G
- Status
H
HailMary
Guest
Matthew 18:18 is why
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
and Luke 10:16
He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
Why on would Jesus give this authority but not have it be exercised? Christ left things to the Catholic Church to decide because not everything that leads to true Christian living is in the bible!
H
HailMary
Guest
Am I arguing that you should ignore the bible? Your point is null. Catholic have Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
Even the Sacred writer of the Gospel according to St. Matthew believed in Tradition.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Hello Ryan!John 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
In Matt. 28:20 Jeusus says “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.
Peace,
Ryan
I agree with you!
Sola Scripture does not mean every thing about God is contained in the Bible. God is too great to be explained in a series of books. He didn’t create a language that can express His magnificence.
What is it you think has been left out of Scriptures that will separate me from my Lord and Savior?
G
Ginger2
Guest
If Sola Scripture isn’t enough for God to reach His people, how do you explain MariaG?
She said, “I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church”
MariaG didn’t need the Catholic church to explain Scripture. She gave her understood thru Sola Scripture.
Pretty hard for you to ignor since she then chose the Catholic church
She said, “I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church”
MariaG didn’t need the Catholic church to explain Scripture. She gave her understood thru Sola Scripture.
Pretty hard for you to ignor since she then chose the Catholic church
H
HailMary
Guest
Yes, at the same time, you could read the Scriptures and be led into heresy.If Sola Scripture isn’t enough for God to reach His people, how do you explain MariaG?
She said, “I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church”
MariaG didn’t need the Catholic church to explain Scripture. She gave her understood thru Sola Scripture.
Pretty hard for you to ignor since she then chose the Catholic church
2 Pet 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
Once again, your point is null.
H
HailMary
Guest
2 Peter 1:20If Sola Scripture isn’t enough for God to reach His people, how do you explain MariaG?
She said, “I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church”
MariaG didn’t need the Catholic church to explain Scripture. She gave her understood thru Sola Scripture.
Pretty hard for you to ignor since she then chose the Catholic church
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Not if I was truly seeking God.
2 Ti 4:3 A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear.
Psa 81:11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. 12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: [and] they walked in their own counsels.
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
G
Ginger2
Guest
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
H
HailMary
Guest
I honestly don’t see much substance there for your arguments.Not if I was truly seeking God.
2 Ti 4:3 A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear.
THAT TIME WAS THE 16TH CENTURY!
Psa 81:11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. 12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: [and] they walked in their own counsels.
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie
:
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Just a few ideas:
- That verse has no bearing on Sola Scriptura, any more than on (say) the Incarnation.
- “Scripture” - graphé in the Greek - could equally well be translated “writing”. English makes a distinction in meaning: Greek & several other languages do not - Italian scrittura, for example, can like graphé mean either.
- The first words of verse 16 could equally well be translated: “Every inspired writing (or: Scripture) is profitable…” - this could apply to writings outside what eventually became the 27-book list of NT writings.
- It is an assumption, for which there is not a scrap of NT evidence, that the NT writers regarded all, only, & every one of the writings Christians now regard as NT Scripture, as NT Scripture for them. There is no basis for the idea that any Apostle - let alone all 12 - governed their lives by a totally inerrant NT of all & only the 27 books now regarded
as comprising the NT. - It is entirely possible, quite likely even, that there were different views on the status of the NT books in the Apostolic Church - just as there were later. Some of the Fathers agreed with St. Jude in using 1 Enoch as Scripture. If an Apostle could quote that book as containing an inspired prophecy by Enoch, by what right does anyone not accept the (inspired, inerrant & infallible) words of an Apostle who is writing (inspired, inerrant & infallible) Scripture ? If Enoch was an inspired prophet for St. Jude, he is definitely an inspired prophet for the rest of the Church, or should be. By the standards of normal Fundamentalist argument, there is no reason whatever to deny that Enoch is as true a prophet as Isaiah or Amos. It is “liberalism” & “modernism” & “denial of the supernatural” to deny that 1 Enoch is totally inspired, inerrant, infallible, & entirely by the prophet whose name it bears & to whom an inspired, inerrant & infallible NT writing explicitly attributes it, even quoting it word for word. If St. Jude did not regard 1 Enoch as the Holy, Inerrant, Preserved, Infallible, Perfect, Truthful, Prophetic, Word of God written - why is that book the only one he quotes ? He doesn’t quote Genesis or Numbers - they are merely referred to.
So there should be:
- Bible studies of 1 Enoch
- Commentaries on 1 Enoch
- Sermons on 1 Enoch
- Books applying the main lessons of this saintly Prophet to modern conditions
- Explanations of the types in 1 Enoch
- Recommendations of the high excellence of 1 Enoch
- Studies of prophecy using 1 Enoch
Inerrancy is another idea that worked on 16th century assumptions, but no longer makes sense, because the ideas underlying the theologies & doctrines of inspiration (of which it is said to be a property) have changed. 20th century ideas with 16th century foundations need either to be renewed, or renounced.
Theology today is not that of the 16th century - just as neither one is that of the sixth or the first. That is why the doctrines framed in the past need to be re-stated - otherwise, they will cease to be comprehensible, & the Gospel message for the sake of which they were set forth will cease to be comprehensible: it will cease to be Good News, because nobody will have the faintest idea what message is being conveyed. And an incomprehensible Church, is an irrelevant Church.
V
VociMike
Guest
Unless you are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox I know you do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ as he commands. If you are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox then perhaps you should upgrade your profile, which says “protestant”.True. Faith without works…
But why do you make assumptions about what I do or don’t do when you don’t know. Do you have delusions of being psychic?
G
Ginger2
Guest
Jesus also quoted from books that are not included in the canon. That, in itself is not reason to consider the entire book inspired. The Jewish people of that time knew these books and their stories.
I could quote from a specific document, but that doesn’t necessarily mean every thing in the document is supported by facts. Some of the info could be professional opinion.
[QUOTEsavedsinner]
2 Timothy 3:8
As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;
Jannes and Jambres were not mentioned in the Old Testament, it was an oral tradition that was passed on…
As I previously stated in response to the above quote,
This was an oral Jewish tradition - it did not start with the Apostles. It really does not matter that Exodus does not use their proper names? It was understood that they were the pharaoh’s magicians, so they are in fact mentioned in the Bible.
Paul was using the story of Moses to make a point. He could have used another story instead. Or, Paul could have said, “As the pharaoh’s magicians opposed Moses, …”
G
Ginger2
Guest
You should be careful what you claim to know. Your assumption suggests you know what God is doing.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
You are not an inspired apostle Neither am I. St Jude was both inspired and an Apostle - and he vouched for the inspiration of the Prophet Enoch. If the Fundamentalist doctrine of Scripture can be used to guarantee the real historical occurrence of a worldwide Flood or of the Virgin Birth exactly as narrated in the Gospels, the same reasoning that validates it for doing those two things, validates it to prove the real historical occurrence of the prophetic ministry of Enoch, as required by the meaning of the words of denunciation which St. Jude quotes from the book of that Prophet.
Fundamentalists can’t pick which conclusion the logic of the Fundamentalist position requires to be valid: if it validates one putatively historical assertion, it validates all such. If Total Inerrancy proves the Flood is world-wide, it proves the truth of all that St. Jude asserts about Enoch. If you can pick & choose from 1 Enoch according as you consider this or that part inspired by God & fulfilling the test of usefulness, etc., as laid out in 2 Timothy - we can do the same with the OT books & parts of books not quoted by Jesus or His Apostles. Which is quite a lot of the OT.Jesus nowhere says one syllable about the total inerrancy of Genesis 11 - so those who wish, can ignore it. Just as you want to ignore the rest of 1 Enoch, merely because St.Jude does not explicitly declare that every single word is inspired. St. Paul does not say that about Isaiah, either - there are 1291 verses in the 66 chapters of that book, & only some are quoted by Christ & the Apostles. If all 66 chapters of Isaiah are inspired (despite the total absence of any NT statement to this effect), it makes no sense not to regard the 108 chapters of 1 Enoch as equally inspired.
V
VociMike
Guest
I know what the Church teaches about the lack of the Real Presence in any and all of the Protestant churches. So, to the extent that the Church guards and teaches the fullness of God’s revelation (which it does), and to the extent that I understand that teaching (I doubt I’ve misunderstood the Church on this issue) then I have the authority of God’s revelation backing me up on this.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Are you asking for essential doctrines that are not contained in Scripture? If so, I’ll have to work on an answer for you because I don’t want to dodge your question, or mention doctrine that is in Scripture.Hello Ryan!
I agree with you!
Sola Scripture does not mean every thing about God is contained in the Bible. God is too great to be explained in a series of books. He didn’t create a language that can express His magnificence.
What is it you think has been left out of Scriptures that will separate me from my Lord and Savior?
With that said, the proper interpretation of scripture is often left out of scripture, which is why we need sacred tradition. The improper interpretation of scripture could lead to seperation from the Lord.
Peace,
Ryan
M
Milliardo
Guest
Whenever Jesus says “It is written”, it only means He is emphasizing a point by quoting, most often, from the Law. This is for emphasis among His listeners that what He teaches can be found in the Law. Such things, though, do not prove sola scriptura, as Jesus also has His own parables and sayings which cannot be found elsewhere. If sola scriptura is true, then the first violator must be the Lord Himself.
M
Milliardo
Guest
“They”? You forget that less than half of the Apostles wrote anything, apocryphal (non-canonical books claimed to be of the Apostles’, not the Deuterocanonicals) books notwithstanding. So do you think that the Apostles who didn’t write anything were less than authoritative then?
No Apostle I know of ever considered his own writing as Scripture; where did you get this?
It is not Catholic definition that is the problem; it is exactly that Protestants define sola scriptura that way, not the Catholic Church.
If the Bible is one way for God to speak to us, then surely there must be other ways that God speaks to us. But if that is so, then that is no longer sola scriptura, and that in itself would go against that notion.
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course he did! But these scriptures are the OT, since the NT had not yet been written. Can you imagine us, today, understanding the Gospel message based only on the OT!?
That Sacred Oral Tradition is critical, and I am sure Paul is the cream of the crop in relating the OT scriptures to the teaching of Christ. But he did it all by preaching, and teaching.
- Status