Fallacies of sola scriptura

[guanophore]

Our Lord Jesus Christ ministered to the Jews [only] because He was fulfilling what the prophets foretold.

Scripture also demonstrates that He ministered to plenty of Gentiles also.

He further sent His Apostles to “all nations”.

Paul writes to members of the Body of Christ [that includes me]. His epistles contain the great doctrines for this Body.

Can you prove that Paul’s letters are written to you?

  You apparently don't know it, but the prophets knew nothing of the Body of Christ.

The Body is comprised of those who are in His Kingdom, and subject to His reign. His kingdom is not of this world. the prophets did speak of the reign of the messiah.

 Acts 2:38 does not put anyone into the Body of Christ.

Well, finally we are in agreement about something! On the contrary, scripture does not have the power to “put” anyone into a right relationship with God. However, in baptism, we are united to Him as our Head, and made members of his One Body, the church, and of one another.

Paul tells us that we are "baptized by [God] the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ" [1 Cor. 12:13].  On the day of Pentecost the Lord Jesus Christ is baptizing Jews with the Holy Spirit, an entirely different thing.  This baptism was an induement so that the 12 could perform miracles, wonders and signs for the Jews.

I am sure curious about this “induement”. Is this a term used by your pastor?

The Apostles never separated the baptism in the HS from the water to which Jesus joined it.

 

[guanophore]

I do apologize if it offends you, but reading all the nonsense about the two I sometimes cannot help it. I would beg you to look at my remarks more as witty than sarcastic.

I find them disrespectful and insulting. The mouth speaks that which fills the heart, and yours appears to be filled with bitterness.

So you say that Jesus’ Death freed us from sin but on the other hand you say that Baptism is essential to get rid of sin and you really do not find anything weird about such statements.

No. Baptism is the manner in which the merits of Christ’s death are applied for the individual.

The Church delivers unbaptized infants to the "Mercy of God" because it is not sure if they will really make it to heaven so, by your reasoning, the blood does absolutely nothing for that infant.

Whether God wishes to apply the saving blood to them is His choice. What he has commanded us is that we are to be baptized.

I was taught in Catechism that they went to “Limbo” but I see now that it was never Church doctrine, yet it was taught as fact. I consider that deceitful…

Yes, there were a great many of us misinformed in catechism, sadly. However, I don’t think most of it was deceit, at least, not in my case. It was just ignorance being passed on, but not a deliberate attempt to decieve.

I do think that there has been some deceit in Catechism. The devil knows where to attack.

 

[paul_c]

I would reject the language of “no salvation without sanctification”, because it construes that our actions bring merit, when in fact it is Christ’s merit that brings salvation. But as Luther says, if there is no evidence of justification - that evidence being obedience to His commands - then justification is either rejected, or was never there.

There absolutely is Merit inherent in sanctification and salvation. To deny this is to deny that man has free will. Think about it this way, if man has a choice about whether to follow God and be saved then his choice has merit. This is not to say that he can earn heaven on his own account, he can not. If Jesus hadn’t opened up the gates, then no one can enter heaven. But there is merit to followiing Jesus through those gates, unless you believe that man has not choice in the matter. Now could God choose to force you to go to heaven? Of course, he’s omnipotent. But we believe that in his infinite love, he wants us to come to him willingly. and if we do, that demonstrates merit.

How do you see the sacraments fitting into this?

in Catholic theology, the sacraments provide the grace that allows man to be saved.

I assume you continue to mean Lutheran reformers. I gave a list above regarding what I see as the big issues that continue to leave us separated from each other. One was the role of the Pope. For me, and I think for a significant number of Lutherans/Anglicans, this issue could be all but solved if Rome was able to resolve it with Orthodoxy, because at least Lutherans interpret the role of the Bishop of Rome in ways similar to Orthodoxy, based on the early councils.
Jon

Jon, why do you feel a need to follow the Orthodox? You don’t follow them in anything else. By the way, its very telling that the Eastern Churches were not unified in separating from Rome. 22 of the Eastern churches Stayed with or returned to Rome during or after the Great Schism. The Orthodox are also basically national churches as well, unlike Catholicism. (The Russian orthodox, the Greek orthodox, etc.) This is highly indicative of the political nature of the split. Hopefully, we will reconcile soon.

 

[inkaneer]

Jon, why do you feel a need to follow the Orthodox? You don’t follow them in anything else. By the way, its very telling that the Eastern Churches were not unified in separating from Rome. 22 of the Eastern churches Stayed with or returned to Rome during or after the Great Schism. The Orthodox are also basically national churches as well, unlike Catholicism. (The Russian orthodox, the Greek orthodox, etc.) This is highly indicative of the political nature of the split. Hopefully, we will reconcile soon.

The so called reformation also had a very large political element that drove it. Had it not been for the stirrings of nationalism and support of the German princes. Luther would not have found the support to put forth his ideas and the so called reformation may never have happened. Luther was, in a large way, used as a pawn in the political arena.

People today want to keep religion out of government affairs but I think history proves that the opposite is true that it is the political forces that are the culprits in meddling in religion.

 

[sinner123]

Im a protestant but I know that…
JOHN 6 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
…should not be taken literally, as transubstination does. I think your talking about Westboro Baptist church

 

[russell007]

Many protestants still insist on sola scriptura–that the Bible should be an owner’s manual for Christian life, that the Bible through the illumination of the Holy Spirit provides all the guidance believers need.

Why sola scripture is just WRONG sola scripture makes God look like he fell asleep after the bible was written.

Its keeping God contained between pages of a book Our Father is waaay bigger than that.

Man has lost faith and leans more torwards sciences to explain why things happen Man has taken God out of the equation and set out on his own.

When you watch the History channel about Adam & Eve Moses star of Bethlehem etc…they always have to put forth a logical scientific explination on how the flood could have happend never giving credit to the Mystical power of God as if he would need to operate within the confines of our natural laws which I believe he doesnt.To me trying to explain God and the history of bible miracles if you have faith in God miracles would mean its beyond explination. If God can create an ever expanding universe he could surley cause a flood with out having to worry about disturbing the natural order of physical laws.

I went out in left field there:blush:

 

[avflf]

I find them disrespectful and insulting. The mouth speaks that which fills the heart, and yours appears to be filled with bitterness.

Are you also posting under the name “inkaneer”? My remarks were meant for him.

No. Baptism is the manner in which the merits of Christ’s death are applied for the individual.

A different way to say that Christ’s death* per se* offers no merit

Whether God wishes to apply the saving blood to them is His choice. What he has commanded us is that we are to be baptized.

I see. So the “lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world” does not really taketh them away if God vetoes it. And this “God’s Grace” thing is a recent concept. Previously the Church was quite adamant that “no baptism = hell”.

Yes, there were a great many of us misinformed in catechism, sadly. However, I don’t think most of it was deceit, at least, not in my case. It was just ignorance being passed on, but not a deliberate attempt to deceive.
I do think that there has been some deceit in Catechism. The devil knows where to attack.

Ahh! So what the Spirit gave to the Church to guide it into ALL truth doesn’t work ALL the time. The “gates of hell” seem to have prevailed in some areas after all

 

[avflf]

Where did there emerge a requirement that I “crack” the mysteries of the faith?

Are you suffering from some form of hubris that makes you believe we are able to apprehend the mysteries of all that is a higher power than we ourselves?

Because you keep telling me that the Holy Spirit guides you into all truth and because you believe what the Bible says. Read Mt.13:11; Mk. 4:11; Eph. 1:9

80% of the Empire had fallen to Arianism, and Constantine leaned in that direction Himself. He did not seem to care which way the council ruled on the matter, except that he wanted commerce not to be damaged by the disagreement.

Where do you get the 80% from? All it says is that Arianism presented a grave challenge to the Orthodox belief in a part of the Empire
Wiki:

In 321, Arius was denounced by a synod at Alexandria for teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria—counterparts to modern universities or seminaries—their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean.
By 325, the controversy had become **significant enough ** (significant not general ie 80%) that the Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius’ doctrine and formulated the Original Nicene Creed[8], forms of which are still recited in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and some Protestant services. The Nicene Creed’s central term, used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, is Homoousios, or Consubstantiality, meaning “of the same substance” or “of one being”. (The Athanasian Creed is less often used but is a more overtly anti-Arian statement on the Trinity.)

My insertion: in bold and (underlined)

One has to wonder why you are here.

To show you a better way of interpretation

No, I said that our understanding of Him is progressive.
You seem to wish to use this as an opportunity for mockery.

I note that you assume a lot; but you have not refuted my analysis of the OT Laws and the reason may well be because what I wrote is true.

 

[inkaneer]

Are you also posting under the name “inkaneer”? My remarks were meant for him.

If you go back to your original post #359] you will see that your post was in reply to one by guanophore. My post #360] was just to express my indignation at what you posted. Like I said it was unwarranted.

 

[PRmerger]

I see. So the "lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world" does not really taketh them away if God vetoes it.

Certainly that statement requires qualifiers, don’t cha think?

Otherwise it means that every single person ever created–Muslim, atheist, murderer, white supremacist, wife-beater–is going to heaven, right?

 

[QuickCat]

No, when interviewed by Pontius Pilate just prior to his crucifixion, Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Your have a misunderstanding of Revelations.
How do you figure? As you have said many tiimes in this thread, Read the envelope. He is writing to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Philipians, the Galatians, the Hebrews, to Titus, Timothy and Philemon. Matthew, Mark, and John’s Gospels aren’t addressed to anyone. Luke’s two works, his gospel and acts, are written to Theophilus, which is greek for Lover of God.
2Peter is not address but refers to brothers. 1Peter and James are written to the dispersed Jews. 1John is unaddressed, 2John is to the chosen lady, 3John is to Gaius, which is a Greek name. Jude is to" those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ" Revelations is to the 7 churches in Asia. If we go by your view that the letters are only to those they were addressed to and have no appllicability otherwise, you would be limited to those that are not addressed: the Gospels, Acts, John1 and 2Peter. and to Jude. Why don’t you limited youself to those?
Apparently only the Corinthians and Ephesians know about the body of Christ, because they were the only ones to get letters referring to it as such.

This is the most inconsistent thing you have said. You say that Paul tells us we are baptized by the Holy spirit into the Body of Christ. Peter says in Acts 2:
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.”

So how is being bapitzed and recieving the Holy Spirit different when Paul says it than when Peter says it?

Revelations?? I suppose you mean “Revelation.”

The “afar off” of Acts 2:39 are Jews! Note Daniel 9:27; Acts 3:13-21.

Have you noticed that Peter did not baptize in “the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?” He baptized in the name of “Jesus Christ.”

 

[paul_c]

Revelation[s[?? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
No, when interviewed by Pontius Pilate just prior to his crucifixion, Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Your have a misunderstanding of Revelations.
How do you figure? As you have said many tiimes in this thread, Read the envelope. He is writing to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Philipians, the Galatians, the Hebrews, to Titus, Timothy and Philemon. Matthew, Mark, and John’s Gospels aren’t addressed to anyone. Luke’s two works, his gospel and acts, are written to Theophilus, which is greek for Lover of God.
2Peter is not address but refers to brothers. 1Peter and James are written to the dispersed Jews. 1John is unaddressed, 2John is to the chosen lady, 3John is to Gaius, which is a Greek name. Jude is to" those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ" Revelations is to the 7 churches in Asia. If we go by your view that the letters are only to those they were addressed to and have no appllicability otherwise, you would be limited to those that are not addressed: the Gospels, Acts, John1 and 2Peter. and to Jude. Why don’t you limited youself to those?
Apparently only the Corinthians and Ephesians know about the body of Christ, because they were the only ones to get letters referring to it as such.

Quickcat,
I am trying to help you find the truth, but you have to be open to it. The point of my post was to show you that you were being inconsistent in your understanding of the bible. You claimed that " you need to read the envelope" to determine which books are meant for you. While I think this is completely foolishness - the reason these books are in the bible is for their general applicability- I wanted to call you attention to the fact that none of St. Paul’s epistles were actually addressed to you. While, I don’t need you to acknowledge this in the open forum., I hope you at least took it to heart. ST. Paul is part of the Catholic Church’s tradition.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
I find them disrespectful and insulting. The mouth speaks that which fills the heart, and yours appears to be filled with bitterness.

When you are writing in an open forum, it is fair game for anyone to reply.

Quote:
No. Baptism is the manner in which the merits of Christ’s death are applied for the individual.

This is untrue. Being baptized is accepting God’s graces that became available because of Jesus’ death. It in no way minimizes or mitigates Christ’s merits.

Quote:

Whether God wishes to apply the saving blood to them is His choice. What he has commanded us is that we are to be baptized.

I think you are confused here. First of all, the Chruch has never condemned a single individual. It is and has always been God’s job to judge.The church says that if you know you need to be baptized to go to heaven and you deliberately refuse, you are separating yourself from God. Now, if a person doesn’t know about baptism, they are not separating themselves from God by that action (although they could separate themselves by other sins agains the natural law that is in everyone’s heart.

Quote:
Yes, there were a great many of us misinformed in catechism, sadly. However, I don’t think most of it was deceit, at least, not in my case. It was just ignorance being passed on, but not a deliberate attempt to deceive.
I do think that there has been some deceit in Catechism. The devil knows where to attack.

You are quick to jump to that erroneous conclusion. The Pope’s teachings are infallible, not individual catechists.

 

[avflf]

Certainly that statement requires qualifiers, don’t cha think?

You are right, it does. The only qualifier that works is a conscious act of repentance

Otherwise it means that every single person ever created–Muslim, atheist, murderer, white supremacist, wife-beater–is going to heaven, right?

I find it strange that you equate Atheists, Muslims and White Supremacists (are they like the Jews supremacists who think they are chosen, or the CC who now believes this unique status is hers alone?) with murderers and wife-beaters and forget the Church’s pet sin, pedophilia

 

[avflf]

When you are writing in an open forum, it is fair game for anyone to reply.

Fair enough

This is untrue. Being baptized is accepting God’s graces that became available because of Jesus’ death. It in no way minimizes or mitigates Christ’s merits.

You’ve hit the nail on the head but don’t realize it. My point exactly; and the operative word is “accepting” - accepting Christ’s sacrifice and repenting of one’s sins. Not applicable to babies.

I think you are confused here. First of all, the Chruch has never condemned a single individual. It is and has always been God’s job to judge.The church says that if you know you need to be baptized to go to heaven and you deliberately refuse, you are separating yourself from God. Now, if a person doesn’t know about baptism, they are not separating themselves from God by that action (although they could separate themselves by other sins agains the natural law that is in everyone’s heart.

The Church never condemned anyone? Is excommunication not a condemnation? Burning “heretics” at the stake did not follow from condemnation?

You are quick to jump to that erroneous conclusion. The Pope’s teachings are infallible, not individual catechists.

He is the head of the earthly church so he is ultimately responsible for whatever teachings are brought to the masses. Where does the buck stop in Catholic circles?

 

[PRmerger]

You are right, it does. The only qualifier that works is a conscious act of repentance

I think you’re forgetting about all of these other qualifiers:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By believing and being baptized (Mk 16:16)

By repentance (Lk 13:3; Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

By eating his flesh (John 6)

 

[PRmerger]

I find it strange that you equate Atheists, Muslims and White Supremacists (are they like the Jews supremacists who think they are chosen, or the CC who now believes this unique status is hers alone?) with murderers and wife-beaters and forget the Church’s pet sin, pedophilia

Why is it strange?

 

[PRmerger]

and forget the Church’s pet sin, pedophilia

You are making an accusation here, so please back up your statement. By “pet” you mean “favorite”. So please show us where the Church has said this is our favorite sin.

 

[avflf]

I think you’re forgetting about all of these other qualifiers:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By believing and being baptized (Mk 16:16)

By repentance (Lk 13:3; Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

By eating his flesh (John 6)

Thanks for the list. It strengthens my position

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the list. It strengthens my position

Excellent! Then you have a very Catholic position!