A
a_priori
Guest
Did Sola Scriptura give us Calvinism? Arminianism? Which one is right and how could one possibly know?
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
myfavoritmartin, now that you have listed all what sola scriptura is not can you list what sola scriptura is, and is your meaning of sola scriptura the same as your founding father Martin Luther, or are we to expect another. Besides who gives you the authority to define sola scriptura dogma, do you speak for all various Christian denominations that adhere to the authority of sola scriptura or is this your reading of scripture interpretation of sola scriptura. I submit to the heading of this thread, Non- Catholics please explain sola scriptura?
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
How can passages, such as the ones I posted here, be ignored? I have posted those passages, more than once, and they are always ignored.
E
elvisman
Guest
Well, gosh, there’s Matt. 18:15-18 for one:
***"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. ******If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ *****If he refuses to listen to them, tell the CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
Amen, I say to you, whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS
- The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
- All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.
- That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication is not binding upon the Christian.
- Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).
- All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
So what was the status of the Christian Church from AD 33 to AD 390, when not every Christian had access to the ‘totality’ of Scripture?
What was the status of the Christian Church from AD 33 to AD 1450 (approximately) when the printing press was introduced? Before this, very few had access to the ‘totality’ of Scripture due to 1. Cost of, and relative scarcity, of the ‘bound’, hand copied Bibles. 2. Relatively low index of literacy.
What was the status of the Christian Church from AD 33 to AD 2007, when, despite more availability and lower cost of Bibles, and rising literacy rates, there are still many, many people who do not possess Scripture, and many, many people who are illiterate, and many areas where despite the efforts of missionaries, ‘complete’ Scripture teaching is just not possible?
While Scripture is certainly important, 2 Timothy neither states that it is the ONLY source (and 2 Timothy references the Old Testament), nor does it state that ‘all doctrine, dogma, etc’, unless it can found in ‘Scripture alone’, is not binding on believers. In fact, explicitly the Trinity is not found in Scripture, but we do believe it is binding, do we not? The problem is that people like you, Martin, can state that “the Trinity is implicit in Scripture, therefore we believe’. . .but, when a Catholic brings up, “Mary’s Immaculate Conception is implicit in Scripture, therefore WE believe”, then YOU INSIST it has to be there 'in black and white, expliciting, stating JUST THAT”. You change the rules to suit you.
Further, when people bring up that, in black and white, Scripture says Jesus tells us, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood’, YOU insist, “no, that’s only symbolic”.
Without an authority other than the Scriptures themselves, you have nothing but discord as each person attempts to interpret individually (something which St. Peter warns against), to cherry pick the verses that support his position and ignore the ones which do not, etc.
I’m so thankful that Jesus GAVE US an authority to interpret Scripture.
What was the status of the Christian Church from AD 33 to AD 1450 (approximately) when the printing press was introduced? Before this, very few had access to the ‘totality’ of Scripture due to 1. Cost of, and relative scarcity, of the ‘bound’, hand copied Bibles. 2. Relatively low index of literacy.
What was the status of the Christian Church from AD 33 to AD 2007, when, despite more availability and lower cost of Bibles, and rising literacy rates, there are still many, many people who do not possess Scripture, and many, many people who are illiterate, and many areas where despite the efforts of missionaries, ‘complete’ Scripture teaching is just not possible?
While Scripture is certainly important, 2 Timothy neither states that it is the ONLY source (and 2 Timothy references the Old Testament), nor does it state that ‘all doctrine, dogma, etc’, unless it can found in ‘Scripture alone’, is not binding on believers. In fact, explicitly the Trinity is not found in Scripture, but we do believe it is binding, do we not? The problem is that people like you, Martin, can state that “the Trinity is implicit in Scripture, therefore we believe’. . .but, when a Catholic brings up, “Mary’s Immaculate Conception is implicit in Scripture, therefore WE believe”, then YOU INSIST it has to be there 'in black and white, expliciting, stating JUST THAT”. You change the rules to suit you.
Further, when people bring up that, in black and white, Scripture says Jesus tells us, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood’, YOU insist, “no, that’s only symbolic”.
Without an authority other than the Scriptures themselves, you have nothing but discord as each person attempts to interpret individually (something which St. Peter warns against), to cherry pick the verses that support his position and ignore the ones which do not, etc.
I’m so thankful that Jesus GAVE US an authority to interpret Scripture.
E
elvisman
Guest
**The whole problem with this is that there are too many diverging interpretations. **
I can take any text in scripture and twist it to whatever fits my agenda and THAT is what has happened. Thousands of different interpretations begetting Thousands of denominations - causing disharmony and separation.
**This perverts the very notion that the bible is the sole rule of faith and the last arbiter of truth. WHOSE iinterpretation of that truth. It especially does damage to **John 17:20-22:
***"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, ***
**so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. **
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me."
The one thing that most non-believers comment about when speaking of Christianity as a whole is that Christians can’t even unite in their beliefs, so why should they join?
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Those are all in past tense. The bible is a past tense. Most Protestants would rather trust what was actually preached by the apostles (as written down) rather than the whims of the supposed ‘successors’.
Afterall the bible did not advise people to follow new theologies coming from the supposed successors.
So Catholics are just as presuming as the Protestants.
S
St_Violet
Guest
new theologies? , can you give us some examples?
the apostles followed Peter, and Peter was our first Pope, what is your reason behind saying " supposed successors"
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
do you honestly dont know or are you just playing games?
the bible did not say that peter appointed a successor, much less a series of successors after that. all that apostolic successor stuff is just legend. its not even historical but a matter of pure faith.
S
St_Violet
Guest
well, I’m glad you reading a book the Catholic Church put together, but let me ask you,
Who do you think the first pope was?
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
first let us agree on what a pope is. tell me what it is in your own words and i will do my best to agree with you.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
So, it appears you do not believe that Christ established a Church or a person to lead that Church.
Because a Pope (the word comes from Papa, or ‘father’) is just that --the person who, in succession to St. Peter, the first ‘leader’ of Christ’s Church, continues to lead that Church.
The same Church in whom all Christendom subsisted until the Great Schism of 1054, when there was a split between Orthodox and Catholic; and later still the split from the Catholics of the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century.
The same Church whose Popes, bishops and priests (presbyters) led its people, through the teachings of Scripture and the apostles traditions, “both by word of mouth and written”, under whom by the guidance of the Holy Spirit we now have a ‘Bible’ which contains the Written Word of God.
The same Church which led the pagans of Europe to faith. Which resisted the forced conversions and the land-grabbing of the Muslim invaders such that Europe itself was saved, with the last full scale Muslim invasion routed in the 15th century.
The same Church which, although certain of its followers and even leaders may have been personally guilty of sin, yet continued on to teach that same Catholic faith which came to us from the apostles, never ‘changing’ that teaching even when they themselves had difficulty following it. . .when even today those who call themselves “Christian” no longer follow various doctrines of that faith.
It wasn’t the Catholic Church which ‘turned from the faith’, as anyone who has studied the history not just of the Church, but of the world, can see.
Because a Pope (the word comes from Papa, or ‘father’) is just that --the person who, in succession to St. Peter, the first ‘leader’ of Christ’s Church, continues to lead that Church.
The same Church in whom all Christendom subsisted until the Great Schism of 1054, when there was a split between Orthodox and Catholic; and later still the split from the Catholics of the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century.
The same Church whose Popes, bishops and priests (presbyters) led its people, through the teachings of Scripture and the apostles traditions, “both by word of mouth and written”, under whom by the guidance of the Holy Spirit we now have a ‘Bible’ which contains the Written Word of God.
The same Church which led the pagans of Europe to faith. Which resisted the forced conversions and the land-grabbing of the Muslim invaders such that Europe itself was saved, with the last full scale Muslim invasion routed in the 15th century.
The same Church which, although certain of its followers and even leaders may have been personally guilty of sin, yet continued on to teach that same Catholic faith which came to us from the apostles, never ‘changing’ that teaching even when they themselves had difficulty following it. . .when even today those who call themselves “Christian” no longer follow various doctrines of that faith.
It wasn’t the Catholic Church which ‘turned from the faith’, as anyone who has studied the history not just of the Church, but of the world, can see.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Indeed I dont. I am not a christian. From the bible it appears that jesus died without establishing a church.
If ‘Pope’ is simply defined as ‘Leader’ then Peter was indeed the first Pope of the Church.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
How does your church interpret “may be one”?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Martin, somehow I have missed you on the threads.
Very interesting. But where does the Bible teach it?
E
elvisman
Guest
The Catholic church believes - as Jesus himself did - that His Church is to be of, ". . . ONE body and ONE Spirit, as you were also called to the ONE hope of your call; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Eph. 4:4-6
**Jesus prayed for the unity of his Church. **We are ALL supposed to be united in the same beliefs. That was forever changed by the tragedy of the Reformation.
**Jesus did not say (in Matt: 16:16), *". . . and upon this rock I will build my
churches'*". ** **He didn't say in Matt. 18:17**, *"If he refuses to listen to them, tell the 'churches'*. If he refuses to listen even to the churches’, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."He used the words, “ONE” and CHURCH" because THAT is what He intended.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Okay lets look at the verse…
Ephesians 4:4-6 (The Message)
4-6You were all called to travel on the same road and in the same direction, so stay together, both outwardly and inwardly. You have one Master, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who rules over all, works through all, and is present in all. Everything you are and think and do is permeated with Oneness.
John 17:20-22:"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds to me like a spiritual matter, He explains what kind of relationship (like His and the Father) I don’t see what you see…I see His desire for us to have a personal relationship with Him like He has with the Father.
E
elvisman
Guest
You don’t see - or won’t see?
I don’t see how anyone can read this text and not see that Jesus was praying for the unity of his believers. (John 17:20-22).
And what part of "one faith, one baptism," is confusing to you?
If you read on a little further in Eph 4:11-14, what is Paul saying?:
**"And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, **to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we ALL attain to the UNITY of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming."
J
jmcrae
Guest
No, it’s quite Scriptural. When Jesus named Simon and called him “A Rock” (Peter) and then said, “Upon this Rock (Peter) I will build my Church,” it seems perfectly obvious that Jesus intended both to build a Church and to set Simon Peter up as its first leader. (Matthew 16:18-19)
When appointing Peter as leader in the very next verse, Jesus quotes almost directly from Isaiah 22:22, saying, “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” which is almost a direct quote from Isaiah 22:22, where God, through the Prophet Isaiah, is saying to Shebna concerning Eliakim, his successor, “I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open and no one shall shut; he shall shut and no one shall open.”
The fact that Jesus was using this particular metaphor, and quoting that particular passage of Scripture shows that Jesus had intended Peter’s office as leader of the Church to be an office that takes successors - as indeed obviously Peter himself also understood, since it was Peter himself who appointed Linus to be his successor, when the time came that he had to make that choice.
- Status