For Protestants - Sola Scriptura from a different angle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salvatore123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottm
Wow, I missed the part where your point of view is the absolute one. Maybe another day we’ll be able to talk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I never said that. So don’t put words in my mouth. Okay?
Yes actually you did say that in post 37, with reference backwards to other posts.
Sorry pal but once again you are wrong. Here is what I said in post 37:

"“Sorry, but I am not into relativism. I seek truth where ever it may lie and I don’t try to color it. Seems to me you are not seeking truth but rather trying to justify something. Truth is an absolute and doesn’t require justification.”

I never said my point of view “is an absolute one”. What I said was “Truth is an absolute and doesn’t require justification.” That is what I seek. I never said anything about my point of view. Those are your words which you are trying to foist on me. But you are correct on one thing. That was when you said, “Maybe another day we’ll be able to talk.”
But if you continue making false allegations of what people say then I just don’t think it will be anytime soon.
 
Actually, the first “jew” was Abraham (about 2,000 years after Adam and eve). …{snip}… God’s next covenant was with Abraham (the first Jew or semite given a “promise” distinct from all mankind)…
The first Semite was Shem, his descendants are called Semites.

The first Jew was Judah, his descendants are called Jews.
 
The first Semite was Shem, his descendants are called Semites.

The first Jew was Judah, his descendants are called Jews.
Actually - it was Abraham who was first given the promise by God that he, and his descendants (as a distinct people) would be blesseld - ultimately revealed to be through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - so in that sense, Abraham was the first “Israelite”.

We use the name “Jew” today to refer to all known Israelites - jewish people (known descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). However, you are correct, the name “jew” derives from the tribe of Judah because the 10 northern tribes exiled to Assyria disappeared into the Gentile nations. The two southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin) were later exiled into Babylonia, but returned and survived and became known as “Jews” (Judah being the larger of the two tribes).

When Paul talks in Romans 11 that, after the full alotment of Gentiles (that’s everyone who is not a physical descendent of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob (e.g., now a “jew” as we use that term today) “all Israel will be saved” - he is, I believe referring to the recovery of the lost tribes of Israel (the 10 northern tribes) who will come to faith as part of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles (which includes these lost “Israelites” or “jews”.

Blessings,

Brian
 
Expand. Grow. Learn the history of other cultures and other countries. It’s a good thing to do. The world really is bigger than you.
I fail to see how you’re answering Inkaneer’s points. This seems more like dodging the points because you aren’t able to answer them.

It’s like every Protestant I’ve seen on this board when asked for scriptural proof of Sola Scriptura. They just dodge the question. I’ve never seen a Protestant on this board provide scriptural proof to support Sola Scriptura, and frankly it’s getting old. Just give me a list, no explanations, no reasoning, just a list of scriptures. If it’s so apparent that Sola Scriptura is true from the Bible, why can’t Protestants just list some scripture?

You brought up the subject by making the claim that Orthodoxy is older than Catholicism. You should be prepared to make a coherent defense without resorting to name-calling (basically saying that Inkaneer is close-minded and uneducated regarding other cultures). You also called him arrogant and prideful by stating, “The world really is bigger than you.”

As for the “walk in a person’s shoes for a mile”, understanding where a person comes from is great, but that doesn’t automatically make them right.
 
Just thought someone should point out that the major Protestant denominations in the USA, with the exception of the Southern Baptist Convention, are not sola scriptura.
Code:
I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background, and all my life I have been interested in the differences. Here are two conclusions I have come to.

1. The mainline denominations - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, UCC, etc -  are not sola scriptura. They have a wide range of belief within their churches, but the dominant strain is 'big tent'. That is to say, they are very tolerant of divergent views. When in a Bible study group, for example, you will hear vigorous debate about what this or that verse means. Neither the minister nor anyone else present is likely to say: "No, that's not right!" The overwhelming ethos is one of "think and let think' (in the words of John Wesley). 

2. These same denominations also tend to be very ecumenical toward one another and even toward Catholicism. They are generally tolerant toward other expressions of faith, including non-Christian faiths. They admire many things about Catholicism, such as its work with the poor, its hospitals, etc. What its members cannot accept are in two principal areas: (a) they view various doctrines of Catholicism as traditions from ancient times that have been infected by superstitions believable then but not today; and (2) they disagree with Catholicism on such matters as marriage of clergy, ordination of women, and artificial birth control. 

 Even some modern events trouble them. Did St. Padre Pio really levitate, bilocate, perform miracles, and such? They would be very skeptical. This sort of skepticism leads them to feel that Catholicism in its traditional form is too much a relic of medievalism. They would even view Catholicism as they might view Protestant fundamentalism - too narrow, demanding too much gullibility. But they do applaud those within Catholicism who seek reform and broaden its perspective.
 
And Jesus NEVER told anyone to write down one word He spoke.
This is the only statement I’d have issue with only because we have no way of knowing-and we’d be depending solely on scripture to discern the point, which, of course, we don’t do.
 
Just thought someone should point out that the major Protestant denominations in the USA, with the exception of the Southern Baptist Convention, are not sola scriptura.

There is a valid reason for that. Sola scriptura does not work. But sola scriptura was the basis for early protestantism. It was a denial of authority, especially authority of the Church. Authority, any authority, was the big bugaboo with Luther. He was the victim of parental abuse so he ran away from parental authority to the Augustinians. He found no refuge there as he was then subject to the Augustinian order and also to the Church. So He ran again. He found solace in the one area where he could control the authority and that was sola scriptura. There Luther was the authority behind the scripture. Luther said what this scripture verse meant and what it did not mean. And if his interpretation differed from that of the Church it didn’t matter for he had already denied Church authority. Later in his life Luther would fly into a rage when someone else would interpret scripture differently than he did.
Roy5;7075631:
I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background, and all my life I have been interested in the differences. Here are two conclusions I have come to.
Code:
1. The mainline denominations - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, UCC, etc -  are not sola scriptura. They have a wide range of belief within their churches, but the dominant strain is 'big tent'. That is to say, they are very tolerant of divergent views. When in a Bible study group, for example, you will hear vigorous debate about what this or that verse means. Neither the minister nor anyone else present is likely to say: "No, that's not right!" The overwhelming ethos is one of "think and let think' (in the words of John Wesley). 

2. These same denominations also tend to be very ecumenical toward one another and even toward Catholicism. They are generally tolerant toward other expressions of faith, including non-Christian faiths. They admire many things about Catholicism, such as its work with the poor, its hospitals, etc. What its members cannot accept are in two principal areas: (a) they view various doctrines of Catholicism as traditions from ancient times that have been infected by superstitions believable then but not today; and (2) they disagree with Catholicism on such matters as marriage of clergy, ordination of women, and artificial birth control.
There is also a valid reason for them being “big tent” and “ecumenical toward one another and even toward Catholicism”. None of the protestant denominations claim to have any authority so Lutherans can’t say to Baptists that they are wrong about adult only Baptism. No one has the authority to say someone else is wrong so everyone can claim to be “led by the Spirit” and there is no one to say what is true doctrine and what is not. There are no heretics and there are no heresies in protestantism. All there is is one denomination after another, after another, after another, etc. . That is where being “big tent” takes you. It takes you away from the unity that Jesus prayed to the Father for His disciples. But ecumenicalism with the Catholic Church is another matter. Don’t expect us to go “big tent” and adopt the “I’m okay, you’re okay” brand of ecumenicalism. The way we see ecumenicalism is, “you left us now you come back to us” but we ain’t stopping. You got 500 years of catching up to do. Now that may seem harsh but we won’t compromise on Truth. The Holy Spirit will not allow it.
Code:
Even some modern events trouble them. Did St. Padre Pio really levitate, bilocate, perform miracles, and such? They would be very skeptical. This sort of skepticism leads them to feel that Catholicism in its traditional form is too much a relic of medievalism. They would even view Catholicism as they might view Protestant fundamentalism - too narrow, demanding too much gullibility. But they do applaud those within Catholicism who seek reform and broaden its perspective.
That is because protestants do not understand the extensive investigation that goes into a cause for sainthood. And yes Padre Pio did levitate. There are eyewitnesses still living who can attest to it. Yes he did bilocate. That has been proven by people who have seen him in one place while others in a different locale saw him at the same time. But those events are not why he was canonized for sainthood. Padre Pio received the stigmata [the five wounds of Christ on the cross] He bore these wounds for over 50 years during which time the wounds were investigated extensively by medical experts. Yet several days before he died in 1968, all evidence of the wounds disappeared. And by the way Catholicism is not a “relic of medievalism” That moniker can be chiseled on the tombstone of protestantism. Catholicism is a “relic” of the Books of Acts. If you look up Acts 9:31:

“Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.” [Acts 9:31 KJV]

Then look up the underlined words ‘churches’ and ‘throughout all’ in a Greek lexicon you will find that those words in Greek are “ecclesia kata holos”. Those are the same words that Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch after Peter and Elvodius, used in his writings first in 107 AD and which by 150 AD became the name of the Church established by Jesus. And *Ecclesia kata holos * is the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top