Not By Scripture Alone

[hoosierdaddy]

I take “may be” as another way of saying “will be”. The context demands it, I believe. Why would it go through all that trouble of saying what Scripture does to finish off with saying what it “possibly” could do? I understand it as saying what it “will” do…if anyone understands what I mean.

 

[Church_Militant]

As My Lord would say, “It Is Written”

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for **teaching, rebuking, correcting and training **

in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good workI didn’t bother to answer that because I think Randy did a better job than I was going to. (Thanks Randy and props to you!)

Kaycee, if the Bible is all that you need, then why then does Paul prove that wrong right here in this very chapter? It is pretty clear that he didn’t believe that. Look here…

8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

Now, can you please give me the references in the Old Testament that name these two miscreants?

Please post them as soon as you have them.

(This is where the theme from the game show “Jeopardy” begins to play I think)
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[JoeyWarren]

You mean Jesus and Paul are contradictory? The structure of this sentence with the word “or” strongly implies that.

not a contradiction. Peter issues a warning concerning the Epistles of Paul.

2 Peter 3: 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our **beloved brother Paul **also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

There is a very good reason for the order of the Epistles so that the writings of Peter, John, and James are last. Peter accounts for the apparent misunderstandings of Paul’s writings. James and John does so as well.

The writings of Paul should be read in the Light of what Jesus taught.

Never should what Jesus said and taught be read in light of what Paul wrote.

IMHO one should take note that Paul’s belief in Jesus as Messiah is not based on the faith of the original Apostles. Pauls belief is based on believing by seeing only. Paul was a Pharisee that knew the scripture like the back of his hand. But Paul like the Jews wrested the scriptures to their own destruction, they could not see what the scriptures really said. Therefore they could not fathom Jesus being the Messiah. Paul’s conversion only came after a result of a very much needed Divine Intervention because Paul was on the verge of wiping Christianity off the face of the Earth.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I take “may be” as another way of saying “will be”. The context demands it, I believe. Why would it go through all that trouble of saying what Scripture does to finish off with saying what it “possibly” could do? I understand it as saying what it “will” do…if anyone understands what I mean.

Why? Paul himself and his own conversion. See the below quote for an explanation.

IMHO one should take note that Paul’s belief in Jesus as Messiah is not based on the faith of the original Apostles. Pauls belief is based on believing by seeing only. Paul was a Pharisee that knew the scripture like the back of his hand. But Paul like the Jews wrested the scriptures to their own destruction, they could not see what the scriptures really said. Therefore they could not fathom Jesus being the Messiah. Paul’s conversion only came after a result of a very much needed Divine Intervention because Paul was on the verge of wiping Christianity off the face of the Earth.

When the scriptures were translated to English, the proper context was used. And that being “May Be”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, I am not a follower of the names above. I am a follower of Jesus Christ. The influences on my life are not men 500 years ago. They are the leaders and elders of the church I attend. You might be surprised to learn that when they refer to the Catholic church at all the references are positive. In general we don’t fret about other denominations. We have a community, county, and world to win for Jesus Christ.

I tend to think you are a follower of Jesus Christ as interpreted by the leaders of your local community just referenced or by yourself. Since neither they nor you are infallible, this is iffy.

I thank you for the concern for my soul, but it is quite saved through the cross of Jesus Christ thank you.

Once saved always saved? Or is there an aspect of process to salvation?

I must be a poor communicator or something, but I believe I have never in this thread argued “Bible Alone” on theological grounds. That is quite deliberate, because it is one of the many theologies out there in both CatholicLand and ProtestantLand that is difficult if not impossible to either prove or to falsify.

I think that was the point of my original post. You can’t prove sola scriptura from the Bible itself. If you have accepted a doctrine that is so foundational to your theology from a source outside the Bible, then the doctrine itself is refuted. Either that, or you have to question whether that outside source itself is reliable. I’m sure you’d be quick acknowledge that your community is NOT infallible, so I hope you’d be careful enough to consider that the teaching of sola scriptura itself could very well be one of the issues that they have been most visibly fallible about.

At the same time, your assertions that your magisterium and interpretation of Scripture are equivalent to the Bible are also unproven either way.

This thread is not about that, and I have made no attempts to prove either. I have asked non-Catholics to prove me wrong on the assertion that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura. I’m not sure anyone has even tried in this thread.

I am not where I am because I am in some great rebellion against the RC denomination. I am where I am because I was not born Catholic and the group responsible for my conversion was not Catholic.

Bingo! You are not Protestant from any considered deliberation, but simply by circumstances…just as I was born into a Protestant family and became Catholic after thinking more deeply.

I am not one of these Christians that changes denominations/churches at a whim of a hat, however.

I can respect and appreciate your doctrinal integrity. Many Protestants change churches whenever they don’t like the music ministry or what have you.

I do have issues when some of you approach me with the implication that the relationship here is “One True Church”—>“Heretic”. When that is the sales pitch I tend to resist, ask stupid questions, look for logical holes, and demand proof. I have observed you exhibit the same behaviour when non-Catholics (see CARM) treat you as non-Christians.

I understand the resistance…no one likes discovering that they have not been given the whole story. But your Protestant forefathers abandoned some aspects of the true faith, and you have not been told of this. For example, do you believe firmly in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Why or why not? I’m asking for a reason, so I will look for your response.

On that score, you have been long on polemics and short on proof.

Polemical? Was I polemical back in post #103 when I encouraged you to read the Fathers and ask questions? I thought I was and have been very courteous since you strike me as someone who is at least listening and considering the right questions (unlike so many here). Or is it only polemical when I say something that you don’t want to hear?

 

[Church_Militant]

And Protestants could say that 99% of the time Catholics follow the teachings of various popes instead of following the teachings of Jesus Christ

. With all due respect, I believe many of those teachings differ from Christ’s teachings.You may believe this, but you are dead wrong about it.

The historically verifiable writings of the early church show conclusively that they were Catholic in their beliefs, with the Eucharistic Real Presence being one of the most glaring examples. (Look at the 7th & 8th chapters of this letter.)

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy
And Protestants could say that 99% of the time Catholics follow the teachings of various popes instead of following the teachings of Jesus Christ. With all due respect, I believe many of those teachings differ from Christ’s teachings.

Ditto on the dead wrong.

This can also be verified in the Didache.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

The Didache is very much Catholic.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

So Scripture is not inerrant and is instead full of errors? At least in the books Paul wrote?

How come he said “follow me as I follow Christ” and Peter and John didn’t? If Paul was an impostor and teaching error then he deserved to die and the Bible should be burned because we can’t trust it.

If I can’t trust one part, then I can’t trust any part. Scripture stands or falls on its inerrancy.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You may believe this, but you are dead wrong about it.

The historically verifiable writings of the early church show conclusively that they were Catholic in their beliefs, with the Eucharistic Real Presence being one of the most glaring examples. (Look at the 7th & 8th chapters of this letter.)

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

The real presence is not something I debate about as I am not sure about this issue. I don’t want to believe the wrong thing so I have not decided one way or the other.

However, OTHER teachings, such as some of the Mary teachings are what I was getting at.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy

And Protestants could say that 99% of the time Catholics follow the teachings of various popes instead of following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Hoosier-

That’s what we’re supposed to do! This little sheep knows who the shepherd is! Check John 21 in case you’re not sure who the Good Shepherd left in charge of the flock while He’s gone.

With all due respect, I believe many of those teachings differ from Christ’s teachings.

I’m asking as non-confrontationally as my keyboard will allow because I see this may be central to your struggles: can you name one or two of these teachings, please.

 

[Philthy]

If I am THOUROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work? What work am I not thouroughly equipped for??? If I have what I need for every good work, what else do i need?

Perhaps the point would be more clear as follows:

The verse says that Scripture is useful for a variety of things. It does not say that Scripture alone makes you equipped for every good work. Certainly Scripture is important to understand God’s will for you and to equip you, and without it you would be hampered, but the verse doesnt quite say that Scripture is all you need. It is a part of being complete. After all, Paul wrote in the first letter to Timothy that he is sending this letter specifically so that Timothy knows how to BEHAVE in the Church. Paul also writes in that letter that he knows that Timothy has known Scripture since his youth. If what you claim is true, why didnt Paul simply say, “Use Scripture alone as your guide”? And why didnt Paul bother to tell us that his letter was now to be considered part of Scripture? It is truly a disservice to 2Tim3:16 to wrench it out of the context of the dialogue between the 2 men.

 

[JoeyWarren]

So Scripture is not inerrant and is instead full of errors? At least in the books Paul wrote?

Scripture is inerrant. The ignorant(un-learned in some translations) and unstable not probably trained by those entrusted by Christ to carry on the Gospel will wrest and distort scriptures to their own destruction and to the possible destruction of others. Prime example is Jehovah Witness and the Mormons (to use the more profound example).

How come he said “follow me as I follow Christ” and Peter and John didn’t? If Paul was an impostor and teaching error then he deserved to die and the Bible should be burned because we can’t trust it.

No one has claimed Paul to be an imposter. Paul’s writings are hard to understand, therefore the reading and understanding of them should be those that Jesus promised to be with. Peter is warning to excericse extreme caution and care when it comes to Paul’s writings.

If I can’t trust one part, then I can’t trust any part. Scripture stands or falls on its inerrancy.

You can trust all parts. The difference comes when you learn one part from one whom has distorted the scriptures. I grew up in the Pentecostal Church. Nearly half the New Testament was hardly ever taught from. Why? My speculation is that the Self-ordained Pastors either were terrified of those scriptures becaue they were blatantly Catholic or they just didn’t want to go there and risk being questioned about it.

I never heard these three phrases from the Bible spoken from the Pulpit of any of my Pentecostal churches I attended.

I am crucified with Christ.
We preach Christ crucified.
Breaking of the Bread.

What is so terrifying about these verses?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy
Hoosier-

That’s what we’re supposed to do! This little sheep knows who the shepherd is! Check John 21 in case you’re not sure who the Good Shepherd left in charge of the flock while He’s gone.

I’m asking as non-confrontationally as my keyboard will allow because I see this may be central to your struggles: can you name one or two of these teachings, please.

I know who the shepherd is too. It’s Jesus; not the pope.

The “perpetual virginity of Mary”, purgatory as a necessary place for “cleansing from sin” (when Jesus did it all), etc. are things I just cannot accept. Maybe it doesn’t even matter, but the fact that you guys make it of vital importance to believe it makes me actively and passionately reject it.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Even leading up to Easter, I never heard preached anything on “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” from the Last Supper. When these chapters were read, those verses were left out in it’s oration.

I occasionally attend a Protestant church a Month before and a month after Easter to see if anyone reads this. Even today Pastors of the last 8 Easter Seasons skip over these verses.

There is a deep problem with Protestantism when verses are intentionally omitted from an oration. Why?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Scripture is inerrant. The ignorant(un-learned in some translations) and unstable not probably trained by those entrusted by Christ to carry on the Gospel will wrest and distort scriptures to their own destruction and to the possible destruction of others. Prime example is Jehovah Witness and the Mormons (to use the more profound example).

Baptists are hardly on the level of JWs and Mormons though.

No one has claimed Paul to be an imposter. Paul’s writings are hard to understand, therefore the reading and understanding of them should be those that Jesus promised to be with. Peter is warning to excericse extreme caution and care when it comes to Paul’s writings.
You can trust all parts. The difference comes when you learn one part from one whom has distorted the scriptures. I grew up in the Pentecostal Church. Nearly half the New Testament was hardly ever taught from. Why? My speculation is that the Self-ordained Pastors either were terrified of those scriptures becaue they were blatantly Catholic or they just didn’t want to go there and risk being questioned about it.

Then we have to be careful when reading Paul’s books but nowhere does Scripture say that only church leaders can interpret them for us. The Holy Spirit is given to every believer and every believer is told to study to show HIMSELF approved, a workman rightly dividing the Scriptures.

I never heard these three phrases from the Bible spoken from the Pulpit of any of my Pentecostal churches I attended.

I am crucified with Christ.
We preach Christ crucified.
Breaking of the Bread.

What is so terrifying about these verses?

There is absolutely nothing at all that is terrifying of those verses. They are biblical.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Baptists are hardly on the level of JWs and Mormons though.

This is true. But Baptists do teach error, either intentionally or unintentionally…I will not judge which is taking place.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The “perpetual virginity of Mary”, purgatory as a necessary place for “cleansing from sin” (when Jesus did it all), etc. are things I just cannot accept.

Your ignorance of what is truely taught of the Catholic Church has become apparent.

Purgatory is never defined as a place. It’s a state of purification prior to entering heaven. How long does this purfication take. That is an age old question. It could take a millionth of a second, it could a million seconds, it could take place before death. I doubt the latter for the vast majority of us since very few of us and perfect and clean in the eyes of God.

Consider reading this on purgatory by Patrick Madrid:

envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Special-PurgatoryEmergencyRoom1.htm

 

[JoeyWarren]

Then we have to be careful when reading Paul’s books but nowhere does Scripture say that only church leaders can interpret them for us.

Does Scripture rule this out? One has to delve deeper into scripture to see that Jesus did appoint leaders.

The Holy Spirit is given to every believer

Is the person really a believer? Do they follow every command and directive put for by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament.

and every believer is told to study to show HIMSELF approved, a workman rightly dividing the Scriptures.

This proposes a problem for the illiterate. For a long time, the only ones that were literate were Church Leaders and the Wealthy outside of Judaism. Gentiles as a majority whole were an illiterate lot all the way up until several decaded after the start of the 19th century.

From a historical standpoint, that scripture was really only talking to the church leadership. Keep mind that the Epistles were not written to the congregation but to the Bishop/Overseer/Presbyter of that church it was written to. The Letter to Timothy was written to Timothy. It is a letter to Timothy. It’s not a letter to the general populace. It’s a letter about how the Leaders of the church should conduct themselves.

Paul wrote Letters to specific churches with specific problems. Paul also wrote to Timothy about the rules, laws, and conduct of those wishing to be Bishops, Priests, Deacons and other leaders.

Peter, John, and James wrote letters to the entire church.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I know who the shepherd is too. It’s Jesus; not the pope.

The “perpetual virginity of Mary”, purgatory as a necessary place for “cleansing from sin” (when Jesus did it all), etc. are things I just cannot accept. Maybe it doesn’t even matter, but the fact that you guys make it of vital importance to believe it makes me actively and passionately reject it.

As an ex-Evangelical I sense that you have a deep misunderstanding on what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I recommend reading Dave Armstrong’s: “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism”

 

[kaycee]

One point would be that not only is this not stated in the Gospels, but the actual Gospels differ in content - therefore the message was not exactly “the same” as you claim.

The same as in, no new doctrinal information not already recorded in scripture

Originally Posted by JoeyWarren forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

Unfortunately, kaycee, if you stop and actually think about it, we have no reason to accept the writings of Luke as authoritatively inspired by God simply because he “wrote them down”. Lots of people have written lots of things down as inspired by God. Does it even make sense that God used a non-apostle to write his inspired Scripture when he had the others still around does it? How would anyone recognize it as unquestionably inspired and inerrant?

Luke wrote the book to Theopholus who recieved it along with other believers who knew Theopholus and Luke. The church recieved this book on the testimony of Theopholus and the many others who knew both Luke and Theopholus.This book was then passed down thru the generation of believers with the witness that it was authentic.The Body of Christ recognized the voice of its Shepherd, offcourse.

Notice how such questioning inevitably leads you back to the necessity of an visible, recognizable authority to validate Sacred Scripture.

How can you possibly make this claim without FIRST knowing what the oral message was??? How will you infallibly determine this? Let me guess: you will recognize the need for this to be true, but absent any actual oral message you will rely on your current understanding of the message of Scipture and substitute that as the oral message. Correct?

I believe your have the same problem only worse. You obviously don’t know the contents of this “oral tradition” and must speculate that **important **doctinal information, not found in the written epistles, must coexist along side written doctrine. The logic or purpose of this dichotomy makes no sense and is not even hinted at any where is scripture.