, instead of going through the checks and balances of congress. The congress in this case would be the eye-witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said, upon the mouth of two or three WITNESSES let every word be established. He borrowed the statement from Moses. What do the biblical eye-witnesses say about oral traditions being equal to scripture? … Paul answered this in (Gal. 1:2,8)
I’ll paraphrase it. If anyone teaches anything different than what I’ve been teaching, they are wrong. My doctrine comes directly from Christ.
The Pharisees also had spiritual authority yet Jesus did not recognize it as something that came from God, actually to the contrary. Matthew’s narrative said, this: “the scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; … they tie up heavy loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them…” Mt. 23:2,3,
The point is, these spiritual elites sat themselves in a spiritual position that God did not give them. they controlled the people by using the word of God in a bad way. They even used unbiblical TRADITIONS to control people. These were traditions that had nothing to do with God’s word. Yet Jesus knew how to separate what belong to God from what was a counterfeit. His entire ministry dealt with the opposition of the Pharisees who insisted in imposing tradition and extra laws on men’s backs.
Paul said, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction for training in righteousness…” 2Tim. 3:16. You want to argue from silence, what the bible isn’t saying, rather than what the bible already says. If you obey what it says, the rest of this issue will take care of itself.
D
Debbie_Kono
Guest
Actually you did not quote Matthew 23:3…you quoted 23:2&4, here’s 3: so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
St. Paul also wrote 1 Timothy 3:15.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Departed from topic and closed.
- Status