Fallacies of sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter richardacombs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which is counter to your original argument that The Roman Empire chose the Catholic Church.
He ruled from Rome, was converted through the Roman Church which was the most important seat of Catholicism. He didn’t have much to do with the Eastern Empire until later, when he became ruler of both sections.
The following reflects the period AD 312 to 337
*“Concrete evidence of the new status of Christianity is seen in the emergence of the first church buildings. The change is most visible in Rome, the strongest Christian community. Until now, in spite of the size of the congregation of Christians in Rome, worship has been conducted discreetly in private houses. Suddenly churches become public buildings, city landmarks as prominent as the temples of the pagan cult.
Some of the churches evolve from the private houses already in use for worship; one such example is SS. Giovanni e Paolo in Rome. Others in the capital city are new and more striking foundations.
Constantine establishes three important churches in Rome. One, intended to be the city’s cathedral, is sited immediately beside his own Lateran palace - already presented to the Christians as a residence for the pope. This church is St John Lateran.
The other two churches of Constantine in Rome are built in honour of the city’s two martyrs, Peter and Paul, on the supposed sites of their graves. One is outside the old city and is called S. Paolo fuori le Mura (St Paul Outside the Walls). The other, in the Vatican, is St Peter’s. Both have since been rebuilt.
Constantine, now in firm command of the entire Roman empire (the first man for a long while to be in that position), is planning another initiative as significant as his adoption of Christianity. Immediately after the defeat of Licinius he sets about rebuilding Byzantium as a Christian capital city - one in which pagan sacrifice, the central rite of imperial Rome until this time, is specifically forbidden.” *HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY>rack=pthc#ixzz0p6zXnyer
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.
So, because God spoke through Moses and not directly to the people is different? He didn’t speak to Aaron either but whatever he spoke was still valid. In the sermon in the mountain God spoke through Jesus. I fail to see the difference as it is presented in Scripture.
 
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.
The Jews believe in God but do not believe that Jesus is God also. The Mohammedans believe Jesus was a prophet like Moses and they vow their Holy Books were fully inspired. The Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon was written and translated supernaturally. The Koran throws out a challenge daring any man to produce a Sura as perfect as found in Allah’s book.They say miracles are not proof of divine approval for the individual performing them.
All this leads to is that each religion has a similar set of divine sanction and it’s the devotees of each that claim their is the truth.
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?
Most people can go with that idea that Jesus was the son of God. So was Adam and everyone that’s been born. What a lot of people do not accept is the idea that he is “God the Son”. As for the teaching of the Apostles and the compilation of the Bible as we have it today it was a long and tortuous road with much bickering, spilling of blood and human suffering. As for Protestants having many interpretations it was the same in the early church and only after centuries of dispute did one faction come up on top and suppressed the ideas and interpretations of the defeated … and then wrote its History from their advantage point. If Jesus had realized that baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” washes away sins, including the original one, he would have thought twice about dying and I expect he wouldn’t have gone through with it. But that is presumably what the Apostles taught according to you.
 
The Jews believe in God but do not believe that Jesus is God also. The Mohammedans believe Jesus was a prophet like Moses and they vow their Holy Books were fully inspired. The Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon was written and translated supernaturally. The Koran throws out a challenge daring any man to produce a Sura as perfect as found in Allah’s book.They say miracles are not proof of divine approval for those that perform them.
All this leads to is that each religion has a similar set of divine sanction and it’s the devotees of each that claim their is the truth.

Most people can go with that idea that Jesus was the son of God. So was Adam and everyone that’s been born. What a lot of people do not accept is the idea that he is “God the Son”. As for the teaching of the Apostles and the compilation of the Bible as we have it today it was a long and tortuous road with much bickering, spilling of blood and human suffering. As for Protestants having many interpretations it was the same in the early church and only after centuries of dispute did one faction come up on top and suppressed the ideas and interpretations of the defeated … and then wrote its History from their advantage point. If Jesus had realized that baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” washes away sins, including the original one, he would have thought twice about dying and I expect he wouldn’t have gone through with it. But that is presumably what the Apostles taught according to you.
 
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,
Mt 28:19.20 was given to 11 Jews to evangelize the world. This is what the prophets foretold. Our Lord expanded on the commission in Acts 1:8, first Israel [see Mark 7:27], then the Samaritians, then the rest of the world. But, when the scattering of the Jews took place in Acts 8 the 12 stayed in Jerusalem. Paul told the Jews in Acts 13:46, “It was NECESSARY THAT THE WORD OF GOD SHOULD FIRST [Mark 7:27] be spoken unto you…” But Israel rejected their Messiah and God set them aside in Acts 28. If the “kingdom” was not going to be on earth why did our Lord spend His last 40 days teaching the 11 about the “kingdom” from the O.T. Scriptures? And “opening their understanding” of these Scriptures so that they finally understood that this “kingdom” would be set up on the earth? Then, they asked the Lord Jesus Christ, “Will you AT THIS TIME RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?” Why did our Lord Jesus Christ tell the 12 that they “Would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel?” Obviously on this earth.

Paul was BOTH a Jew and a Roman [Acts 16:37]. He is the perfect picture of the Body of Christ. And this Body of Christ was FIRST revealed to Paul. If you are going to study the great doctrines for the Body of Christ you must be in Paul’s epistles. He wrote more epistles that all the circumcision apostles combined.

BTW, among “all things” our Lord commanded for these 11 Jews - He told them to “Obey those who sit in Moses seat.” And I am happy to see that you use the word “age” at the end of Mt 28:20. Of what “age” is the Lord speaking?
 
He ruled from Rome, was converted through the Roman Church which was the most important seat of Catholicism. He didn’t have much to do with the Eastern Empire until later, when he became ruler of both sections.
The following reflects the period AD 312 to 337
*“Concrete evidence of the new status of Christianity is seen in the emergence of the first church buildings. The change is most visible in Rome, the strongest Christian community. Until now, in spite of the size of the congregation of Christians in Rome, worship has been conducted discreetly in private houses. Suddenly churches become public buildings, city landmarks as prominent as the temples of the pagan cult.
Some of the churches evolve from the private houses already in use for worship; one such example is SS. Giovanni e Paolo in Rome. Others in the capital city are new and more striking foundations.
Constantine establishes three important churches in Rome. One, intended to be the city’s cathedral, is sited immediately beside his own Lateran palace - already presented to the Christians as a residence for the pope. This church is St John Lateran.
The other two churches of Constantine in Rome are built in honour of the city’s two martyrs, Peter and Paul, on the supposed sites of their graves. One is outside the old city and is called S. Paolo fuori le Mura (St Paul Outside the Walls). The other, in the Vatican, is St Peter’s. Both have since been rebuilt.
Constantine, now in firm command of the entire Roman empire (the first man for a long while to be in that position), is planning another initiative as significant as his adoption of Christianity. Immediately after the defeat of Licinius he sets about rebuilding Byzantium as a Christian capital city - one in which pagan sacrifice, the central rite of imperial Rome until this time, is specifically forbidden.” *HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY>rack=pthc#ixzz0p6zXnyer
okay, this still disproves your central theory that Rome created Catholicism.
So, because God spoke through Moses and not directly to the people is different? He didn’t speak to Aaron either but whatever he spoke was still valid. In the sermon in the mountain God spoke through Jesus. I fail to see the difference as it is presented in Scripture.
That’s not my point at all. The point was that the account in exodus and particulalry the book of Leviticus was meant to provide laws for the people to maintain order and the holiness required from the chosen people from which the messiah will emerge.
Jesus, the Messiah, however, was not concerned with governance, but with personal holiness.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Also, note that Christianity was spread through love, while Islam was spread through conquest. there is a message there.
Yes, through love. For the first 300 years of its existence, Christianity was persecuted by the authorities, yet by the time it was decriminalized in 313, over 25% of the Roman Empire’s population were Catholic Christians. As it is has been so often said, the blood of the Christian martyrs were the seeds of conversion. Adn why would that be the case? Because the people could see the love demonstrated by the Christians, even in the face of turture.
 
Mt 28:19.20 was given to 11 Jews to evangelize the world. This is what the prophets foretold. Our Lord expanded on the commission in Acts 1:8, first Israel [see Mark 7:27], then the Samaritians, then the rest of the world. But, when the scattering of the Jews took place in Acts 8 the 12 stayed in Jerusalem. Paul told the Jews in Acts 13:46, “It was NECESSARY THAT THE WORD OF GOD SHOULD FIRST [Mark 7:27] be spoken unto you…” But Israel rejected their Messiah and God set them aside in Acts 28. If the “kingdom” was not going to be on earth why did our Lord spend His last 40 days teaching the 11 about the “kingdom” from the O.T. Scriptures? And “opening their understanding” of these Scriptures so that they finally understood that this “kingdom” would be set up on the earth? Then, they asked the Lord Jesus Christ, “Will you AT THIS TIME RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?” Why did our Lord Jesus Christ tell the 12 that they “Would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel?” Obviously on this earth.

Paul was BOTH a Jew and a Roman [Acts 16:37]. He is the perfect picture of the Body of Christ. And this Body of Christ was FIRST revealed to Paul. If you are going to study the great doctrines for the Body of Christ you must be in Paul’s epistles. He wrote more epistles that all the circumcision apostles combined.

BTW, among “all things” our Lord commanded for these 11 Jews - He told them to “Obey those who sit in Moses seat.” And I am happy to see that you use the word “age” at the end of Mt 28:20. Of what “age” is the Lord speaking?
You need to stop pulling out selective words out of scripture and start looking at scripture as a whole if you really want to understand what Jesus taught. And why do you think Paul’s teachings are more applicable (and different) than what Jesus taught? Why would that make sense?
 
okay, this still disproves your central theory that Rome created Catholicism.
My central theory was
** *“Until the adoption of Catholicism ***by the Roman empire, Christianity was divided in a multitude of sects each with their own interpretation of what was the right way. Once the power of Rome backed one of those sects the rest were doomed to extinction as their books were burned, the followers persecuted and killed as “heretics” and their doctrines forbidden from being propagate”
This is very different from what you think I said.
That’s not my point at all. The point was that the account in exodus and particulalry the book of Leviticus was meant to provide laws for the people to maintain order and the holiness required from the chosen people from which the messiah will emerge.
Jesus, the Messiah, however, was not concerned with governance, but with personal holiness.
So you keep saying, but remember that the woman caught in adultery was a civil case for it was the scribes and Pharisees, the keepers of the Law, that were involved. And as I said before God did not prescribed that one was to be blameless before casting the stone
 
Mt 28:19.20 was given to 11 Jews to evangelize the world. This is what the prophets foretold. Our Lord expanded on the commission in Acts 1:8, first Israel [see Mark 7:27], then the Samaritians, then the rest of the world. But, when the scattering of the Jews took place in Acts 8 the 12 stayed in Jerusalem. Paul told the Jews in Acts 13:46, “It was NECESSARY THAT THE WORD OF GOD SHOULD FIRST [Mark 7:27] be spoken unto you…” But Israel rejected their Messiah and God set them aside in Acts 28. If the “kingdom” was not going to be on earth why did our Lord spend His last 40 days teaching the 11 about the “kingdom” from the O.T. Scriptures? And “opening their understanding” of these Scriptures so that they finally understood that this “kingdom” would be set up on the earth? Then, they asked the Lord Jesus Christ, “Will you AT THIS TIME RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?” Why did our Lord Jesus Christ tell the 12 that they “Would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel?” Obviously on this earth.

Paul was BOTH a Jew and a Roman [Acts 16:37]. He is the perfect picture of the Body of Christ. And this Body of Christ was FIRST revealed to Paul. If you are going to study the great doctrines for the Body of Christ you must be in Paul’s epistles. He wrote more epistles that all the circumcision apostles combined.

BTW, among “all things” our Lord commanded for these 11 Jews - He told them to “Obey those who sit in Moses seat.” And I am happy to see that you use the word “age” at the end of Mt 28:20. Of what “age” is the Lord speaking?
You are so wrong that it almost impossible to know where to begin. First of all there is no reason to believe that the 11 or 12 Apostles [Matthias?] stayed in Jerusalem. Actually there is evidence that they did not. It is not until Acts 10 that Peter has the vision that now is the time to go to the Gentiles. In Acts thirteen we find Paul preaching not to Gentiles but to Jews in the synagogue. In Acts 15 we find the Apostles gathered in Jerusalem but it does not say gathered from where nor does it say they remained in Jerusalem all that time. Biblical scholars place the year for this council in Jerusalem around the year 50 or 51 AD. But Paul says that after his conversion and spending three years in Arabia he went to Jerusalem. There he reports he saw only two Apostles, Peter and James. That year was about 42 AD. Where are the others?

As for the kingdom you will recall that Jesus was questioned by Pilate on this very matter. Jesus’ response to Pilate was that His kingdom was not of this world. As forthe Apostles sitting on twelve thrones please refer to the Book of Revelation. John seesthis vision of the Apostles and the twelve OT Patriarchs [the 24 elders] sitting on thrones IN HEAVEN not the earth.

As for the bit about Moses seat that was spoken by Jesus not exclusively to his disciples. The scripture says Jesus said it to the crowds and to his disciple.

Regarding the Age at the end of Mt 28:20, the age is the Church age which will end at the Second Coming. Remember Jesus said to his disciples that He would leave but He would not leave them orphaned.

Now an observation, you seem to say that there are two gospels one for the Jews as preached by the “11” and the other for the Gentiles as preached by Paul. You have two truths and you have the Holy Spirit talking out of both sides of His mouth. Did it ever occur to you that there is only one Gospel and that the Holy Spirit inspired both Paul and the “11” to preach the same one? Paul had it easy traveling in the Empire. The Romans were masters at road building. The Apostle Thomas went to India. In the 14th Century when Portugeses sailors finally rounded Cape Horn and traveled on to India they were amazed at finding a christian enclave in Southern India that claimed to be the church started by the Apostle Thomas.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
okay, this still disproves your central theory that Rome created Catholicism
Not so different. You are maintaining in this quote that the Roman Empre chose the brand of Christianity to back and that that is why Catholicism survived while the others withered and died. So why do you think that The Roman Empire chose Catholicism? Was it God’s will? Was it because Catholicism was always pre-eminent and the other sects were nothing more than small groups of dissidents? Or was it the Empire merely getting behind a power so strong it couldn’t stop it anyway?
Quote:
That’s not my point at all. The point was that the account in exodus and particulalry the book of Leviticus was meant to provide laws for the people to maintain order and the holiness required from the chosen people from which the messiah will emerge.
Jesus, the Messiah, however, was not concerned with governance, but with personal holiness.
Jesus didn’t get involved in government. He didn’t attempt to change any laws. He was focused on changing hearts. In the case of the adulterous and her accusers, he got the accusers to look at themselves and they realized that they too needed compassion at times adn thus they gave the adulterous a break. But Jesus told her not to sin again, so while he was merciful, he didn’t change the law.
 
Yes, through love. For the first 300 years of its existence, Christianity was persecuted by the authorities, … Because the people could see the love demonstrated by the Christians, even in the face of turture.
"During those first three centuries, Christianity was effectively outlawed by requirements to venerate the Roman emperor and Roman gods. Consequently, when the Church labeled its enemies as heretics and cast them out of its congregations or severed ties with dissident churches, it remained without the power to persecute them"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy

I note that you have kept it to the 1st 3 centuries for after the Roman Empire adopted the Catholic version of Christianity there was hell to pay for anyone who disagreed with its doctrines. But as early as Paul he would fulminate against anybody and everybody that did not go along with his ideas
(Gal 1:6) "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him [that is I, Paul] that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed". And this Gospel that Paul preached, where did it come from? From him, Paul himself, through direct revelation and he was not shy in claiming sole rights and was presumptuous enough to think that it was to be used in the final judgment (Rom 2:16) "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel". see also (Rom 16:25) (2Ti 2:8)
Considering that the 4 Gospels were not even in the planning stage Paul rightly assumed that what he got in visions was the true gospel and although Peter and the other Apostles were around he didn’t bother to consult with them about the life of Jesus, who he did not know in the flesh (Gal 1:12) “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Here’s part of a review on the book Lost Christianities for your perusal:
*"The Earliest Christians? Just what were the earliest Christians like? What did they believe? What were their practices? Don’t we all want to know answers to those questions?
Some may feel they already have answers to those questions. For them it is as simple as reading and believing the Bible. Just look in the New Testament and the answers are all there. But is it so plain? Today, those Christians who are orthodox, and they are the overwhelming majority, are comfortable believing their doctrines and practices are based in Scripture. Further, they can cite as proof to their claim almost 2000 years of affirming church history.
The orthodox (ortho = straight, correct, right; dox=belief, doctrine, opinion, view) have a point. Sunday keeping and belief in the Trinity, for instance, have a long history going back almost to the days of the Primitive Church. I say almost since even the orthodox will admit that Christian doctrine was not officially set, declared orthodox, until the seminal church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. Until then there werecompeting “Christianities,” competing doctrines, and competing theologies.
The first through the fourth centuries were a time of great debate and contest within the Christian community. It was also a time of great persecution. Following the days of the apostles the church was attacked from within and from without. On the one hand a host of heresies were entering the church as it fought against a slide into apostasy. This contest brought divisions in doctrine and fellowship. From without, the pagan Roman empire was bent on containing the spread of the new faith, and at other times destroying it.
Not everything was settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, or Chalcedon in 451 AD, but for the official Christian church finally recognized by the Roman Empire, the key doctrines and practices were largely fixed: …
But what about that period before things became “orthodox”—the straight or correct doctrine? The first two hundred years of Christianity are often called the “lost centuries” or the dark period of church history. One historian observed that the church that emerged after that dark period looked quite different from the one pictured in the NT that entered it.
The history of this period is scant for at least two reasons.
  1. It was a time of great persecution upon the church; the details of its history were given little attention by the Roman historians of the time; the church was often “underground” and few of its records have survived.
  2. The victors of the doctrinal debates of the early centuries became the custodians of “church history”; victors always write the history of the wars they win and those histories often slant the story, justify their side, ignore facts, and take liberties to mischaracterize their opponents.
    The orthodox victors had little interest in preserving the teachings of yet earlier Christians/Christianities which were in disagreement with their doctrine. It would not be helpful to their claims of orthodoxy to admit that they had departed from earlier Christian traditions. In fact, there was an active effort to destroy competing Christian theologies, discredit their leaders, and often, to mischaracterize their teachings. But like a difficult murder mystery where the killer has tried his clever best to cover his tracks, good detective work can often find enough facts and clues to paint the true picture of what happened."*
    biblesabbath.org/tss/512/earlychristians.html
 
"During those first three centuries, Christianity was effectively outlawed by requirements to venerate the Roman emperor and Roman gods. Consequently, when the Church labeled its enemies as heretics and cast them out of its congregations or severed ties with dissident churches, it remained without the power to persecute them"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy

I note that you have kept it to the 1st 3 centuries for after the Roman Empire adopted the Catholic version of Christianity there was hell to pay for anyone who disagreed with its doctrines. But as early as Paul he would fulminate against anybody and everybody that did not go along with his ideas
(Gal 1:6) “*I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him *[that is I, Paul] that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”. And this Gospel that Paul preached, where did it come from? From him, Paul himself, through direct revelation and he was not shy in claiming sole rights and was presumptuous enough to think that it was to be used in the final judgment (Rom 2:16) "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel". see also (Rom 16:25) (2Ti 2:8)
Considering that the 4 Gospels were not even in the planning stage Paul rightly assumed that what he got in visions was the true gospel and although Peter and the other Apostles were around he didn’t bother to consult with them about the life of Jesus, who he did not know in the flesh (Gal 1:12) “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

…
The orthodox (ortho = straight, correct, right; dox=belief, doctrine, opinion, view) have a point. Sunday keeping and belief in the Trinity, for instance, have a long history going back almost to the days of the Primitive Church. I say almost since even the orthodox will admit that Christian doctrine was not officially set, declared orthodox, until the seminal church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. Until then there werecompeting “Christianities,” competing doctrines, and competing theologies.
The first through the fourth centuries were a time of great debate and contest within the Christian community. It was also a time of great persecution. Following the days of the apostles the church was attacked from within and from without. On the one hand a host of heresies were entering the church as it fought against a slide into apostasy. This contest brought divisions in doctrine and fellowship. From without, the pagan Roman empire was bent on containing the spread of the new faith, and at other times destroying it.
Not everything was settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, or Chalcedon in 451 AD, but for the official Christian church finally recognized by the Roman Empire, the key doctrines and practices were largely fixed: …
But what about that period before things became “orthodox”—the straight or correct doctrine? The first two hundred years of Christianity are often called the “lost centuries” or the dark period of church history. One historian observed that the church that emerged after that dark period looked quite different from the one pictured in the NT that entered it.
The history of this period is scant for at least two reasons.
  1. It was a time of great persecution upon the church; the details of its history were given little attention by the Roman historians of the time; the church was often “underground” and few of its records have survived.
  2. The victors of the doctrinal debates of the early centuries became the custodians of “church history”; victors always write the history of the wars they win and those histories often slant the story, justify their side, ignore facts, and take liberties to mischaracterize their opponents.
    The orthodox victors had little interest in preserving the teachings of yet earlier Christians/Christianities which were in disagreement with their doctrine. It would not be helpful to their claims of orthodoxy to admit that they had departed from earlier Christian traditions. In fact, there was an active effort to destroy competing Christian theologies, discredit their leaders, and often, to mischaracterize their teachings. But like a difficult murder mystery where the killer has tried his clever best to cover his tracks, good detective work can often find enough facts and clues to paint the true picture of what happened."
biblesabbath.org/tss/512/earlychristians.html
Thanks for the link
Of course the Catholic Church has no interest in preserving the teachings of heretics. The Church’s role is to teach the truth, which it has done for 2000 years. And contrary to what this guy says, there are ample church documents for the first 300 years of the church which have survived. What we know about the heretical sects is from the writings of the Catholics that demonstrated the errors of these sects.

It is certainly up to you to believe what you want. This guy you are quoting is interested in discrediting the Catholic Church in exactly the same way he claims the Church dicredits other sects - by discrediting its leaders and mischaracterizing their teachings. so be it. This is not new. But yet the church has survived and thrived for 2000 years.
 
=paul c;6680719]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…
So is the Orthodox Tradition, and yet you disagree. Which Apostolic Tradition is right?
Help me understand how Sacred, Apostolic Tradition in this context - divided for a thousand years.
Well, if it is so Catholic, why did Luther and 50M Lutherans break away from the Catholic church? And why haven’t you returned?
I don’t think there were 50M Lutherans at the time of the Reformation. Lutherans today, for the most part, did not break way from Rome. However, you make a good point; how can we be so close in so many ways and yet remain divided (I asked essentially the same question above about Orthodoxy and the West)?
I believe Catholic and Lutheran leaders are working hard on it, but as Pope Benedict XVI said at the Lutheran Church in Rome in March: *“We must not content ourselves with the successes of ecumenism over recent years, because we still cannot drink from the same chalice or gather together around the same altar”.

“This cannot but make us sad because it is a situation of sin; and yet unity cannot be achieved by men. We must entrust ourselves to the Lord, because He is the only one Who can give us unity. Let us hope that He brings us to that goal”.
*
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.
Paul, how is this a citation confirming the accusation that Luther, as you said, *"… 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). *? Are you saying that trusting in the mercy of God Almighty downplays personal sin, and the effect it has on salvation?

What is governed by Faith alone is Justification. The JDDJ says we agree on this: that we are justified by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, which equips us to do the good works He has prepared for us to do. Luther never denied the importance of repentance, confessions/Absolution, and our obligation to respond to the commands of Christ in our sanctification. Luther was not Calvinist: no perseverance of saints here.

continued
 
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.
It does not speak against sola fide. It speaks for our obligation as Christians to be obedient to the commands of Christ, whose suffering death, and ressurection makes our Justification possible.
Why does he feel this way? Not because of James, but because, he says, the Papists embrace it alone, and leave out all the rest. Admittedly, there are some who wish to leave James out, as he admnishes us of the importance of good works, and the law. Lutherans do not.
From the Formula of Concord.
  1. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.
9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.
10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.
11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.
Just a final quote from Luther: “There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.” I contend these are not the words of someone who downplays the importance of personal sin, of repentance and obedience to God’s word.

Thanks, Paul, for your charitable dialogue.
Jon
 
The Jews believe in God but do not believe that Jesus is God also. The Mohammedans believe Jesus was a prophet like Moses and they vow their Holy Books were fully inspired. The Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon was written and translated supernaturally. The Koran throws out a challenge daring any man to produce a Sura as perfect as found in Allah’s book.They say miracles are not proof of divine approval for the individual performing them.
All this leads to is that each religion has a similar set of divine sanction and it’s the devotees of each that claim their is the truth.

Yes, but which one is actually true in all respects? God is perfect and cannot lead different people to different truths.Are you saying the Christianity, specifically the True Church Founded by Jesus himself, is no better than any other religions’ writings and doctrines?

Quote: Most people can go with that idea that Jesus was the son of God. So was Adam and everyone that’s been born. What a lot of people do not accept is the idea that he is “God the Son”.

Agreed. And those who do not agree that Jesus in ‘God the Son’ are missing the truth of Jesus and His ministry here on earth. (Even some who call themselves Christians.)

Quote:As for the teaching of the Apostles and the compilation of the Bible as we have it today it was a long and tortuous road with much bickering, spilling of blood and human suffering.

That may be, but Jesus said the Holy Spirit/Paraclete would lead the Apostles to remember everything He taught and to ‘all truth’. Therefore, the end result had to be inspired, else it could not have been ‘bound in heaven’.

Quote: As for Protestants having many interpretations it was the same in the early church and only after centuries of dispute did one faction come up on top and suppressed the ideas and interpretations of the defeated … and then wrote its History from their advantage point.

Are you implying that the Bible is not inspired and only written from the vantage point of the ‘victors’?

Quote: If Jesus had realized that baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” washes away sins, including the original one, he would have thought twice about dying and I expect he wouldn’t have gone through with it.

Wow! Wow! Wow! Do you mean God the Father conned God the Son? And do you mean that Jesus, would not have gone through with His crucifixion, in spite of saying He was here to do the will of the Father and His prayer in the Garden of Olive was: “If it is your will, let this cup pass away, but not My will but Yours be done”?

Just trying to understand your thinking.🤷

JB
 
What is governed by Faith alone is Justification. The JDDJ says we agree on this: that we are justified by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, which equips us to do the good works He has prepared for us to do. Luther never denied the importance of repentance, confessions/Absolution, and our obligation to respond to the commands of Christ in our sanctification. Luther was not Calvinist: no perseverance of saints here.
Oh WOW!!! It took 500 years to agree on something that the Council of Trent said in 1547.

“And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” [Council of Trent Sixth Session, January 13, 1547.CHAPTER VIII.]

“CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” [ibid]
 
Oh WOW!!! It took 500 years to agree on something that the Council of Trent said in 1547.

“And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” [Council of Trent Sixth Session, January 13, 1547.CHAPTER VIII.]

“CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” [ibid]
And without sarcasm, I thank God that our 2 communions have come to a greater level of understanding of each other.

Jon
 
And without sarcasm, I thank God that our 2 communions have come to a greater level of understanding of each other.
Not hard to do if you leave the politics out of it. Unfortunately the Orthodox schism is still wrapped up in the politics of a millenium ago.
 
You are so wrong that it almost impossible to know where to begin. First of all there is no reason to believe that the 11 or 12 Apostles [Matthias?] stayed in Jerusalem. Actually there is evidence that they did not. It is not until Acts 10 that Peter has the vision that now is the time to go to the Gentiles. In Acts thirteen we find Paul preaching not to Gentiles but to Jews in the synagogue. In Acts 15 we find the Apostles gathered in Jerusalem but it does not say gathered from where nor does it say they remained in Jerusalem all that time. Biblical scholars place the year for this council in Jerusalem around the year 50 or 51 AD. But Paul says that after his conversion and spending three years in Arabia he went to Jerusalem. There he reports he saw only two Apostles, Peter and James. That year was about 42 AD. Where are the others?

As for the kingdom you will recall that Jesus was questioned by Pilate on this very matter. Jesus’ response to Pilate was that His kingdom was not of this world. As forthe Apostles sitting on twelve thrones please refer to the Book of Revelation. John seesthis vision of the Apostles and the twelve OT Patriarchs [the 24 elders] sitting on thrones IN HEAVEN not the earth.

As for the bit about Moses seat that was spoken by Jesus not exclusively to his disciples. The scripture says Jesus said it to the crowds and to his disciple.

Regarding the Age at the end of Mt 28:20, the age is the Church age which will end at the Second Coming. Remember Jesus said to his disciples that He would leave but He would not leave them orphaned.

Now an observation, you seem to say that there are two gospels one for the Jews as preached by the “11” and the other for the Gentiles as preached by Paul. You have two truths and you have the Holy Spirit talking out of both sides of His mouth. Did it ever occur to you that there is only one Gospel and that the Holy Spirit inspired both Paul and the “11” to preach the same one? Paul had it easy traveling in the Empire. The Romans were masters at road building. The Apostle Thomas went to India. In the 14th Century when Portugeses sailors finally rounded Cape Horn and traveled on to India they were amazed at finding a christian enclave in Southern India that claimed to be the church started by the Apostle Thomas.
1] Acts 8:1 The [Jews] were scattered ."… EXCEPT THE APOSTLES."
2] Of course the “kingdom” that was promised to Israel is “not of this world.” It is from God and it WILL BE SET UP ON EARTH!
3] In Luke 9 our Lord Jesus Christ sent the 12 to “preach the kingdom of God.” In vs 6 we read that “they went … preaching the gospel…” What was the content of this “gospel?”
4] In Luke 18:31-34 we have the account of the Lord Jesus Christ telling the 12 that He must go to Jerusalem to be put to death [as foretold by the O.T. prophets] and rise again the 3rd day. The death, burial and resurrection! [See 1 Cor 15:1-4 where Paul says that this is THE gospel “by which ye are saved.”] When our Lord finished His discourse on the death, burial and resurrection, we read that “…they UNDERSTOOD NONE OF THESE THINGS AND THIS SAYING WAS HIDDEN FROM THEM…”
5] After His resurrection the 11 did not know that He was to be resurrected - Note John 20:9 “FOR AS YET, THEY KNEW NOT THE SCRIPTURE THAT HE MUST RISE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD.”
6] Until it was revealed to Paul by the risen, exalted Lord Jesus Christ, the GOOD NEWS OF THE CROSS WAS NOT PREACHED!!! Where, on the day of Pentecost, did Peter preach that “Christ died for your sins according to the Scriptures, and He was buried and rose again the 3rd day according to the Scriptures?” Paul writes in 1 Tim. 2:6 that our Lord Jesus Christ “Gave Himself as a ransom for all to be TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME!” When was the “DUE TIME?” When Paul comes upon the scene.
Rather than “attack me” for “rightly dividing the Word of truth,” perhaps you should learn that Biblical revelation is progressive and that you can’t anticipate Paul’s revelations and bring them into the 4 gospels that were written for the Jews!
 
1] Acts 8:1 The [Jews] were scattered ."… EXCEPT THE APOSTLES."
2] Of course the “kingdom” that was promised to Israel is “not of this world.” It is from God and it WILL BE SET UP ON EARTH!
3] In Luke 9 our Lord Jesus Christ sent the 12 to “preach the kingdom of God.” In vs 6 we read that “they went … preaching the gospel…” What was the content of this “gospel?”
4] In Luke 18:31-34 we have the account of the Lord Jesus Christ telling the 12 that He must go to Jerusalem to be put to death [as foretold by the O.T. prophets] and rise again the 3rd day. The death, burial and resurrection! [See 1 Cor 15:1-4 where Paul says that this is THE gospel “by which ye are saved.”] When our Lord finished His discourse on the death, burial and resurrection, we read that “…they UNDERSTOOD NONE OF THESE THINGS AND THIS SAYING WAS HIDDEN FROM THEM…”
5] After His resurrection the 11 did not know that He was to be resurrected - Note John 20:9 “FOR AS YET, THEY KNEW NOT THE SCRIPTURE THAT HE MUST RISE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD.”
6] Until it was revealed to Paul by the risen, exalted Lord Jesus Christ, the GOOD NEWS OF THE CROSS WAS NOT PREACHED!!! Where, on the day of Pentecost, did Peter preach that “Christ died for your sins according to the Scriptures, and He was buried and rose again the 3rd day according to the Scriptures?” Paul writes in 1 Tim. 2:6 that our Lord Jesus Christ “Gave Himself as a ransom for all to be TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME!” When was the “DUE TIME?” When Paul comes upon the scene.
Rather than “attack me” for “rightly dividing the Word of truth,” perhaps you should learn that Biblical revelation is progressive and that you can’t anticipate Paul’s revelations and bring them into the 4 gospels that were written for the Jews!
Quickcat,
your argument is not compelling because it is contradicted by the same scriptures on which you rely for insight.

All of the Apostles preached that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried and rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures. Why do you think otherwise? In fact, I showed you that in the Pentecost account from Acts 2, Peter made these very statements:
22 You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.
23 This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.
24 But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it. 25 For David says of him: ‘I saw the Lord ever before me, with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.
26 Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted; my flesh, too, will dwell in hope,
27 because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld, nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’
29 My brothers, one can confidently say to you about the patriarch David that he died and was buried, and his tomb is in our midst to this day.
30 But since he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne,
31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld nor did his flesh see corruption.
32 God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses.
33 Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear.
34 For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
36 Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

And the fact that the four Gospels were writtten for the Jews alone is simply not true.
  • Matthew did indeed write his gospel for the Jews, explaining throughly from the OT scriptures how Jesus fullfilled the prophesies. It was probably written in Aramaic initially.
  • Luke, a companion of St. Paul, however, wrote his gospel for the Gentiles they were preaching to. In his gospel, he takes the time to explain Jewish customs to his audience, which would of course be unnecessary if the Jews were his intended audience
  • Mark, the companion of Peter, combined these two works and added insight form Peter himself. This work was described by Eusebius as having been written in Rome.
  • John wrote after all the others, filling in the blanks that were not answered by the other works. He was residing in Ephesus at the time and clearly was not written for the Jews alone, who had already dispersed from Jerusalem when it was destroyed.
Oh, and by the way, virtually all biblical scholars believe that with the possible exception of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Pauls letters are the earliest new testament writings. To say that his revelations weren’t available to the others is simply not understanding history. In fact, since Peter references Paul’s writiings in 2Peter3, it is very obvious that he had access to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top