K
kaycee
Guest
Soooo, the apostles wrote the epistles in some kind of code that only the Oral combination could unlock???
- Status
K
kaycee
Guest
You need to read up on what Sola Scriptura means. You obviously are fighting something else.Where does it say this in the Bible?
Also, one of the “minor incidentals” appears to be the answers to my infamous 4 questions.I wouldn’t consider that to be “minor”
Using Scripture alone, please tell me:
- Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27?
- Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
- Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
- Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?
The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.
According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions.
K
kaycee
Guest
Can you tell me a few preserved Oral traditions = to Scripture stated by the Apostles? Even Just one would be good.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Actually that’s what many sola scripturists believe.Soooo, the apostles wrote the epistles in some kind of code that only the Oral combination could unlock???
After all, many don’t take the scriptures on what they say: they have to INTERPRET them.
Scripture says: “baptism now saves you.”
SS’ers: No it does not. It is only a symbol.
Scripture says “This is my body”
SS: No it is not, it is only a symbol.
Scripture says “This is my blood”
SS: No it is not, it is only a symbol.
If Scripture did not need interpreting, then why are sola scripturists always trying to sell us their interpretation? Why not stick to the Apostolic interpretation of scripture INSTEAD? The Apostles wrote the NT, they KNEW what it meant! They had such a huge dose of the Holy Spirit that they were able to write INERRANT scripture! But for some reason SS’ers seem to claim they couldn’t interpret the very writings they made…and thus we must reject the Apostolic interpretation of scripture and you must accept my interpretation instead!
B
BobCatholic
Guest
First find me the correct definition of sola scriptura.
Unfortunately, the relativism of SS prevents one from being in existence
O
OneForTruth
Guest
It is you and others that take the scriptures out of context…let’s go into this a little deeper.
Let’s not look at my opinion - let’s look at what it says…
James 2:14-24 NAS95 14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
Can this KIND of faith save him???
15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
Again…we are saved by living faith - faith that works…NOT FAITH AND WORKS
18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
We are speaking here only of the exhibition of faith - the characteristics of the faith…and so it continues…
19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
What KIND of faith is this - about as good as demonic faith!
20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
It produces the godly fruit for which it was designed (Eph. 2:10). Just as a fruit tree has not fulfilled its goal until it bears fruit, so also faith has not reached its end until it demonstrates itself in a righteous life. That is the sense in which Abraham was justified by works.
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Of course…in this sense…you are not justified by faith alone. Faith that is alone is DEAD faith…this is the sense in which he is driving at.The whole passage is about the nature of the faith and this is quite apparent. This word justified is also not being used in the same sense as is in Romans…and clearly is being shown in the sense that is indicated in the bold print below…
1344 δικαιόω [dikaioo /dik·ah·yo·o/] v. From 1342; TDNT 2:211; TDNTA 168; GK 1467; 40 occurrences; AV translates as “justify” 37 times, “be freed” once, “be righteous” once, and “justifier” once. 1 to render righteous or such he ought to be. 2 to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered. 3 to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be.
What do we see over and over - show me…a man may say…James was against those empty tares in the Church who evidenced that they were not of the fold.
DEAD, USELESS, DEMONIC FAITH IS NOT SAVING FAITH.
May The Lord Show Us…
M
mikeledes
Guest
And yet we have a passage like 2 Peter 1:5-9
**5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. **
Does it say that he who did not add to his faith the things listed never had genuine faith to begin with? That they had dead/demonic faith? No! It says that he who lacks these things has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. In other words, he has forgotten that he was justified. So faith must produce works, but faith does not automatically produce works. If that were the case, then why would diligence be needed to add to one’s faith and why would someone who has faith and has been cleansed for their sins lack these things? May the Lord show us and may we open our minds and hearts to receive what the Lord has shown.
God Bless,
Michael
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Of course the Apostles didn’t write in code, but scripture itself tells us that some things in Paul’s letters are hard to understand. Oral tradition helps us understand the Bible properly.Soooo, the apostles wrote the epistles in some kind of code that only the Oral combination could unlock???
2 Peter 3:15-16 So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do other scriptures.
C
christcnection1
Guest
You may not actually be aware of this, but the belief that we use “some kind of code that only the oral combination could unlock,” is not consistent with Catholic teaching.Soooo, the apostles wrote the epistles in some kind of code that only the Oral combination could unlock???
Neither codes, oral combinations, or locks come into play here. This is not the Da Vinci code kaycee, as historically accurate as that is.
O
OneForTruth
Guest
Context is key…
Verse 8 makes explicit the warning I have sounded: “For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffectual and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Recall from verse 2 that it is in “the knowledge” of Christ that there can be a barren and fruitless knowledge of Christ. It is possible to make a start in the Christian life but then to become indifferent and unfeeling and careless in using the means of grace, and to drift into destruction. 2 Peter 2:20 says, “If after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first.” If the knowledge of God’s glorious promises does not spur us on to strive against the tide, then we will be barren and fruitless and drift to our destruction.
Verse 9 describes what has happened in the person who quits swimming and is not pressing forward in Christ’s qualities. “For whoever lacks these things (in verses 5-7) is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.” The problem with the person who does not strive toward all the fruit of faith is that he is blind in two directions. When he looks to the future it’s all a haze and the promises of God are swallowed up in a blur of worldly longings. I think that is what it means by shortsighted. And when he looks to the past the forgiveness that made him so excited at first is well-nigh forgotten, and all he sees is an empty prayer and a meaningless ritual of baptism. In other words, just as in verse 3 the power for godliness flows through knowledge of God, so in verse 9 blindness to the past and future work of God blocks that power and leaves us limp in the water, drifting toward destruction.
Verse 10 makes crystal clear what is at stake in such blindness and powerlessness and fruitlessness: "Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election." The danger described in verses 8 and 9 (as an incentive to advance in the fruits of faith) is not the danger of slipping into the kingdom with no rewards. It is the danger of not being saved at all. When Peter says, “Be zealous to confirm your call and election,” he means that our lack of diligence in Christian graces may be a sign that we were never called and are not among the elect.
That fits with the context of all scripture. Those who have a knowledge **MERELY PERCEIVE **forgiveness…sanctification…it truly was not theirs.
Lu 8:18 "So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, **even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him."
He thinks he has it - but it never was a reality!
1Jo 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
May We Truly Attempt to Place All of What The Lord Has Shown Us In The Full Context of Scripture…
O
OneForTruth
Guest
The Eucharist is not scriptural either as the CC proclaims…
John 6:63 is the killer…
John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; **the words that I have spoken to you are spirit **and are life.
A carnal/literal understanding and application of this truth profits nothing…only a spiritual understanding. He said…MY WORDS - they are spirit. We are to only understand this…
Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
…as a spiritual drinking and eating of Christ…
In the context we have…
John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
He is explaining to us here what faith is - what believing is. There is no superficial tasting here…(Heb 6:4-6)…no mere enlightenment or knowledge. But a full taking in of Christ SPIRITUALLY. The mind, emotions, and will…fully falling before Him as Lord and taking Him in completely by wholeheartedly trusting in Him and relying upon Him for salvation - being fully satisfied in all that he is. That is what this text is trying to get across…John 6:63 is the response to John 6:52/John 6:61…
John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”…
John 6:61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
So…yes…he tried to help them to understand with John 6:63 but - they still rejected Him - just like people reject Him today.
The Eucharist is a carnal/literal rendering of this passage which Christ attampted to correct/avoid with John 6:63.
Me
John 6:63 is the killer…
John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; **the words that I have spoken to you are spirit **and are life.
A carnal/literal understanding and application of this truth profits nothing…only a spiritual understanding. He said…MY WORDS - they are spirit. We are to only understand this…
Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
…as a spiritual drinking and eating of Christ…
In the context we have…
John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
He is explaining to us here what faith is - what believing is. There is no superficial tasting here…(Heb 6:4-6)…no mere enlightenment or knowledge. But a full taking in of Christ SPIRITUALLY. The mind, emotions, and will…fully falling before Him as Lord and taking Him in completely by wholeheartedly trusting in Him and relying upon Him for salvation - being fully satisfied in all that he is. That is what this text is trying to get across…John 6:63 is the response to John 6:52/John 6:61…
John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”…
John 6:61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
So…yes…he tried to help them to understand with John 6:63 but - they still rejected Him - just like people reject Him today.
The Eucharist is a carnal/literal rendering of this passage which Christ attampted to correct/avoid with John 6:63.
Me
M
mark_a
Guest
You’d make a good lawyer.
O
OneForTruth
Guest
God made me an Engineer instead.
M
mark_a
Guest
That explains a few things then!!!
M
mikeledes
Guest
Linkowski, it does not say in the text that the person was seemingly cleansed of their sins. It says:
**9For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. **
The passage clearly asserts that the person has been purified from his sins and thus can only mean that the person had been justified. It is stating reality, not something imaginatory. Secondly, the “these things” refer to those things that needed to be added to faith. That means the person had faith. Regarding you use of Luke 8:18, I completely disagree with your use and interpretation of it. The passage is meant to express the thoroughness of the taking away, not that the person did not have anything at all. I will demonstrate that in another post.
God Bless,
Michael
D
djrakowski
Guest
In response to OneForTruth’s attempt to disprove our theology of the Eucharist, I offer the following:
Source: Christ in the Eucharist
M
mikeledes
Guest
Let’s compare Luke 18:8 so that we can get the proper scriptural context and meaning of that verse:
Matthew 25:14-30
**14"For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them.
15"To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
16"Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17"In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18"But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19"Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.
20"The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’
21"His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
22"Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’
23"His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
24"And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25’And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’
26"But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27’Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. 28’Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’
29"For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. 30"Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. **
So the servant who had only one talent only thought he had one talent? And he hid is imaginary talent in the ground? And his lord was demanding that he put an imaginary talent in the bank and get imaginary interest. and the imaginary talent was taking away and given to another? That makes absolutely no sense. What he has is real and given to him by his lord. This parable clearly demonstrates what happens if the gifts God gives us (grace, faith, etc.) remain unfruitful. As I stated earlier, the point of Luke 8:18 is to express the thoroughness of the taking away. It is so thorough that even what a person thinsk they have will be taken away. That is an image of the total desolation one experiences in hell. I am increasingly becoming convinced that faithfulness to a particular theology is trumping Scripture and the laws of grammar, semantics, and common sense. Yes, may we truly attempt to place all of what the Lord has shown us in the full context of scripture without violating the express words of God.
God Bless,
Michael
G
guanophore
Guest
There is a difference, kaycee. One only needs to look at the vast variety of denominations and interpretations to see that. The Oral tradition interprets the written, and when the two are separated, chaos results.
It is necessary to distinguish between the “traditions of men” and Sacred Tradition. Hymns and liturgical preferences may be personal, but the Sacred Teachings given by Jesus to the Apostles transcend personal taste. Even the Apostles were not at liberty to change them.
Clearly anyone can read them, and interpret them. However, there is only one correct interpretation, and that can be found in the Oral Tradition which produced the writings.Soooo, the apostles wrote the epistles in some kind of code that only the Oral combination could unlock???
G
guanophore
Guest
The written word is not to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.
M
mtr01
Guest
You make a great deal of errors in this eisogesis. First, you must demonstrate that carnal is a synonym for literal. Next, you must demonstrate that literal is an antonym of spiritual. Unfortunately it can’t be done (unless, of course, you are making the fundamental error that most Protestants make in the eisogesis: equating “spiritually” with “symbolically”).
What you have done, most likely unawares, is stumbled upon part of the truth. The fact is, Our Lord was trying to correct the disciples’ carnal understanding of his words (cannibalism) for a spiritual understanding. However, He did this in the verse **prior **to the one you quoted:
John 6:63 said:
The Ascension both will validate his words, but also demonstrate that we are to partake of his glorified body and blood (which is exactly how all Apostolic Churches understand the Eucharist.)
- Status