Fallacies of sola scriptura

[paul_c]

Been reading the Church’s Authorized Version of History, have you?

That’s a typical skeptics charge, but the fact remains that the reason that Constantine issued the edict of Milan decriminalizing Christianity was that it was politically required. By the time he did, fully one fourth of the his empire’s subjects were Christian, including his mother. (15 million out of 60 million). scaruffi.com/politics/romans.html

And by the way, Constantine sided with the Arians as did his next two successors, not the Catholics. Nevertheless, the Catholic view was overwhelmingly affirmed by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea. As described in this secular account: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Was he repudiating the Law, expanding its meaning or starting a new doctrine? Before you answer compare these commandments Ex 21:24 “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” to Mat 5:39 “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Who commanded the first one? According to the Bible God (the Father) did - Exo 20:1 “And God spake all these words, saying,…”
What’s your take?

In Leviticus 24, we read:

13 The LORD then said to Moses,
14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and when all who heard him have laid their hands on his head, let the whole community stone him.
15 Tell the Israelites: Anyone who curses his God shall bear the penalty of his sin;
16 whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; alien and native alike must be put to death for blaspheming the LORD’S name.
17 “Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death;
18 whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution of another animal. A life for a life!
19 Anyone who inflicts an injury on his neighbor shall receive the same in return.
20 Limb for limb, eye for eye, tooth for tooth! The same injury that a man gives another shall be inflicted on him in return.
21 Whoever slays an animal shall make restitution, but whoever slays a man shall be put to death.
22 You shall have but one rule, for alien and native alike. I, the LORD, am your God.”

In Matthew 5 we read:

38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
40 If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
41 Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

Leviticus is a book of laws and is addressed to the society as a whole to keep order. It is proscribing harsh penalties for sin to encourage the population to behave in the way God intends.

Jesus, on the other hand is addressing us as individuals that have been wronged. He is saying to act with love toward others , even those that harm you. Love your enemy, in other words. This is a revelation that is not inconsistent with societies obligation to protect its population from evil, which is what Leviticus is doing.

Keep in mind his actions toward the adulteress in John 8:
3 Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle.
4 They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.
5 Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
6 They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.
7 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
9 And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.
10 Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.”

Now he did not declare the law invalid did he? He in fact told them to carry out the law. But he did it in such a way as to engender kindness and understanding in the crowd, making them realize that they too were sinners who wanted a second chance. It should be noted that while he didn’t condemn the woman, he did tell her to not sin again. so he didn’t set aside the law, but he revealed the need to love others when carrying it out.

 

[paul_c]

A “believer” means just that. I didn’t qualify what I believed in. Lets leave it at that. Christianism IS just another religion and a very recent one at that. Judaism is also a religion, much older than Christianity. Islamism is younger that the two but is also a religion. Mormonism is also a religion, a later-day one to be sure. And every one of them claim pre-eminence over the others. Go figure.

Christianity is not JUST another religion. You act as if all religions are equal, they are not. And yes, they are all bound to say they are the real way to heaven.

But lets review in a very cursory way the religions you have noted.

All of the religions you noted (Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism) believe in the one true God first worshiped by Abraham. Judaism is by far the oldest of the group, and Christianity denies nothing of what the Jews believe. Christianity is the fulfillment of the Judaic religion and is founded on Jesus, the son of God, who substantiated his claim through countless miracles including rising from the Dead… Many of the Jews at the time of Christ recognized this and became Christians, others did not and it is their descendents that are the Jews of today.

Islam was started some 600 years later by Mohammad, who claimed to be a prophet of God but did nothing to substantiate that claim… Mohammad recognized Jesus as a prophet who was born of the virgin Mary. However, he ignored the fact that. Jesus said he was the Son of God. It is hard to reconcile the two. Also, note that Christianity was spread through love, while Islam was spread through conquest. there is a message there.

As for Mormonism, it was founded by Joseph Smith, who claimed to be the prophet of God, but did nothing to substantiate that claim. In fact, he was a serial adulterer who was murdered in jail. It is very telling that his widow left the church he founded over a property dispute.

 

[QuickCat]

Let’s say you are giving a lecture on “potatoes”, for example and you brought to the lecture room 40 sacks of different potatoes. At the beginning of the lecture you inform your audience that you’ll be talking, specifically, about the 12 sacks you have marked with a large red “X”.
Now, when you use expressions like “all the potatoes” or “every potato” how would the audience interpret what you mean by it? Would they ignore or forget what you said right at the beginning of the lecture and assume you were referring to all the potatoes in the 40 sacks?
If Jesus said that he had come specifically for “the lost tribes of Israel” and the Angel proclaimed that he would be given the throne “of his father David” why do you interpret this as referring to every Tom, Dick or Harry in the world?

I am so sorry that you are so spiritually blind. Bless your heart! You obviously don’t know that Israel is promised an earthly kingdom while the Body of Christ is already seated in the heavenlies [positionally] with the Lord Jesus Christ. Sorry, your last question doesn’t even make sense. Just what part of Matthew 15:24 don’t you understand?

 

[paul_c]

I am so sorry that you are so spiritually blind. Bless your heart! You obviously don’t know that Israel is promised an earthly kingdom while the Body of Christ is already seated in the heavenlies [positionally] with the Lord Jesus Christ. Sorry, your last question doesn’t even make sense. Just what part of Matthew 15:24 don’t you understand?

This is the blind leading the blind. Both of you will fall into a ditch.

What part of Matthew 28: 18-20 do you not understand?
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age

The reason that the Jews were the chosen people and the reason that they needed to stay holy with all the Levitical laws was because Jesus, the savior of the world, was destined to come from that race. Salvation is through the Jews and all of the Apostles were Jews, including your beloved St. Paul. They were commissioned to make disciples of ALL nations.

One of the revelations from Jesus to the Jews was that his kingdom would not be earthly. Do you not realize that the Jews were mistakenly expecting an earthly kingdom and that’s what caused them to fail to understand that Jesus is the Messiah.
The kingdom of God is marked by love, not land,

 

[avflf]

And by the way, Constantine sided with the Arians as did his next two successors, not the Catholics. Nevertheless, the Catholic view was overwhelmingly affirmed by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea. As described in this secular account: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The heresy associated with the name of Arius, a priest in Alexandria, is the most significant in the history of Christianity. It concerns the mystery at the very heart of the religion - the Trinity.
The problem for the early church has been that the Gospels talk of God and of Jesus (who describes God as his Father) and, more occasionally, of the Holy Spirit. But they do not explain how they relate to one another. All three seem to be divine, and yet - as a sect of monotheistic Judaism - early Christians know for sure that they worship only one God. How can this be? The concept of the Trinity, three in one and one in three, gradually emerges as the best answer. But it begs many questions.
Only if the three are equal can they be aspects of one god. Yet if God creates Jesus, he clearly has some sort of priority. On the other hand if God does not create Jesus, he can hardly be his Father. This is the problem which concerns Arius, who asks in particular whether there was ever a time when God existed but Jesus, as yet, did not. He concludes that there was such a time (‘there was when he was not’). Jesus is therefore less than fully divine.
Even so, Arius agrees that it is right to worship Jesus. This reopens the door to polytheism, and in 323 the bishop of Alexandria dismisses his troublesome priest. The dispute rapidly escalates. In 325 Constantine intervenes, summoning a council at Nicaea.
More than 200 bishops, mainly from the eastern parts of the empire, arrive at Nicaea for the council. They meet in Constantine’s palace, and the emperor himself presides over many of the discussions. His authority is purely political; though an undoubted supporter of Christianity, he has not yet been baptized.
The alarming presence of the emperor helps the bishops to reach a conclusion more emphatic than is justified by the range of their opinions. The crack opened wide by Arius seems to be firmly closed when it is announced at Nicaea that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (homo-ousios in Greek).
The Arian heresy has not been suppressed as conclusively as Constantine may like to think, but his last years are calm enough for him to devote himself to his chosen religion. He becomes increasingly pious, and is a generous builder of churches in Rome and Palestine as well as Constantinople.
In Jerusalem he constructs the church of the Holy Sepulchre on the supposed site of the Crucifixion. Happily the excavations reveal what is taken to be the actual cross (or True Cross) on which Christ died. The discovery is later credited to the emperor’s aged mother, Helena, who in 327 makes a famous pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Falling ill in AD 337, Constantine is at last baptized - only a few days before his death. It has often been asked why he left this necessary act of Christian commitment so late. The answer is probably so as not to waste the magic of baptism, which washes away sins. An emperor can hardly live a blameless life, and there are many blots on Constantine’s record - such as his unexplained execution of his eldest son and his second wife in 326.
A late baptism guarantees a clean record on the day of judgement.

historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac60#ixzz0p2d7qY1E

In Leviticus 24, we read:
…
In Matthew 5 we read:
…

You assume that he was speaking on individual behaviour as there is nothing in passage that says so, but you have to reconcile the OT with the NT and if it means assuming what somebody that lived 2000 years ago thought or what he meant by what he said that’s called apologetics. Let’s make it easier by inserting the word “God” into the text: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by God, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” It is diametrically opposite. It means that you should take no action even legal action if you are wronged. The adulteress episode falls also in the same category: God in the OT did not say that those who were to stone an adulterer had to be sinless, so he did change the law.

 

[paul_c]

The heresy associated with the name of Arius, a priest in Alexandria, is the most significant in the history of Christianity. It concerns the mystery at the very heart of the religion - the Trinity.
The problem for the early church has been that the Gospels talk of God and of Jesus (who describes God as his Father) and, more occasionally, of the Holy Spirit. But they do not explain how they relate to one another. All three seem to be divine, and yet - as a sect of monotheistic Judaism - early Christians know for sure that they worship only one God. How can this be? The concept of the Trinity, three in one and one in three, gradually emerges as the best answer. But it begs many questions.
Only if the three are equal can they be aspects of one god. Yet if God creates Jesus, he clearly has some sort of priority. On the other hand if God does not create Jesus, he can hardly be his Father. This is the problem which concerns Arius, who asks in particular whether there was ever a time when God existed but Jesus, as yet, did not. He concludes that there was such a time (‘there was when he was not’). Jesus is therefore less than fully divine.
Even so, Arius agrees that it is right to worship Jesus. This reopens the door to polytheism, and in 323 the bishop of Alexandria dismisses his troublesome priest. The dispute rapidly escalates. In 325 Constantine intervenes, summoning a council at Nicaea.
More than 200 bishops, mainly from the eastern parts of the empire, arrive at Nicaea for the council. They meet in Constantine’s palace, and the emperor himself presides over many of the discussions. His authority is purely political; though an undoubted supporter of Christianity, he has not yet been baptized.
The alarming presence of the emperor helps the bishops to reach a conclusion more emphatic than is justified by the range of their opinions. The crack opened wide by Arius seems to be firmly closed when it is announced at Nicaea that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (homo-ousios in Greek).
The Arian heresy has not been suppressed as conclusively as Constantine may like to think, but his last years are calm enough for him to devote himself to his chosen religion. He becomes increasingly pious, and is a generous builder of churches in Rome and Palestine as well as Constantinople.
In Jerusalem he constructs the church of the Holy Sepulchre on the supposed site of the Crucifixion. Happily the excavations reveal what is taken to be the actual cross (or True Cross) on which Christ died. The discovery is later credited to the emperor’s aged mother, Helena, who in 327 makes a famous pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Falling ill in AD 337, Constantine is at last baptized - only a few days before his death. It has often been asked why he left this necessary act of Christian commitment so late. The answer is probably so as not to waste the magic of baptism, which washes away sins. An emperor can hardly live a blameless life, and there are many blots on Constantine’s record - such as his unexplained execution of his eldest son and his second wife in 326.
A late baptism guarantees a clean record on the day of judgement.

historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac60#ixzz0p2d7qY1E

What is your point?

You assume that he was speaking on individual behaviour as there is nothing in passage that says so, but you have to reconcile the OT with the NT and if it means assuming what somebody that lived 2000 years ago thought or what he meant by what he said that’s called apologetics. Let’s make it easier by inserting the word “God” into the text: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by God, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” It is diametrically opposite. It means that you should take no action even legal action if you are wronged. The adulteress episode falls also in the same category: God in the OT did not say that those who were to stone an adulterer had to be sinless, so he did change the law.

Your original argument was that Jesus revealed nothing new. You were half right. He didn’t change any laws, but he changed our ideas about how they were to be considered.
For instance, he didn’t say that Adultery was now to be tolerated. He told the woman to go and sin no more. What he did offer was mercy. This moderates but does not eliminate the justice called for in the old testament.

As for your argument that there is nothing to prove that Jesus was talking about personal behaviour and morality in the Sermon on the Mount, well that’s a matter of the language used. Everything is address to “You” which is clearly personal being a second person descriptor… Leviticus 24 is in the third person and hence is directed to the community.

 

[jerryb1020]

A “believer” means just that. I didn’t qualify what I believed in. Lets leave it at that. Christianism IS just another religion and a very recent one at that. Judaism is also a religion, much older than Christianity. Islamism is younger that the two but is also a religion. Mormonism is also a religion, a later-day one to be sure. And every one of them claim pre-eminence over the others. Go figure.

avflf,
Of course, every religion will say it is right, but which one is actually right?

Christianity is NOT ‘just another religion’. The church started by Jesus (‘Upon this rock I will build my church’) is the religion that God wants all people to follow.

 

[losh14]

Wow, I get busy for 2 weeks, come back and … yowza this isn’t pretty.

I think I’ll just go on to the next forum.

 

[avflf]

What is your point?

The point is that I did not see where Constantine sided with Arianism. The article shows him as rather impartial but firm on holding fast to whatever decision was taken. Just giving another point on his life and deeds. He was most generous to the Church in Rome

Your original argument was that Jesus revealed nothing new. You were half right. He didn’t change any laws, but he changed our ideas about how they were to be considered.
For instance, he didn’t say that Adultery was now to be tolerated. He told the woman to go and sin no more. What he did offer was mercy. This moderates but does not eliminate the justice called for in the old testament.

As for your argument that there is nothing to prove that Jesus was talking about personal behaviour and morality in the Sermon on the Mount, well that’s a matter of the language used. Everything is address to “You” which is clearly personal being a second person descriptor… Leviticus 24 is in the third person and hence is directed to the community.

I did not quote from Leviticus but from Exodus.
(Ex 21:1) Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. “Thou” means “you”.

 

[avflf]

I am so sorry that you are so spiritually blind. Bless your heart! You obviously don’t know that Israel is promised an earthly kingdom while the Body of Christ is already seated in the heavenlies [positionally] with the Lord Jesus Christ. Sorry, your last question doesn’t even make sense. Just what part of Matthew 15:24 don’t you understand?

No need to feel sorry o pious one, I do just fine.

 

[avflf]

Also, note that Christianity was spread through love, while Islam was spread through conquest. there is a message there.

Through love? Surely you jest, Sir

 

[avflf]

avflf,
Of course, every religion will say it is right, but which one is actually right?

Christianity is NOT ‘just another religion’. The church started by Jesus (‘Upon this rock I will build my church’) is the religion that God wants all people to follow.

You say so, but believers of other religions will say the same thing about theirs.

 

[avflf]

What part of Matthew 28: 18-20 do you not understand?
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age

Did he change his mind again? You know, from what he said he was sent for in Mat 15:24

 

[QuickCat]

Danny,

In post # 26 on May 11, I asked for some responses from non-Catholic members. I wrote: "My question is, if Christians believe that Christ died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven because it is in the Bible and it is there because the Apostles believed, shouldn’t all Christians believe everything that the Apostles believed?

Therefore, for example, since there is much evidence the Apostles believed that Jesus meant it literally, not symbolically, when He said ‘This is my body. This is my blood’, and there is vast evidence that the Apostles taught those beliefs to others, how can any denomination that teaches a symbolic interpretation of those words claim they are ‘bible believing’ and ‘following Christ’?"

Danny, would you mind giving your view for a different example.

Jesus said to Simon, “Your are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church” Since there is also vast evidence that the Apostles believed that Peter was to lead the Church, that they acknowledged his leadership, and that they believed and taught that successors were to be appointed “til the end of the world/age/time”, how can any denomination that does not accept the present Pope as a legitimate successor of Peter claim they are ‘bible believing’ and ‘following Christ’?"

Thanks,

JB

I have pointed out that Matthew 16 can not be addressing the Body of Christ when the word “church” is mentioned. Israel in the wilderness was a “church” [Acts 7:38]. The church [yet future] of Mt. 16 is that kingdom church that will be set up when our Lord returns to establish the kingdom and the 12 sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. In the Body of Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile]. We are a “new creation” in the Lord Jesus Christ [2 Cor. 5:17]. We, in the Body of Christ, have a heavenly calling, while the members of the coming kingdom church have an earthly calling. You guys ignore Mt. 15:24. Since our Lord, in His first advent, came “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” to whom would Mt. 16 apply? Israel, of course! The only way you can get around this is to “spiritual” ‘Israel’ to mean the Body of Christ. In that “kingdom” church the Jew is the head and not the tail. BTW, that kingdom church is the subject of prophecy while the Body of Christ was hid in God until revealed to Paul. You have never answered my question: [inre "Apostolic succession] Why didn’t the apostles replace James in Acts 12?

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;6676737]Jon,
the written word can have many different interpretations as you well know. It is not scripture that defines the doctrine but the tradition that guides the interpretation. The Lutherans, like the Catholics, have their own tradition of how each passage of scripture is to be understood.

True, in many ways.

In the Lutheran case, this tradition was defined primarily by your namesake, Martin Luther. In the Catholic Case, the tradition is Apostolic. There are some huge differences.

I think, if you read the Book of Concord, you would be surprised at how “catholic” it truly is.

For instance, Luther downplayed personal sin, making it unimportant for salvation, which is governed by Faith alone. The Catholic view is that you will be judged based on your actions (which should be inspired by Faith).

Citation please, as you are, in my opinion, misrepresenting what Luther and Lutherans believe.

We understand this as the reality of St. James famous quote, " Faith without works is dead" Martin Luther sought to suppress that Epistle, calling it the epistle of Straw.

St. James does not conflict with sola fide.
Are you saying that Luther tried to suppress the Book of James by translating it and including it in his translation of the NT?
I encourage you to read what Luther actually said about James.
tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a6

Jon

 

[Murphs10]

.

I think, if you read the Book of Concord, you would be surprised at how “catholic” it truly is.

Jon,

I think you need to rally all the Lutherans and come on home. We miss you!!!

 

[paul_c]

The point is that I did not see where Constantine sided with Arianism. The article shows him as rather impartial but firm on holding fast to whatever decision was taken. Just giving another point on his life and deeds. He was most generous to the Church in Rome

Which is counter to your original argument that The Roman Empire chose the Catholic Church.

I did not quote from Leviticus but from Exodus.
(Ex 21:1) Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. “Thou” means “you”.

The thou he is speaking to is Moses, the law giver and the effective head of Israel, in charge of the common good. He was the government and he had ot keep order.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I think you need to rally all the Lutherans and come on home. We miss you!!!

Thank you for the invitation. We all have prayerful work to do, put our hopes and trust in His Spirit. So much progress has been made since John XXIII signed Vatican II.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
=paul c;6676737]Jon,
the written word can have many different interpretations as you well know. It is not scripture that defines the doctrine but the tradition that guides the interpretation. The Lutherans, like the Catholics, have their own tradition of how each passage of scripture is to be understood.

I understand that Lutherans have their own view of Sola Scriptura that is different than how a fundamentalist views the same term. If I understand it correctly, you see scripture as base from which doctrines should be checked. But this definition is still insufficient because as we agreed above, the same scripture passage can and will be interpreted differently in the various traditions. It is there for the tradition that is the true norm. And Catholic Tradition is Apostolic, while Lutheran tradition is, well, Lutheran…

Quote:
In the Lutheran case, this tradition was defined primarily by your namesake, Martin Luther. In the Catholic Case, the tradition is Apostolic. There are some huge differences

Well, if it is so Catholic, why did Luther and 50M Lutherans break away from the Catholic church? And why haven’t you returned?

Quote:
For instance, Luther downplayed personal sin, making it unimportant for salvation, which is governed by Faith alone. The Catholic view is that you will be judged based on your actions (which should be inspired by Faith).

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign.
Letter 99, Paragraph 13. Erika Bullmann Flores, Tr. fromr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche SchriftenDr. Johann Georg Walch Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15, cols. 2585-2590. [3]
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Quote:
We understand this as the reality of St. James famous quote, " Faith without works is dead" Martin Luther sought to suppress that Epistle, calling it the epistle of Straw.

Come on , Jon. St. James was speaking directly against Sola Fide and I did read what you posted: It included gems like this one:

“That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.”[86[/COLOR]]

And what’s very telling is that Luther sets himself up as being superior to all those before him. in his interpretations.

 

[jerryb1020]

You say so, but believers of other religions will say the same thing about theirs.

avfli,
Of course they will, but since Jesus is God and God is Perfect Truth, then the Church Jesus founded must be the TRUE church.

What I think has no merit. The only things that count are: what did Jesus teach? What did the Apostles understand? What did they believe? What did they practice? What did they teach their successors? And finally, for some, what did they die for?

Most Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God, that He died, was buried, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Why do we believe that? Yes, it is in the bible, but it is in the bible because the Apostles believed. If the Apostles did not believe, there would be no Bible. There would be no Christianity. So the logical question is: Why don’t all Christians believe EVERYTHING the Apostles believed?

Bottom line: The Catholic Church believes and teaches EVERYTHING the Apostles believed. Can you name a Protestant church that teaches EVERYTHING the Apostles believed? Real Presence? Authority of Peter and authority to appoint successors? Forgiveness or retention of sin? Doctrines that are bound in Heaven?

Jesus said “Forgive or you will not be forgiven.” Based on the Bible and the writings of the early Church Fathers, the Apostles believed this to be true. Why do so many Protestant churches teach ‘once saved, always saved’; that one can go through life bearing grudges and plotting revenge yet enter Heaven just because one has had a ‘born again’ event?

If one believes that he/she can commit any sin, any crime, and act, and still be assured of Heaven because they professed Jesus to be Lord and Savior, are they believing what Jesus said or what they want to believe? If their church teaches instant salvation, is that church teaching the whole truth? Do ‘bible believing’ churches really believe the Bible or do they believe their inaccurate interpretations of scripture?

Individuals will fail, but the TRUE Church that Jesus founded is protected for all time by His promise. Solo Scripture (the theme of this thread, by the way) is not something taught by Jesus or believed by the Apostles. How can it be defended?

JB