Need help answering a Baptist

[ahs]

That may be but what you are completely omitting is the cultural aspect behind their decision which is based on scripture. (pagan worship rules vs.Jewish worship rules)
The Jerusalem council didn’t just conjure a plan out of the blue for the sake of peace.

You are right that Jewish worship is based on Scripture. That is not what is being debated. We are discussing “Scripture alone”. The cultural aspect of Jewish worship is based on Scripture + Sacred Tradition. The OT Scriptures do not contain all aspects of Jewish worship. For example, using only the OT, can the proper process of making the sin offereing be accurately represented?

If the cultural aspect behind Jewish worhsip is based on Scripture ALONE, then what Scriptures did Peter reference when he decided Gentiles do not have to be circumcised? Is there an OT Scripture that suggests such is okay, or that gives Peter the authority to make such a decision. To find any clue here, you have to turn to Isaiah and look where the keys were handed to the steward…and then we get into a whole different topic about why Peter, and only Peter, was given the Keys. But I digress…let’s not go there in this thread…there are at least 2 existing (fairly current) threads on that very topic already that we can join, or start a new one.

What does that authority mean for you today? Are you restricted to reading only these books? Of course not.

Exactly. The Church did not say that by this Authority that the Bible is the only source of Truth. The Church said that these books that are included in the Canon of Scripture are the Word of God, Truth. The Bible is the written Word. But Christ did not just leave us with a written Word (in fact, Christ no where asks anything to be written at all) but also His spoken Truth, His Gospel message that He ordered to be proclaimed to all nations. He left the Apostles with His spoken Word and ordered them to spread it, proclaim it…and writing much of it down was part of how they did this. But, as we know even from Scripture, not all was written down as there is too much to be contained in all the books of the world.

Where?

“Christian Website” forum. Why, would you like to try to solve the conundrum using sola Scriptura? Here it is again in case you missed it:

There are at least two camps of Protestant Christians in regards to OSAS. Both hold directly conflicting views of OSAS and both base their views on sola Scriptura. Using sola Scriptura, how is this conundrum resolved?

“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,** He will teach you all things, **and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. ~ John 14

Now, how many people actually practice this? Jesus didn’t say the pope will teach you, or Billy Graham will teach you, or Guru Yashiki will teach you.
How many people depend solely on the Holy Spirit and nothing else?

So, are you saying we don’t need the Scriptures either? Because it I understand your context correctly, you are saying that ALL humans need is the Holy Spirit…nothing else. Jesus never commanded anything to be written. So, if His Words here suggest that we need nothing at all other than the Holy Spirit to teach us…why do we need the NT? It’s important to put John 14 in its proper setting. Christ is speaking directly to His Aposltes prior to His arrest. He is telling His Apostles, the first leaders of the Church that He established, that the Holy Spirit will lead them. That verse understood in this context of when it took place and to whom He was speaking is a strong support for the infallible teaching of the Magesterium, as far as I see it.

 

[Bookcat]

And before the New Testament existed?

Before there was a Canon of the Bible?

What was there?

There was what Jesus of Nazareth himself formed …

Whom he sent out to proclaim the Gospel to all the world.

The way of Jesus was not to give a book or a series of books to be then passed on as the sole authority. His way was to form a Church and to give authority (to bind and loose…) to certain men that he choose. And they in turn chose other men…

Where the Sacred Scriptures important among his followers there? yes most certainly. Indeed the Church passed on some of the writings of the Apostles etc --once they where written --recognizing them as the written inspired Word of God – reading them in the Eucharist, preserving them and reverencing them.

It was not though the way of Jesus to simply give his people a book …but to form a people. And to appoint certain men with authority within that people.

The Sacred Scriptures of very hight importance -indeed they are the written Word of God. But they where never intended to be a “sole authority”.

(now does that mean that we do not see other Christians as Christians? Most certainly not --we see them as Christians and as brothers though we are in various degrees of communion with one another. We love and respect them as Christians and we can be edified by them…may we by the grace of God be one day fully in communion)

 

[inkaneer]

Scripture teaches that the Catholic Church is the one true Church; therefore, the Catholic Church alone has the authority to correctly interpret Scripture.

Why? Because the Catholic Church says so.

Does that circular reasoning also confuse you?

Or does it cause your heart to sing?

What a piece of illogic. To make your post logical it should state thusly:

“Scripture teaches that the Catholic Church is the one true Church; therefore, the Catholic Church alone has the authority to correctly interpret Scripture.”

Why? Because scripture says so.

That causes my heart to sing.

 

[William_C]

Such is your way of formulating things. Not ours.

I see, I’m wrong, neither you, nor your church makes those claims. Forgive me.

(note to self: according to Bookcat, my way of fomulating things isn’t correct, IOW, Scripture doesn’t teach that the Catholic Church is the one true Church; therefore, the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority to correctly interpret Scripture).

 

[William_C]

You are right that Jewish worship is based on Scripture. That is not what is being debated. We are discussing “Scripture alone”. The cultural aspect of Jewish worship is based on Scripture + Sacred Tradition. The OT Scriptures do not contain all aspects of Jewish worship. For example, using only the OT, can the proper process of making the sin offereing be accurately represented?

For who, a Christian? What’s the point of that? For a Jew? Jews haven’t offered sacrifices for nearly forever (hyperbole).

But you know what? Both a Christian and a Jew, using only the Old Testament can gain the wisdom to be saved through faith in Christ Jesus. Not faith + works, but faith only.

ahs:

If the cultural aspect behind Jewish worhsip is based on Scripture ALONE, then what Scriptures did Peter reference when he decided Gentiles do not have to be circumcised?

Pretty much the entire law (Acts 15:10).

ahs:

Is there an OT Scripture that suggests such is okay…

Yes, **ALL OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL **demonstrates that works of law CANNOT save anyone (Rom 3:20; cf Heb 10:4 ).

…or that gives Peter the authority to make such a decision. To find any clue here, you have to turn to Isaiah and look where the keys were handed to the steward…and then we get into a whole different topic about why Peter, and only Peter, was given the Keys. But I digress…

Indeed.

 

[ahs]

For who, a Christian? What’s the point of that? For a Jew? Jews haven’t offered sacrifices for nearly forever (hyperbole).

But you know what? Both a Christian and a Jew, using only the Old Testament can gain the wisdom to be saved through faith in Christ Jesus. Not faith + works, but faith only.

My point in answering Micah11 was to show that Jewish culture of worship was not one that relied on “sola Scriptura”.

Pretty much the entire law (Acts 15:10).

We might be speaking past each other. My point to Micah11 was that Scripture was not used when Peter made his decision. The only Scripture at the time was the OT, and the OT does not say anywhere that Paul can omit circumcision for Gentiles. You say “pretty much the entire law” and refer me to a NT verse. Can you show me which verses Peter was referring to from the Scripture that Peter had available to him at the time (the OT) where his decision is supported by Scripture?

Yes, **ALL OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL **demonstrates that works of law CANNOT save anyone (Rom 3:20; cf Heb 10:4 ).

Again, you are giving me NT verses that did not exist yet. I’m looking for OT verses…support from the Scriptures that existed when Peter was teaching. If Peter believed in sola Scriptura, or foloowed a culture of worship based on sola Scriptura, then which Scripture passages did he use when making his decision. (Remeber, the NT did not yet exist…was not even written down yet. Peter only had the OT.)

Indeed.

Indeed. And to bring myself back on topic, I continued answering Micha11 and then followed up with:

"…would you like to try to solve the conundrum using sola Scriptura? Here it is again in case you missed it:

There are at least two camps of Protestant Christians in regards to OSAS. Both hold directly conflicting views of OSAS and both base their views on sola Scriptura. Using sola Scriptura, how is this conundrum resolved?"

 

[Shannon9791]

Nevertheless, and in spite of your desires not being met, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.

As the song says, “Don’t talk about it, be about it.” I have yet to see you quote any scripture to give me reason to believe the above. Please, show me how what you are claiming is logical and reasoned from Scripture.

 

[Bookcat]

What was there?

There was what Jesus of Nazareth himself formed …

Whom he sent out to proclaim the Gospel to all the world.

The way of Jesus was not to give a book or a series of books to be then passed on as the sole authority. His way was to form a Church and to give authority (to bind and loose…) to certain men that he choose. And they in turn chose other men…

Where the Sacred Scriptures important among his followers there? yes most certainly. Indeed the Church passed on some of the writings of the Apostles etc --once they where written --recognizing them as the written inspired Word of God – reading them in the Eucharist, preserving them and reverencing them.

It was not though the way of Jesus to simply give his people a book …but to form a people. And to appoint certain men with authority within that people.

The Sacred Scriptures of very hight importance -indeed they are the written Word of God. But they where never intended to be a “sole authority”.

(now does that mean that we do not see other Christians as Christians? Most certainly not --we see them as Christians and as brothers though we are in various degrees of communion with one another. We love and respect them as Christians and we can be edified by them…may we by the grace of God be one day fully in communion)

 

[Bookcat]

And before the New Testament existed?

Before there was a Canon of the Bible?

What was there?

 

[Bookcat]

What was there?

There was what Jesus of Nazareth himself formed …

Whom he sent out to proclaim the Gospel to all the world and teach the nations…

The way of Jesus was not to give a book or a series of books to be then passed on as the sole authority. His way was to form a Church and to give authority (to bind and loose…) to certain men that he choose. And they in turn chose other men…

Where the Sacred Scriptures important among his followers there? yes most certainly. Indeed the Church passed on some of the writings of the Apostles etc --once they where written --recognizing them as the written inspired Word of God – reading them in the Eucharist, preserving them and reverencing them.

It was not though the way of Jesus to simply give his people a book …but to form a people. And to appoint certain men with authority within that people.

The Sacred Scriptures of very high importance -indeed they are the written Word of God. But they where never intended to be a “sole authority”.

(now does that mean that we do not see other Christians as Christians? Most certainly not --we see them as Christians and as brothers though we are in various degrees of communion with one another. We love and respect them as Christians and we can be edified by them…may we by the grace of God be one day fully in communion)

 

[William_C]

My point in answering Micah11 was to show that Jewish culture of worship was not one that relied on “sola Scriptura”.

Which is probably why they had so many problems, and failures.

The Jews did not know Sola Scriptura, so what?

I stipulate that the Jews did not rely on Sola Scriptura. So what? What does that mean? What earth shattering revelation is revealed in that? Please tell me.

ahs:

We might be speaking past each other. My point to Micah11 was that Scripture was not used when Peter made his decision.

Sure it was. In Acts 15:10, to what do you think Peter was referring when talking about not “putting a yoke on the neck of the [gentile] disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

Hmmm? To what? Take a wild guess…

ahs:

The only Scripture at the time was the OT, and the OT does not say anywhere that Paul can omit circumcision for Gentiles. You say “pretty much the entire law” and refer me to a NT verse. Can you show me which verses Peter was referring to from the Scripture that Peter had available to him at the time (the OT) where his decision is supported by Scripture?

See immediately preceding question.

ahs:

Again, you are giving me NT verses that did not exist yet.

Yes I am because I’m making my own point.

ahs:

I’m looking for OT verses…support from the Scriptures that existed when Peter was teaching. If Peter believed in sola Scriptura, or foloowed a culture of worship based on sola Scriptura, then which Scripture passages did he use when making his decision. (Remeber, the NT did not yet exist…was not even written down yet. Peter only had the OT.)

In Acts 15:10, to what do you think Peter was referring when talking about not “putting a yoke on the neck of the [gentile] disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

Hmmm? To what? Take a wild guess…

 

[William_C]

As the song says, “Don’t talk about it, be about it.” I have yet to see you quote any scripture to give me reason to believe the above. Please, show me how what you are claiming is logical and reasoned from Scripture.

See my post #48.

 

[mdcpensive1]

In that case, it was divine revelation. Why? Because the Bible says so.

I think it is this sort of implicit circular reasoning behind these arguments that confuses me most.

(about the letter concerning circumcision at the Jerusalem council)
Was it?? How do you determine that it was divine revelation? If you believe it was then how come that letter is not in the bible? I hope you don’t say that everything about the bible is directly given by the Holy Spirit because it is a joint effort. It was not a Holy direct dictation.

Also, how was it that the bishop of Jerusalem had to convene a group to determine the course of action with both sides of the argument about circumcision being presented with Peter making the final decision? Did Peter lose his free will?

mdcpensive1

 

[William_C]

My point in answering Micah11 was to show that Jewish culture of worship was not one that relied on “sola Scriptura”.

2 Tim 3:15:

…and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Note that it’s Jewish scripture that is able to make one wise to salvation, and NOT JEWISH TRADITION.

 

[mdcpensive1]

William C
Trial Membership Join Date: September 7, 2012
Posts: 294
Religion: Protestant

Re: Need help answering a Baptist

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon9791
As the song says, “Don’t talk about it, be about it.” I have yet to see you quote any scripture to give me reason to believe the above. Please, show me how what you are claiming is logical and reasoned from Scripture.

See my post #48.

I have read your post #48 which does not show your logic in assuming SS is scriptural. If you claim that it is logical can you make an argument showing that it is. Saying that it is does not prove anything. Give us a basis that forms your belief and try to show how the bible is put together as a catechism.
mdcpensive1

 

[William_C]

William C
Trial Membership Join Date: September 7, 2012
Posts: 294
Religion: Protestant

Re: Need help answering a Baptist

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon9791
As the song says, “Don’t talk about it, be about it.” I have yet to see you quote any scripture to give me reason to believe the above. Please, show me how what you are claiming is logical and reasoned from Scripture.

See my post #48.

I have read your post #48 which does not show your logic in assuming SS is scriptural. If you claim that it is logical can you make an argument showing that it is. Saying that it is does not prove anything.
mdcpensive1

Click the link, and read to your heart’s content, or don’t.
mdcpensive:

Give us a basis that forms your belief and try to show how the bible is put together as a catechism.

If you’re a Catholic worth your salt, you should be able to see that for yourself.

 

[Bookcat]

jimmyakin.com/library/practical-problems-of-sola-scriptura

 

[William_C]

jimmyakin.com/library/practical-problems-of-sola-scriptura

See post 48.

 

[Bookcat]

See post #112
* .......... and post #114*

 

[William_C]

See post #112

                    *    .......... and post #114*

See post 48 and 109.