Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[GottaGo12345678]

GottaGo12345678,

I am saying the Catholic Church’s definition of SS is a false doctrine.

Catholics have expressed they believe SS means all knowledge is contained in the Bible.
Someone even refused to answer a question I asked because he claimed the answer is in historical documents but not in the Bible, therefore he said I wouldn’t believe it anyway (how ridiculous )

Not everything is written in the Holy Scriptures. I’m sure you agree with that. But everything thing that God deemed necessary for humans to know about Him and our eternal salvation is indeed found within the Divine Word of God. And I’ll bet you agree with that, also.

Hi Ginger,
I just needed to clarify what you were saying; we are in agreement. Sola Scipture is the sufficiency of Gods revealed Word, “special revelation to man”, and is all a Christian needs in matters of faith, and practice of that faith.

No one else can provide a shred of evidence to the contrary; many have tried and fall flat in their support of such notions. This is not to be confused with “general revelation” as defined in Romans 1 and 2, which is creation, moral conscience and a law written on a mans heart.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Yes, I know what you said.

I still want you to tell me how a person can** know** his/her interpretation is correct.

From what you’re saying, Paul Protestant, reading Scripture, in context, and praying sincerely to the Holy Spirit, and hearing from the Spirit that John 6 is ‘figurative’ is either willfully ignoring the TRUE teaching because he’d rather believe the other, and thus is not listening to the spirit at all, or else. . .or else what?

The Spirit does not teach against Himself.

From what I understand you to say, at some point Paul Protestant, if he is reading Scripture and praying to the Spirit, will ‘get’ the correct interpretation. If, therefore, Paul Protestant goes on to preach/teach or accept anything other than the correct interpretation, it’s because Paul chose not to accept the truth.

I do think that most of us who differ with you, Ginger (I don’t disagree with you on the Real Presence but I do on other things), have not experienced this, however.

Meaning, I have not heard the Spirit say to me, “this position in Catholicism is really false, you know”, and responded, "Ye gods, spirit. While you are quite correct I, in my false pride and benighted arrogance, will chose instead to ignore your clear truth and continue the false doctrine which I prefer.’

On the contrary, the Spirit and Scripture continue to speak to me in support of the Catholic teachings.

Why should I–or other Christians–listen to your claim that the Spirit gave you the ‘correct’ understanding? How do you know your Spirit is correct?

Hello,
You seem to have all the answers, please share with us Protestants what the Bible teaches in this regard and how that compares with the Catholic teaching on this. Please include some Scriptural reference so all of us can learn from you. We all look forward to your response in great anticipation.

Thanks

 

[GottaGo12345678]

The Catholic Church does not teach that we are saved by good works. We understand perfectly well that it is only because of Christ that works have any value.​

**Nowhere in the bible does it state faith “alone” justifies. It was unheard of before the 16th century!
**

                                ** Some Verses to Disprove the "Faith Alone" Doctrine**

Matthew 25:34-36
‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

** Matthew 19:16-21**
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’"
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

1 Corinthians 3:8
The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.

**1 Corinthians 13:2 **
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:13
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

James 2:24
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

James 2:14
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

James 2:18
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

James 2:20-21
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

2 Peter 1:10
Therefore, my brothers, labor all the more to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall.

(Darn it, I guess even OUR LORD was fooled by what you call “legalism.” Good thing all-knowing Luther came to help God understand… )

Okay; if they don’t teach that one is “infused” by saving grace, which is called something else in your circle, by works, then tell me as one acting as an “unbeliever”, what must I believe or do to be called a Christian?

Thanks and look forward to knowing how to be saved…hurry before my time is up.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Not explicitly, no. And what you just said up there is what most of us consider SS to be which is all that is necessary for Salvation is contained within the covers and left up to ‘only’ fallible intepreters which is false of course. And anyone who feels they can change their minds once, can do so again…and again…and again without any visible authority to say STOP ALREADY!!!
They have zero assurance of what they have just read is 100 percent correct.

LOL…what is zero assurance?

Catholics, by law, are not allowed to express 100% assurance unless they want that Trent curse to be over their head.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, Ginger. You keep on saying that RC’s ‘invented’ a doctrine which they falsely ascribed to Luther.

You have not proven any such thing, and the ‘reading skills of a 5th grader’ comment shows only that you’re attempting to try to appeal to logical fallacies rather than to address the argument itself.

And again, you ‘snip’ the "bible alone’ as if that was the ONLY thing that was used to ‘question’ (not to ‘accuse’) Luther.

Furthermore, as is carefully noted, the article itself uses the phrase which you bolded: So far as a formated cohesion can be deduced. . .

Fifth grade reading comprehension can make the distinction between seeing what is ‘deduced’ as opposed to stating that “it is definitive that Luther taught X.”

That Luther rejected any charge (and again, I state that what you falsely claim is what the "catholics invented’ is NOT in fact the sum total of what Catholics teach on SS) does not mean that, ipso facto, the charge is false. If a statement is true, it remains true, whether Luther or indeed any person claims it is false.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hello,
You seem to have all the answers, please share with us Protestants what the Bible teaches in this regard and how that compares with the Catholic teaching on this. Please include some Scriptural reference so all of us can learn from you. We all look forward to your response in great anticipation.

Well, hello there.

Thank you for your post, but really, I do not believe it is quite fair either for you to engage in the thinly veiled sarcasm above, nor for you to hijack the thread, or indeed the actual post itself. I believe that I and others had asked Ginger to explain HER position to us (which she has not yet done). It would certainly be rude for me to claim to speak about her position before she explains it. So if you don’t mind terribly, I’ll wait to comment until she tells me exactly how any Protestant can be sure that he or she is reading Scripture and comprehends it correctly, particularly when some Protestants read John 6 as Jesus saying 'eat my flesh" is LITERAL and some Protestants read John 6 as Jesus saying “eat my flesh” is SYMBOLIC. The Holy Spirit does not contradict himself so one of these must be right and one wrong, is that not so?

 

[Des]

Gal 3:22 — But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Galatians 3: makes clear God’s plan was to ensure everyone was concluded under sin - even those who had not committed personal sinned - like an infant.

So the sin you speak of is original sin (name removed by moderator)uted on our souls. That I agree with. Even Mary was saved from this though Her salvation came before it even touched Her soul.

So that they could be saved thru the cross. Why do you deny Mary this gift?

We do not, neither does she by calling Jesus Her Saviour.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but:

Your mistake is you think the Church finds implicit verses then attempts to pull their own doctrines out of it and say “Hey, let’s make another Church out of this one” like the ss protestants. Nobody is certain exactly when this knowledge was first known to the Church. What I said was it is still implicitly supported by Scripture if you know where to look while being expressed through Sacred Tradition over time even if not everyone believed it back then. However, once the Church speaks on an issue, all should be silent as what happened in the Council of Jerusalem when Peter Spoke and made his final judgement.

 

[Des]

LOL…what is zero assurance?

Catholics, by law, are not allowed to express 100% assurance unless they want that Trent curse to be over their head.

Unless you deem the Biblical interpretation skills by yourself or others infallible, you have zero assurance. Don’t kid yourself.

 

[estesbob]

Hi Ginger,
I just needed to clarify what you were saying; we are in agreement. Sola Scipture is the sufficiency of Gods revealed Word, “special revelation to man”, and is all a Christian needs in matters of faith, and practice of that faith.

No one else can provide a shred of evidence to the contrary; many have tried and fall flat in their support of such notions. This is not to be confused with “general revelation” as defined in Romans 1 and 2, which is creation, moral conscience and a law written on a mans heart.

Ginger does not agree with your definition of Sola Scripture. in fact she says that the defintion you give was invented by Catholics to discredit Martin Luther.

Ginger believes in the real presence. Do you? if not how do you reconcile the fact that two people claim to be guided by Scripture but come to contradictoy views of what it says?

 

[Ginger2]

No, Ginger. You keep on saying that RC’s ‘invented’ a doctrine which they falsely ascribed to Luther.

You have not proven any such thing, …

Here is the evidence - for the last time:

1. The RC is the first to mention the false doctrine of Sola Fide (faith alone)
2. The RC claims Luther invented this doctrine.
3. Luther responds affirming faith without works is dead
4. The RC points to Luther’s German translation as proof stating ML added a word
5. Luther explains he used proper German and the RC misunderstand because they are applying rules of Latin or Greek grammar to the German language
6. It is an obvious fact Luther did not create a new doctrine by adding a word to the Bible,
   because the word “only” is not found in the English translations of Protestant Bibles!

End Debate -

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Well, hello there.

Thank you for your post, but really, I do not believe it is quite fair either for you to engage in the thinly veiled sarcasm above, nor for you to hijack the thread, or indeed the actual post itself. I believe that I and others had asked Ginger to explain HER position to us (which she has not yet done). It would certainly be rude for me to claim to speak about her position before she explains it. So if you don’t mind terribly, I’ll wait to comment until she tells me exactly how any Protestant can be sure that he or she is reading Scripture and comprehends it correctly, particularly when some Protestants read John 6 as Jesus saying 'eat my flesh" is LITERAL and some Protestants read John 6 as Jesus saying “eat my flesh” is SYMBOLIC. The Holy Spirit does not contradict himself so one of these must be right and one wrong, is that not so?

You are dodging the question, but that is not very shocking. I will adress your question at the end of your post.

The Spirit cannot contradict Himself and so one is right and the other is wrong; therefore since He commanded not to eat raw flesh or dink blood, then one can easily conclude Jesus was speaking metaphoically.

I will be happy to provide with Scripture to support, but I suspect you already know God’s view on the eating and drinking of flesh and blood.

Anyone that believes in eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus does not understand what the Scripture teaches and are therefore wrong.

 

[Des]

Matt 19:8-9 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,** except for marital unfaithfulness**, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Here Jesus states immoral behaviour is grounds for divorce.

Actually Ginger, the words you have translated as except for marital unfaithfulness *here is the *Greek word porneia and debated among Biblical scholars about it’s precise meaning. Here is proof that your Bible alone theory when interpreted by individuals outside of Sacred Tradition is used to destroy the Word of God. But as we have asked you many times, who’s to decide your interpretation of that word is sufficient enough to know you are 100 percent correct? It isn’t explicit so it must not be important enough to you yet I would think Divorce is very important in God’s eyes don’t you think? Especially if He never permits it as Jesus explains in that verse.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Unless you deem the Biblical interpretation skills by yourself or others infallible, you have zero assurance. Don’t kid yourself.

LOL…What does the Bible teach concerning knowing the Truth concerning God? Do you even know? I do not kid myself a bit concerning the things of God; that is playing with fire and one will get burned.

 

[Des]

The Spirit cannot contradict Himself and so one is right and the other is wrong; therefore since He commanded not to eat raw flesh or dink blood, then one can easily conclude Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

You should debate this with your ss friend Ginger. She does not take it as to be a symbol such as you but in her eyes, you are biblically ignorant or intentionally disobedient to God’s Word.

 

[Des]

LOL…What does the Bible teach concerning knowing the Truth concerning God? Do you even know? I do not kid myself a bit concerning the things of God; that is playing with fire and one will get burned.

What I know comes from Holy Mother Church. What you know is from self pride and your fallible interpretational skills. Tell me, when you open your Bible do you close your eyes and it talks to you. Does the literal sound from God’s voice come from this book. You are delusional to insist you are right and we are all wrong about your heresies. Granted, you got some things right because wise men from the Catholic Church already directed your protestant ancestors in that area of the true meaning of certain Dogmas of the faith.
Such a pity you have since detached yourself and make yourselves into your own little Popes though.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Ginger does not agree with your definition of Sola Scripture. in fact she says that the defintion you give was invented by Catholics to discredit Martin Luther.

Ginger believes in the real presence. Do you? if not how do you reconcile the fact that two people claim to be guided by Scripture but come to contradictoy views of what it says?

Nice try and very deceptive on your part. Ginger and I both agree that the definition as presented by Catholics is incorrect and we are in 100% agreement to what the definiton of SS is; so get your facts straight before putting out such nonsense.

It is not very difficult to see who understands the Word and who does not. No one will agree 100% on all things pertaining to God’s word, but on the important doctrines; especially of salvation, all believers are of one mind.

God is much bigger than us and even Peter said that some of what Paul wrote are difficult to understand. This is no surprise when some things do not agree. If people make the claim that they will agree on all things written in Scripture are fooling themselves.

 

[Ginger2]

I also suspect GottaGo and I agree on the literal and symbolic aspects of the bread and the wine.

As stated earlier, it is similar to Baptism, “… an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace…”

 

[GottaGo12345678]

You should debate this with your ss friend Ginger. She does not take it as to be a symbol such as you but in her eyes, you are biblically ignorant or intentionally disobedient to God’s Word.

What is with the name calling and insults?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

What I know comes from Holy Mother Church. What you know is from self pride and your fallible interpretational skills. Tell me, when you open your Bible do you close your eyes and it talks to you. Does the literal sound from God’s voice come from this book. You are delusional to insist you are right and we are all wrong about your heresies. Granted, you got some things right because wise men from the Catholic Church already directed your protestant ancestors in that area of the true meaning of certain Dogmas of the faith.
Such a pity you have since detached yourself and make yourselves into your own little Popes though.

When have I insisted that I am right? Why avoid a legitimate question which I will repeat?

What does the Bible teach concerning the believers abil ity to understand the Word of God? What is the “Holy Mother Church” view on this?

What do you know about me besides very little?

 

[inkaneer]

Nice try and very deceptive on your part. Ginger and I both agree that the definition as presented by Catholics is incorrect and we are in 100% agreement to what the definiton of SS is; so get your facts straight before putting out such nonsense.

It is not very difficult to see who understands the Word and who does not. No one will agree 100% on all things pertaining to God’s word, but on the important doctrines; especially of salvation, all believers are of one mind.

Then please tell us who among the sola scripturists is correct about Baptism. Lutherans and others like Methodists and Anglicans believe water Baptism saves and is a sacrament that should be given to infants. Other sola scripturists like Baptists say water baptism does not save but is only an ordinance not a sacrament and is reserved for adults only. Both will quote the very same scriptures. Now since salvation is the issue then I think it is reasonable to say that is an important doctrine. So why are sola scripturists so diametrically opposed doctrinally on baptism?