If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today...

[pablope]

I agree with you! I am just trying to understand why Richard and other non-Catholics don’t…

I think it is because if they understand and follow where the truth is leading them…they will be led to only one conclusion…that the teaching of the Catholic Church is true and it is the one true Church established by Jesus and his apostles. It is a fear of what they will find that keeps their hearts and minds closed. I have read a lot of arguments against what the RC teaches…be it the primacy of peter, John 6, faith and works…all are long winded and complicated, trying to explain what is not there.

Take for example, at the Last Supper, when Jesus takes the cup…as in Luke…7(M)And when He had taken a cup and (N)given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves”…one argument I heard in refuting the institution of the Eucharist…is that He was consecrating the cup, not the wine as his blood…that was inside the cup…very hair splitting isn’t it.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;7195198]
I think it is because if they understand and follow where the truth is leading them…they will be led to only one conclusion…that the teaching of the Catholic Church is true and it is the one true Church established by Jesus and his apostles. It is a fear of what they will find that keeps their hearts and minds closed. I have read a lot of arguments against what the RC teaches…be it the primacy of peter, John 6, faith and works…all are long winded and complicated, trying to explain what is not there.

I don’t know, it seems rather simple to me.
The primacy of Peter, and therefore the Bishop of Rome, is explained in the Council of Nicea, canon 6.
John 6, while containing figurative language, clearly predicts the Eucharist, His true and substantial body and blood.
faith and works: We are justified by grace through faith in Christ, and are strengthened to do those good works which He has prepared (and commanded) for us to do.

Take for example, at the Last Supper, when Jesus takes the cup…as in Luke…7(M)And when He had taken a cup and (N)given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves”…one argument I heard in refuting the institution of the Eucharist…is that He was consecrating the cup, not the wine as his blood…that was inside the cup…very hair splitting isn’t it.

I agree with you regarding this argument. And I suspect that you would agree with me that the phrase, “Do this in remembrance of me” does not signify that the Eucharist is a mere symbolic remembrance.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I don’t know, it seems rather simple to me.
The primacy of Peter, and therefore the Bishop of Rome, is explained in the Council of Nicea, canon 6.
John 6, while containing figurative language, clearly predicts the Eucharist, His true and substantial body and blood.
faith and works: We are justified by grace through faith in Christ, and are strengthened to do those good works which He has prepared (and commanded) for us to do.

I agree with you regarding this argument. And I suspect that you would agree with me that the phrase, “Do this in remembrance of me” does not signify that the Eucharist is a mere symbolic remembrance.

Jon

It certainly is simple to me. It is those opposed to the Catholic position and explanation, in trying to refute the RC position that come up with long winded and confusing reasons, that one could lose sense of where they got their reasoning and defies logic. Try going to you tube and search for Karl Keating’s debates against our Protestant Brethen and you will see what I am saying.

I certainly do agree over 100%. It is those that refuses to open their eyes that keeps a closed mind.

In celebrating the Mass, isn’t this in accordance to the the Lord’s command to “Do this in remembrance of me”…?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great points, Jon. And it’s worth noting that the early Fathers CONSTANTLY quoted scripture at length in their epistles and writings. The Didache as well. Sometimes I found Polycarp and Ignatius’ writings to almost be a cut and paste Bible study! Augustine and Cyprian too! Tradition and Scripture are not as distant and separated as some like to portray…

As you might guess, Joe, I would consider this a false dichotomy. Since SS is simply the post apostolic practice of using scripture as the final norm, it doesn’t exclude in any way Tradition. In fact, rejection of all Tradition, a shortsighted venture indeed, would exclude the need of the practice, since the intent of SS is to hold Tradition accountable to scripture. If one rejects Tradition, there is nothing to hold accountable.
Lutherans, and perhaps moreso Anglicans, rely heavily on Tradition.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It certainly is simple to me. It is those opposed to the Catholic position and explanation, in trying to refute the RC position that come up with long winded and confusing reasons, that one could lose sense of where they got their reasoning and defies logic. Try going to you tube and search for Karl Keating’s debates against our Protestant Brethen and you will see what I am saying.

I certainly do agree over 100%. It is those that refuses to open their eyes that keeps a closed mind.

In celebrating the Mass, isn’t this in accordance to the the Lord’s command to “Do this in remembrance of me”…?

Thanks, and I generally agree with your comments. On the Mass, while we have a different view on it, I would agree that the celebration of the Eucharist is, indeed, in keeping with His command, “Do this in remembrance of me”. What do we do in His remembrance? We eat and drink His true and substantial body and blood, as He said.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Thanks, and I generally agree with your comments. On the Mass, while we have a different view on it, I would agree that the celebration of the Eucharist is, indeed, in keeping with His command, “Do this in remembrance of me”. What do we do in His remembrance? We eat and drink His true and substantial body and blood, as He said.

Jon

Thanks, Jon. I just glanced at your header and i did not realize you are Lutheran. I thought you were Catholic, as you seem like one, agreeing with a catholic. This very rarely happens among none catholics.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not necessarily! I can name several posters who are in Jon’s category…

Thanks, Jon. I just glanced at your header and i did not realize you are Lutheran. I thought you were Catholic, as you seem like one, agreeing with a catholic. This very rarely happens among none catholics.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, I believe, like Timothy, that scripture can make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. I believe that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Quote:

1. What is there in this passage that you need interpreted?

There are none.

Is it your belief that all, each and every Christian needs is the inspired bible via their own unique authoritative interpretation?

I hope you don’t mind Joe. I rearranged your post slightly so that I could better answer.
First of all the first and second Timothy were written by Paul to Timothy. Not a biggy.

You say that you believe, like Timothy, should be Paul, that scripture can make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. I believe that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Then you answer my question. “What is there in this passage that you need interpreted?” by saying “There are none.” I’m assumning that by this you mean that there is nothing about this passage that you need interpreted. Then you go on to ask “Is it your belief that all, each and every Christian needs is the inspired bible via their own unique authoritative interpretation?” This is actually two questions in one. The answer to the first part “Is it your belief that all, each and every Christian needs is the inspired bible” would be yes. The answeer to the second part “via their own unique authoritative interpretation?” Would be no.

Then to my questions
Quote:
2) If holy scriptures, “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If they are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Quote:
What more do you think is needed?

You ask this.
So, just the bible via my private interpretation of my bible is all I need - yes???

Now remember you stated at the beginning of this post that you agreed with Timothy (Paul) that “scripture can make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. I believe that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” and when asked “What is there in this passage that you need interpreted?” You said

“There are none.”

Now you said there is nothing in this passage that you need interpreted and I quite agree but you seem to think that while you are free to accept what Paul clearly says in this passage that I on the other hand should be subjected to some other authority ie the CC in order to obtain the proper interpretation. Don’t you think that this is a double standard?

Could you please address my OP. You asked me to stop derailing my own thread and you are right; let’s stick with the OP at hand:

 

[Richard_Kastner]

as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone, as per Hebrews 13:17.

1. Is it your belief that Christians today (unlike in Paul’s day) - do not need to obey their leaders and defer to their authority?

1. If Paul (and the apostles) - in the first century, was not a sola scriptura advocate, and did indeed promote inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation, as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone via individual interpretation (each Christian as their own authority of their infallible bibles) - then why should I, or anyone else in the 21st century, embrace sola scriptura via individual interpretation, which is frowned upon by the bible? In other words: my interpretation of my bible, without deference to church or tradition is not a Pauline teaching or practice.

Ok, you seem to be under the impression that oral tradition and the written word are two different things. I find no evidence for this. In fact in Galations Paul states Gal1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But 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 to the church at Corinth he declared
1 Corinthians 2:2
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
This is what Paul taught and wrote about. The gospel of Jesus Christ and he says if anyone teach any other gospel let him be accursed.

As for deference to the church leaders we have to ask just who they are. You give Heb. 13:17 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

You seem to think that this is your church? I’m guessing, but v. 7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. identifies them as those that preach the word of God which if I’m not mistaken is a name given to the bible. Here’s some more identification of these people Eph.4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Ok, you seem to be under the impression that oral tradition and the written word are two different things. I find no evidence for this.

Then show us where the Bible says how to conduct a worship or marriage service. Those practices are universal among Christians and have been since apostolic times, yet the directions are not in the Bible.

In fact in Galations Paul states Gal1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Faith alone is the new, false and different gospel.

You seem to think that this is your church? I’m guessing, but v. 7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. identifies them as those that preach the word of God which if I’m not mistaken is a name given to the bible.

The Bible gives that name to Jesus. Not itself.

 

[pablope]

Not necessarily! I can name several posters who are in Jon’s category…

Thanks for your offer. I am just new to this forum so I am not that aware. But from what I know, Protestants generally oppose anything Catholic, so it was a breath of fresh air for me.

As a sort of pun, I would label Jon (I hope you do not mind) a pseudo-Catholic, would you not agree?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hesitate to assign labels! But I will say he is a very ecumenically-minded Lutheran Christian with a strong desire (that I happen to share) to see all Christians re-unite to the pre-16th century and pre-1054 sad splits that have ruptured the Undivided Church. He is very intellectually honest, something I also strive to be, and he appreciates a great deal about the Catholic faith. I can safely label him a Phillies fan, though, and all-around great guy on here with whom I enjoy reading and conversing.

Thanks for your offer. I am just new to this forum so I am not that aware. But from what I know, Protestants generally oppose anything Catholic, so it was a breath of fresh air for me.

As a sort of pun, I would label Jon (I hope you do not mind) a pseudo-Catholic, would you not agree?

 

[pablope]

I hesitate to assign labels! But I will say he is a very ecumenically-minded Lutheran Christian with a strong desire (that I happen to share) to see all Christians re-unite to the pre-16th century and pre-1054 sad splits that have ruptured the Undivided Church. He is very intellectually honest, something I also strive to be, and he appreciates a great deal about the Catholic faith. ** I can safely label him a Phillies fan, **though, and all-around great guy on here with whom I enjoy reading and conversing.

Ha ha ha…you are saying he is a phillies fan, is it because the Giants won over the Phillies? Well, keep the fire within and hopefully, the prayers for Christian unity will be answered.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No, not at all actually. Jon and I were talking baseball a couple of years ago, long before this series. He’s been a Phillies fan for years. I’m not going to lie and say I’m not happy we beat those guys! I’m thrilled we’re in a WS! I just hope we can actually win it! We’ve gone to WS over the last 40 plus years. We just don’t win them! eesh!

Ha ha ha…you are saying he is a phillies fan, is it because the Giants won over the Phillies? Well, keep the fire within and hopefully, the prayers for Christian unity will be answered.

 

[diggerdomer]

But from what I know, Protestants generally oppose anything Catholic,

I think that’s an unfortunate at best and in fact wrong assumption. Christians share much more in common than they differ on.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for your offer. I am just new to this forum so I am not that aware. But from what I know, Protestants generally oppose anything Catholic, so it was a breath of fresh air for me.

As a sort of pun, I would label Jon (I hope you do not mind) a pseudo-Catholic, would you not agree?

Actually, the label would be “Evangelical Catholic”.
As far as being a Phillies fan, that moniker goes back about 50 years (I well remember the '64 collapse . Until recently, Phillies fan usually had the adjective “long-suffering”.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re right. People forget how long Philly went as a suffering team. It’s like right now so many folks are pulling for the Rangers. “They’ve never won a World Series!” Heck, the last time the Giants won one, 1954 as the NY Giants. Never have they won in the Bay Area. Several pennant, nothing to show for them. Fans suffered through 1962, 1989 and 2002. That’s almost as bad as never having had one! Plus you think of all those Giants legends who never got a ring with the Giants: McCovey, Gaylord Perry, Cepeda, Will Clark, Juan Marichal, Bonds, Jeff Kent, Matt William, Rich Aurilia, on and on…

ESPN is already counting us out and hating us as usual… Most fans out here love the underdog status and say “bring it!”

Actually, the label would be “Evangelical Catholic”.
As far as being a Phillies fan, that moniker goes back about 50 years (I well remember the '64 collapse . Until recently, Phillies fan usually had the adjective “long-suffering”.

Jon

 

[Louie1983]

You’re right. People forget how long Philly went as a suffering team. It’s like right now so many folks are pulling for the Rangers. “They’ve never won a World Series!” Heck, the last time the Giants won one, 1954 as the NY Giants. Never have they won in the Bay Area. Several pennant, nothing to show for them. Fans suffered through 1962, 1989 and 2002. That’s almost as bad as never having had one! Plus you think of all those Giants legends who never got a ring with the Giants: McCovey, Gaylord Perry, Cepeda, Will Clark, Juan Marichal, Bonds, Jeff Kent, Matt William, Rich Aurilia, on and on…

ESPN is already counting us out and hating us as usual… Most fans out here love the underdog status and say “bring it!”

You know Gurney I cann actually relate to that.

My footbal team here in Australia (the sport is known as rugby league) hadn’t won a premiership in 31 years and I’m a diehard supporter. After making it to 4 grandfinals in the last 20 years we won nothing.

But this year we finally ended the drought! A new coach (who is hailed as the vince lombardi equivalent) took over last year and basically transformed the team into a premiership winning team!! We previously had a reputation for being chokers in big games!

Keep up the belief brother! it will happen!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Louie! Always great to hear from my friend down under! I love that term, “premiership!” That’s a new one on me!

BTW, have you ever been to the States? Not sure if I ever asked you that.

You know Gurney I cann actually relate to that.

My footbal team here in Australia (the sport is known as rugby league) hadn’t won a premiership in 31 years and I’m a diehard supporter. After making it to 4 grandfinals in the last 20 years we won nothing.

But this year we finally ended the drought! A new coach (who is hailed as the vince lombardi equivalent) took over last year and basically transformed the team into a premiership winning team!! We previously had a reputation for being chokers in big games!

Keep up the belief brother! it will happen!

 

[Louie1983]

Thanks, Louie! Always great to hear from my friend down under! I love that term, “premiership!” That’s a new one on me!

BTW, have you ever been to the States? Not sure if I ever asked you that.

No not yet, I don’t think it will happen soon either unfortunately because I have 1 yr old daughter and God has blessed us with another pregnancy. My wife is due on the 24/04/2010.

But if I ever do come I would love to go to a ball game or NFL match. Just for the experience.