Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[MartinJordan]

Jesus is “Lord of the Sabbath” Come now, the Apostles broke bread on the first day of the week, in remembrance of Jesus and Jesus being the New Creation rose from the dead on the first day of the week. This supercedes the Jewish custom of the Sabbath.

There…my layman version

MJ

 

[Porknpie]

Here are a few texts, but not all from scripturalcatholic.com, including a few from the early church fathers that support Sunday as the primary day of worship. The disciples used Saturday to spread the gospel to nonbelievers but they worshipped and celebrated the Eucharist on Sunday. scripturecatholic.com/sunday_worship.html. :compcoff:

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

*On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

“Hence it is not possible that the rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of His own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of His death, and hence also of His resurrection.” Origen, Commentary on John, 2:27 (A.D. 229).

“On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that ‘His soul hateth;’ which Sabbath He in His body abolished.” Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).

“They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we.” Eusebius, Church History, 1:4,8 (A.D. 312).

“Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord’s day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost.” Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).

 

[CopticChristian]

Here are a few texts, but not all from scripturalcatholic.com, including a few from the early church fathers that support Sunday as the primary day of worship. The disciples used Saturday to spread the gospel to nonbelievers but they worshipped and celebrated the Eucharist on Sunday. scripturecatholic.com/sunday_worship.html. :compcoff:

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

*On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

“Hence it is not possible that the rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of His own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of His death, and hence also of His resurrection.” Origen, Commentary on John, 2:27 (A.D. 229).

“On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that ‘His soul hateth;’ which Sabbath He in His body abolished.” Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).

“They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we.” Eusebius, Church History, 1:4,8 (A.D. 312).

“Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord’s day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost.” Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).

Pork,

So are you saying here that Phineas, with all the convincing arguments, that almost have me swayed, may be off…?

I just want to know if Phineas is a Seventh-Day Sabbatarian…and what Phineas thinks of Ellen White.

I really am confused here…Now I want to go with your proposition.

 

[Porknpie]

Pork,

So are you saying here that Phineas, with all the convincing arguments, that almost have me swayed, may be off…?

I just want to know if Phineas is a Seventh-Day Sabbatarian…and what Phineas thinks of Ellen White.

I really am confused here…Now I want to go with your proposition.

Take a look at the scripture passages referenced in my post AND look at the early church father writings. Again, these are the immediate successors to the disciples and were taught by them, who themselves were taught by Christ. This is “tradition” and history in one. There is not much confusion here by either Catholics or main stream protestants. The catholic church (little c) doesn’t follow Saturday as the Sabbath nor does it follow the dietary laws OR circumcision. Christ fulfilled the Sabbath and the church had the power to observe Sunday, the 8th day, not Saturday, the 7th day.

As for me, I’m going to have a nice big pork chop tonight and thank God for the new convenant. The Spirit will guide you on this one with a little reading on your part. If still confused, come back with a post and myself or many others will answer you on this subject. Some Catholic and some catholic.

 

[CopticChristian]

Take a look at the scripture passages referenced in my post AND look at the early church father writings. Again, these are the immediate successors to the disciples and were taught by them, who themselves were taught by Christ. This is “tradition” and history in one. There is not much confusion here by either Catholics or main stream protestants. The catholic church (little c) doesn’t follow Saturday as the Sabbath nor does it follow the dietary laws OR circumcision. Christ fulfilled the Sabbath and the church had the power to observe Sunday, the 8th day, not Saturday, the 7th day.

As for me, I’m going to have a nice big pork chop tonight and thank God for the new convenant. The Spirit will guide you on this one with a little reading on your part. If still confused, come back with a post and myself or many others will answer you on this subject. Some Catholic and some catholic.

Pork,

Thank you…this makes more sense than this Phineas guy…I just can’t get Phineas to tell me what he/she thinks of Ellen White.

What do you think of Ellen White?

 

[pablope]

Pablope said;
Phineas…my dear friend…the Church, a divine institution, established by Christ…was given the authority to bind and loose…as has been said countless of times here…what do you not get about that?

But Jesus said not a jot or title of the law was to be changed, and he who teaches other to do so would lose Heaven. James and Isaiah said that God was the only law giver (James 4:12 and Isaiah 33:22) So do i believe Jesus and the apostles and prophets or follow the contradictory presumptions of a church that is supposed to follow and uphold the words of Christ and not contradict them?

Acts 4:19

Phineas…my brethen…you addressed this from my post #699…but you did not address the rest, which I post here again:

Again…Phineas…our dear friend…here you wail against the opinions of learned men…well, let me ask you…aren’t you going by the opinions of learned men too…is your continued adherance to your belief and practice of sticking to a Saturday sabbath? Why would you believe those men who tell you to worship on Saturday instead of those other men, the Apostles…who started the Sunday worship?

Do you honestly think the Apostles did not get it correctly so?

But Jesus said not a jot or title of the law was to be changed, and he who teaches other to do so would lose Heaven.

But what kind of law are you talking about? The moral laws (which do not change)?

Or some laws meant to regulate a practice? Seems you cannot distinguish from the two.

James and Isaiah said that God was the only law giver (James 4:12 and Isaiah 33:22)

But how did God accomplish this giving of the Law? Through Moses…isn’t it?

Is not Moses also called the Law Giver?

So do i believe Jesus and the apostles and prophets or follow the contradictory presumptions of a church that is supposed to follow and uphold the words of Christ and not contradict them?

So…how do you know they are contradictory?

They are contradictory because of your interpretation…and you espouse this interpretation…because somebody told you, isn’t it? So…isn’t you interpretation that is contradictory?

I hope you find time to read this, and tell me if this does not describe you:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/ …form which I will cite:

-]He/-]Phineas adopts a pick-and-choose approach…‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…or worshipping on Sunday is wrong as per Phineas.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for -]Mohler./-] Phineas

What makes it ‘authoritative’ for-] Mohler/-] Phineas is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his (Phineas) interpretation. His(Phineas) interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[Porknpie]

Pork,

Thank you…this makes more sense than this Phineas guy…I just can’t get Phineas to tell me what he/she thinks of Ellen White.

What do you think of Ellen White?

Hi Coptic. I am not an Adventist expert but for those interested, here is a link to a short and informative catholic.com article. The first two paragraphs say a lot as does the paragraph on the church being the whore of Babylon. The prophesizing of the end of the world rings similar to the jehovah’s as both have errored multiple times as the world is still here. Sounds Mormonish with Ellen White receiving private revelations contradicting scripture, just like Joseph Smith. The mid-century had its share of strange belief’s. Same can be said of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Scripture (and church history / tradition) can be very, very clear and people can still be misled. It’s said that the devil’s intellect is far superior to a human’s. He has divided Christ’s church by misleading people away from the true church and all the sacraments. If I were him, that is what I would try doing in order to capture their souls. But we pray for them and drop some seeds their way and let the Holy Spirit rework their hearts and minds.

catholic.com/tracts/seventh-day-adventism

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Coptic. I am not an Adventist expert but for those interested, here is a link to a short and informative catholic.com article. The first two paragraphs say a lot as does the paragraph on the church being the whore of Babylon. The prophesizing of the end of the world rings similar to the jehovah’s as both have errored multiple times as the world is still here. Sounds Mormonish with Ellen White receiving private revelations contradicting scripture, just like Joseph Smith. The mid-century had its share of strange belief’s. Same can be said of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Scripture (and church history / tradition) can be very, very clear and people can still be misled. It’s said that the devil’s intellect is far superior to a human’s. He has divided Christ’s church by misleading people away from the true church and all the sacraments. If I were him, that is what I would try doing in order to capture their souls. But we pray for them and drop some seeds their way and let the Holy Spirit rework their hearts and minds.

catholic.com/tracts/seventh-day-adventism

Pork,

So you are saying that Ellen White, the fixation on the Saturday Sabbath and personal revelation of Ellen White are divisive? Correct?

 

[Porknpie]

Pork,

So you are saying that Ellen White, the fixation on the Saturday Sabbath and personal revelation of Ellen White are divisive? Correct?

I would say divisive to the unity of Christ and in error on faith and morals. As an example of erroring on morals, the statement below is from Adventist.org on birth control. I blame Ellen White and sola scriptura. :nunchuk:

1. Appropriate methods of birth control. Moral decision making about the choice and use of the various birth control agents must stem from an understanding of their probable effects on physical and emotional health, the manner in which the various agents operate, and the financial expenditure involved. A variety of methods of birth control–including barrier methods, spermicides, and sterilization–prevent conception and are morally acceptable. Some other birth-control methods¹ may prevent the release of the egg (ovulation), may prevent the union of egg and sperm (fertilization), or may prevent attachment of the already fertilized egg (implantation). Because of uncertainty about how they will function in any given instance, they may be morally suspect for people who believe that protectable human life begins at fertilization. However, since the majority of fertilized ova naturally fail to implant or are lost after implantation, even when birth control methods are not being used, hormonal methods of birth control and IUDs, which represent a similar process, may be viewed as morally acceptable. Abortion, the intentional termination of an established pregnancy, is not morally acceptable for purposes of birth control.

 

[CopticChristian]

I would say divisive to the unity of Christ and in error on faith and morals. As an example of erroring on morals, the statement below is from Adventist.org on birth control. I blame Ellen White and sola scriptura. :nunchuk:

1. Appropriate methods of birth control. Moral decision making about the choice and use of the various birth control agents must stem from an understanding of their probable effects on physical and emotional health, the manner in which the various agents operate, and the financial expenditure involved. A variety of methods of birth control–including barrier methods, spermicides, and sterilization–prevent conception and are morally acceptable. Some other birth-control methods¹ may prevent the release of the egg (ovulation), may prevent the union of egg and sperm (fertilization), or may prevent attachment of the already fertilized egg (implantation). Because of uncertainty about how they will function in any given instance, they may be morally suspect for people who believe that protectable human life begins at fertilization. However, since the majority of fertilized ova naturally fail to implant or are lost after implantation, even when birth control methods are not being used, hormonal methods of birth control and IUDs, which represent a similar process, may be viewed as morally acceptable. Abortion, the intentional termination of an established pregnancy, is not morally acceptable for purposes of birth control.

Pork,

Praise the Lord…this Phineas guy has some real problems. What is more important here, going to Church on Saturday or ignoring the Bible teaching on Birth Control…Maybe Phineas has not read the book by Provan “The Bible and Birth Control”…I would bet my boots that Provan goes to Church on Sunday.

 

[stevekehl]

(The rest of your post had nothing to do with sola scriptura.)

To quote a more recent poster:

In other words, in the hypothetical, God can take into consideration the person’s desire to grow close to God. But let’s get back into reality since that is where you and I live. If a person begins preaching theGospel, he can either preach Truth, or he can preach a false gospel. So, applying your scenario to a more realistic scene:

… let’s take the same guy only this time, a real guy who really read the Bible ] on the same island only this time in a real world situation, in a real place, with a real audience], and now he decides to proclaim the Word. He notices in the Bible that Scripture seems to simultaneously imply that he can lose his salvation and that he can’t. Using only the Bible, how does he come to the correct conclusion?

To quote another poster on another forum: “This is not an occasion where you throw me verses that show that I can either lose my salvation or not. You all must obviously know that there are two competing views. Using Sola Scriptura, show me how to resolve this conundrum.” (Obiectivum, Christian Website forum)

I don’t believe my previous post could have been any clearer. I was using Scripture to refute the once saved always saved doctrine that you put forward as a proof that we all need someone to tell us what the Scriptures say.That’s the problem with some people, they don’t want to read, they want someone to tell them what it says.

 

[ahs]

I don’t believe my previous post could have been any clearer. I was using Scripture to refute the once saved always saved doctrine that you put forward as a proof that we all need someone to tell us what the Scriptures say.That’s the problem with some people, they don’t want to read, they want someone to tell them what it says.

I did read your post. What I’m doing is getting to the heart of the matter and staying on topic. The thread isn’t about OSAS, it’s about SS. You said,

…I’m saying the Scriptures are the final authority and should be consulted and quoted before non-Biblical writings.

There are LOTS of Christians who believe as you do…that Scripture is the final authority. Of those Christians who believe this, there are 2 opposing views on OSAS (among other doctrines). If Scripture is the final authority, then show me where Scriptures tells us **how to reconcile the opposing views **of OSAS that various Christians believe…those very Christians reliying on SS as the final test for those doctrines.

 

[Phineas]

I

To quote another poster on another forum: “This is not an occasion where you throw me verses that show that I can either lose my salvation or not. You all must obviously know that there are two competing views. Using Sola Scriptura, show me how to resolve this conundrum.” (Obiectivum, Christian Website forum)

There are LOTS of Christians who believe as you do…that Scripture is the final authority. Of those Christians who believe this, there are 2 opposing views on OSAS (among other doctrines). If Scripture is the final authority, then show me where Scriptures tells us **how to reconcile the opposing views **of OSAS that various Christians believe…those very Christians reliying on SS as the final test for those doctrines.

Ahs, because SS can lead to opposing views is no reason to dismiss SS. Opposing views mean that at least one view is wrong, and possible both are wrong, but the Bible is truth and truth does not contradict itself.

Scriptures can make you wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15-16) or lead to your destruction (2 Pet 3:16). Which it will be depends on your sincerity and depth of study On the other hand, tradition that contradicts scripture cannot make use wise unto salvation and can easily lead you to transgress the laws of God.

If you search the scriptures to know God’s will, you will come to know the truth. If you search the scriptures to find support for your preconceived ideas or doctrines, then you will “wrest the scriptures to your own destruction”

Let me repeat a few SS principles posted earlier.

1.To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and **if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. **Isaiah 28:7-29; 35:8; Proverbs 19:27; Luke 24:27,44,45; Romans 16:26; James 5:19; 2 Peter 1:19, 20.

1. Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in doubtful places **see thou add no interpretation contrary to them; **but (as Paul saith) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith.—

3.All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them … The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, **when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold in one verse), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.— **

For example:
.OSAS easily refuted by the simple clear verses of 1 Cor 9;27 and Romans 11:22 and Jesus’ own words of Matt 10:22

Any doctrine that declares one or more of the ten commandments are no longer binding on mankind is completely contradictory to the words of Christ found in Matt 5:17-19.; hence it should be abandoned.

in summary,never should we form a doctrine out of one or more verses if other verses contradict the doctrine,

God is not an author of confusion, so we should never let traditions, doctrines or dogmas contradict scripture. The word of God should always be the final authority…

 

[Porknpie]

God is not an author of confusion, so we should never let traditions, doctrines or dogmas contradict scripture. The word of God should always be the final authority…

You sound Catholic! Catholics don’t disagree. We believe Christ’s words when he told Peter that he was rock and on this rock Christ would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail ( Christ gave us his church on earth immediately and his church later canonized scripture to be used for readings at Mass, 350 years later. The bible is infallible and useful for teaching but it was not developed to be the compendium of truth. It didn’t even exist for nearly 350 years and then it took many more years to be copied. )

We believe Christ when he told the disciples that they had the power to loose on earth and it would be loose in heaven. We believe Christ when he gave his body and blood to us in the Eucharist, until he comes again. . We believe scripture when it says that we are saved by faith (and works), not by faith alone. We believe that the church teaches without error on faith and morals including that contraception is sinful and does not let the traditions of man change the truth.

 

[CopticChristian]

You sound Catholic! Catholics don’t disagree. We believe Christ’s words when he told Peter that he was rock and on this rock Christ would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail ( Christ gave us his church on earth immediately and his church later canonized scripture to be used for readings at Mass, 350 years later. The bible is infallible and useful for teaching but it was not developed to be the compendium of truth. It didn’t even exist for nearly 350 years and then it took many more years to be copied. )

We believe Christ when he told the disciples that they had the power to loose on earth and it would be loose in heaven. We believe Christ when he gave his body and blood to us in the Eucharist, until he comes again. . We believe scripture when it says that we are saved by faith (and works), not by faith alone. We believe that the church teaches without error on faith and morals including that contraception is sinful and does not let the traditions of man change the truth.

Pork,

Are you saying that Phineas is an in cognito Catholic…wow…LOL and I thought Phineas was a 7th Day Adventist…

 

[Phineas]

You sound Catholic! Catholics don’t disagree. We believe Christ’s words when he told Peter that he was rock and on this rock Christ would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail ( Christ gave us his church on earth immediately and his church later canonized scripture to be used for readings at Mass, 350 years later. The bible is infallible and useful for teaching but it was not developed to be the compendium of truth. It didn’t even exist for nearly 350 years and then it took many more years to be copied. )

We believe Christ when he told the disciples that they had the power to loose on earth and it would be loose in heaven. We believe Christ when he gave his body and blood to us in the Eucharist, until he comes again. . We believe scripture when it says that we are saved by faith (and works), not by faith alone. We believe that the church teaches without error on faith and morals including that contraception is sinful and does not let the traditions of man change the truth.

Porknpie,
You believe to loose and to bind means that the Catholic church can do anything it desires and even change the times and laws of God. You believe that Peter was the head of the church and that he acted as such. You took two verses of scripture and made a sweeping doctrine that allows the Catholic church to be considered infallible

You believe all this because you never studied to see the contradictions of scripture such doctrines produce. Your doctrines make the majesty and preeminence of God a thing to be trifled with.

When God says his commandments stand fast forever, He is not to be contradicted by any worldly authority.Why don’t you believe Him when He says this??? God’s true church is made of those that love Him and keep His commandments., but evidently you don’t believe that either. You pick and choose what to believe.

Peter never sought for preeminence, never considered himself infallible, never dreamed of changing the laws of God, and knew he could not prevail against the gates of hell. Christ is that rock on whom the church is built, and unlike Peter who denied his Lord thrice and had to be rebuked by Paul for dissimulation , Christ could and did prevail against the gates of hell.

The Bible is all about Jesus in both the Old and New Testaments. He is that rock See Deut 32:4; Psalm 62:7; Isaiah 28:16. Peter himself says, "… whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, " (1 Pet 2:3-5). And Paul says “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 3:11) It gives no special authority to Peter or Mary or anyone else. All needed a Savior and only the sinless Son of God could fill that role, and He and He alone is the head of the church and its only law giver. He puts men into positions of authority to carry out his will and not their own. It would be chaotic if it were His will to have His church countermand His will.

The Hebraic scholar John Lightfoot wrote five pages on binding and loosing in his New Testament commentary on Matthew. He sheds some light on what the phrase meant to the Jews. He writes:
"…to bind and loose, a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things, not of persons…. it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, that ‘to bind” is the same with to forbid, or to declare forbidden. …Hence they [the Apostles] bound, that is, forbade, circumcision to the believers… They loosed, that is, allowed, purification to Paul and to four other brethren for the shunning of a scandal, (Acts 21:24). "
“Every church today has rules and regulations, things forbidden and things allowed, that are not specifically written in the Bible, but are extrapolated from it. Thus leaders in a church today might “bind,” forbid, specific immodest clothing in the worship service based on the general tenet of Scripture that people dress modestly. Or, specific foul language might be “bound,” forbidden, on church property based on the general biblical rule about not using obscenity. The Jewish faith in Jesus’ time was no different than our modern churches, and the leaders imposed many rules and regulations that were **not specifically written in the Law”
**

 

[CopticChristian]

Porknpie,
You believe to loose and to bind means that the Catholic church can do anything it desires and even change the times and laws of God. You believe that Peter was the head of the church and that he acted as such. You took two verses of scripture and made a sweeping doctrine that allows the Catholic church to be considered infallible

You believe all this because you never studied to see the contradictions of scripture such doctrines produce. Your doctrines make the majesty and preeminence of God a thing to be trifled with.

When God says his commandments stand fast forever, He is not to be contradicted by any worldly authority.Why don’t you believe Him when He says this??? God’s true church is made of those that love Him and keep His commandments., but evidently you don’t believe that either. You pick and choose what to believe.

Peter never sought for preeminence, never considered himself infallible, never dreamed of changing the laws of God, and knew he could not prevail against the gates of hell. Christ is that rock on whom the church is built, and unlike Peter who denied his Lord thrice and had to be rebuked by Paul for dissimulation , Christ could and did prevail against the gates of hell.

The Bible is all about Jesus in both the Old and New Testaments. He is that rock See Deut 32:4; Psalm 62:7; Isaiah 28:16. Peter himself says, "… whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, " (1 Pet 2:3-5). And Paul says “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 3:11) It gives no special authority to Peter or Mary or anyone else. All needed a Savior and only the sinless Son of God could fill that role, and He and He alone is the head of the church and its only law giver. He puts men into positions of authority to carry out his will and not their own. It would be chaotic if it were His will to have His church countermand His will.

The Hebraic scholar John Lightfoot wrote five pages on binding and loosing in his New Testament commentary on Matthew. He sheds some light on what the phrase meant to the Jews. He writes:
"…to bind and loose, a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things, not of persons…. it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, that ‘to bind” is the same with to forbid, or to declare forbidden. …Hence they [the Apostles] bound, that is, forbade, circumcision to the believers… They loosed, that is, allowed, purification to Paul and to four other brethren for the shunning of a scandal, (Acts 21:24). "
“Every church today has rules and regulations, things forbidden and things allowed, that are not specifically written in the Bible, but are extrapolated from it. Thus leaders in a church today might “bind,” forbid, specific immodest clothing in the worship service based on the general tenet of Scripture that people dress modestly. Or, specific foul language might be “bound,” forbidden, on church property based on the general biblical rule about not using obscenity. The Jewish faith in Jesus’ time was no different than our modern churches, and the leaders imposed many rules and regulations that were **not specifically written in the Law”
**

Phineas,

Just two questions?

Do you think Peter went to Church on Saturday?

Do you think Peter believed in Birth Control?

 

[Porknpie]

Porknpie,
You believe to loose and to bind means that the Catholic church can do anything it desires and even change the times and laws of God. You believe that Peter was the head of the church and that he acted as such. You took two verses of scripture and made a sweeping doctrine that allows the Catholic church to be considered infallible

You believe all this because you never studied to see the contradictions of scripture such doctrines produce. Your doctrines make the majesty and preeminence of God a thing to be trifled with.

When God says his commandments stand fast forever, He is not to be contradicted by any worldly authority.Why don’t you believe Him when He says this??? God’s true church is made of those that love Him and keep His commandments., but evidently you don’t believe that either. You pick and choose what to believe.

Peter never sought for preeminence, never considered himself infallible, never dreamed of changing the laws of God, and knew he could not prevail against the gates of hell. Christ is that rock on whom the church is built, and unlike Peter who denied his Lord thrice and had to be rebuked by Paul for dissimulation , Christ could and did prevail against the gates of hell.

The Bible is all about Jesus in both the Old and New Testaments. He is that rock See Deut 32:4; Psalm 62:7; Isaiah 28:16. Peter himself says, "… whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, " (1 Pet 2:3-5). And Paul says “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 3:11) It gives no special authority to Peter or Mary or anyone else. All needed a Savior and only the sinless Son of God could fill that role, and He and He alone is the head of the church and its only law giver. He puts men into positions of authority to carry out his will and not their own. It would be chaotic if it were His will to have His church countermand His will.

The Hebraic scholar John Lightfoot wrote five pages on binding and loosing in his New Testament commentary on Matthew. He sheds some light on what the phrase meant to the Jews. He writes:
"…to bind and loose, a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things, not of persons…. it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, that ‘to bind” is the same with to forbid, or to declare forbidden. …Hence they [the Apostles] bound, that is, forbade, circumcision to the believers… They loosed, that is, allowed, purification to Paul and to four other brethren for the shunning of a scandal, (Acts 21:24). "
“Every church today has rules and regulations, things forbidden and things allowed, that are not specifically written in the Bible, but are extrapolated from it. Thus leaders in a church today might “bind,” forbid, specific immodest clothing in the worship service based on the general tenet of Scripture that people dress modestly. Or, specific foul language might be “bound,” forbidden, on church property based on the general biblical rule about not using obscenity. The Jewish faith in Jesus’ time was no different than our modern churches, and the leaders imposed many rules and regulations that were **not specifically written in the Law”
**

Phineas - you dismiss both the words of Christ and what the church believed after his death.
This includes the apostolic auuthority with with a visible head of the church, appointed by Christ and the Eucharist. The word Catholic was used in the early church to differentiate true believers from false followers of the Christian faith. And, that the Sabbath was fulfilled by Christ and the Lords Day becoming the primary day of worship in the Christian church. On this point, I always say, when the Catholic church and the reformers agree on something, you have to wonder what soil your house is built on.

 

[Porknpie]

The Hebraic scholar John Lightfoot wrote five pages on binding and loosing in his New Testament commentary on Matthew. He sheds some light on what the phrase meant to the Jews. He writes:
"…to bind and loose, a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things, not of persons…. it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, that ‘to bind” is the same with to forbid, or to declare forbidden. …Hence they [the Apostles] bound, that is, forbade, circumcision to the believers… They loosed, that is, allowed, purification to Paul and to four other brethren for the shunning of a scandal, (Acts 21:24). "
“Every church today has rules and regulations, things forbidden and things allowed, that are not specifically written in the Bible, but are extrapolated from it. Thus leaders in a church today might “bind,” forbid, specific immodest clothing in the worship service based on the general tenet of Scripture that people dress modestly. Or, specific foul language might be “bound,” forbidden, on church property based on the general biblical rule about not using obscenity. The Jewish faith in Jesus’ time was no different than our modern churches, and the leaders imposed many rules and regulations that were **not specifically written in the Law”
**

Phineas, interesting that on one website I read said that John Lighfoot may have never met a Jew (quote below). It appears that he tried to understand Judiasm without ever speaking to a Jew. King Henry had kicked them out of England…in a sense, he’s not who I would go to as a Jewish authority on binding and loosening. But that said, the meaning of binding and loosening is permitting and forbidding. This is consistent with Christ’s words and how the church understood Christs words in that what is permitted on earth will be permitted in heaven and what is forbidden on earth will be forbidden in heaven. St. Peter and his successors have power given to them by Christ himself, similar to old testament times of Kings giving power to their prime minister when they are out of town (another example of the old testament prefiguring the new)

Imagine becoming the best Hebrew scholar in your nation without once speaking to a Jew. That is what John Lightfoot did. He may never even have seen a Jew, for they were barred from England until late in his life.

 

[ahs]

Ahs, because SS can lead to opposing views is no reason to dismiss SS. Opposing views mean that at least one view is wrong, and possible both are wrong, but the Bible is truth and truth does not contradict itself.

That’s an excellent reason to dismiss SS. The Bible is Truth and does not contradict itself, yet those relying on SS still come to opposing views which are both fully based on Scripture alone. This is an excellent reason to dismiss SS…no one can be certain that the opposing view is wrong because BOTH views are based on someone’s understanding of what Scripture is really saying. How does SS resolve this issue?

Scriptures can make you wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15-16) or lead to your destruction (2 Pet 3:16).

Amen!

Which it will be depends on your sincerity and depth of study.

Says who? Does the Bible say this? Or is this just an opinion? Using SS, please demonstrate this for me.

On the other hand, tradition that contradicts scripture cannot make use wise unto salvation and can easily lead you to transgress the laws of God.

Amen! So, who gets to decide whose interpretation of Scripture is to be taken into account when comparing traditions against it? For example, “…a Bishop must be the husband of one wife…”. The Bible does not clearly explain exactly what is meant here. Some say it means a Bishops must be married, while others say it means that if he’s married, he can be married to only one wife and can’t remarry. I don’t see a clear explanation in Scripture. Both views come from the plain wording in the text. How does SS resolve this issue for us? Using SS, please show me where Scripture says which view is correct, or who has the authority to decide?

If you search the scriptures to know God’s will, you will come to know the truth. If you search the scriptures to find support for your preconceived ideas or doctrines, then you will “wrest the scriptures to your own destruction”

Sounds great. How many Christians out there believe they are seeking God’s Truth and how many believe they are seeking their pre-conceived ideas? Of all the Christians I’ve talked to, many holding opposing views on doctrines such as OSAS, ALL of them firmly believe they are searching for God’s Truth without letting pre-conceived notions cloud their thoughts.

Let me repeat a few SS principles posted earlier.
1.To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Isaiah 28:7-29; 35:8; Proverbs 19:27; Luke 24:27,44,45; Romans 16:26; James 5:19; 2 Peter 1:19, 20.

…without contradiction of whose interpretation? I have yet to meet a Christian who, when presented with seemingly contradicting verses, believes that the verses are on contradiction. “It must be taken in its proper context” is preceded by an explanation of what that individual person feels the proper context is. It devolves into a personal interpretation that is then called “the plain meaning of the Word”. So, how does SS resolve this for us? Where does Scripture tells us which person’s “plain meaning” is the *real *“plain meaning”?

1. Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in doubtful places see thou add no interpretation contrary to them; but (as Paul saith) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith.—

…contrary interpretation according to whose understanding? As I said above, everyone with these opposing views believes there is not contradiction in Scripture to their views…based on their interpretation of the plain meaning of the text. So how does SS resolve this issue for us?

3.All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them …

Wait, the unlearned as well as the learned can clearly see the meaning?! I thought it “depends on your sincerity and depth of study”. And “sufficient” understanding according to whom? Does Scripture teach that all may attain a sufficient understanding of Scripture by reading Scripture with a due use of ordinary means? And what objective standard is there to tells us what “due use of ordinary means” are that so clearly points out the flaw in 1 Christian group while so clearly pointing out the truth of the other (when they disagree on teaching that they arrived at by SS)? How does SS resolve this issue for us?

…The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold in one verse), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.—

Where is this taught? Scripture interprets itself?! Scripture didn’t decide which books belonged in it…how is it going to interpret itself? Have you ever seen a verse in Scripture that says, “the following dialog between Jesus and Peter shall be understood in this way…”? Who decides when the true and full sense of any Scripture comes into question? And who decides which other places speak “more clearly”? “More clearly” according to whom? How does SS resolve this issue for us?

For example:
.OSAS easily refuted by the simple clear verses of 1 Cor 9;27 and Romans 11:22 and Jesus’ own words of Matt 10:22

That sounds great to me…I happen to agree. But supporters of OSAS don’t see it that way. They think we are mis-reading Scripture and taking verses out of context. Does SS give us the plain explanation of what context a particular verse should be understood in? Please give me the Scripture verse that says, “Jesus’ words in these verses clearly show…[insert your favorite teaching here]…and it must be considered that ….[insert context here]…” The OSAS believer believes he is reading the plain meaning of the text in the proper context. Who are you and I to say otherwise? All we have is our opinions about what Scripture is saying. How does SS resolve this issue?

Any doctrine that declares one or more of the ten commandments are no longer binding on mankind is completely contradictory to the words of Christ found in Matt 5:17-19.; hence it should be abandoned.

According to whose understanding of Scripture? According to whose understanding of the ten commandments? According to whose understanding of Christ fulfilling the law? How does SS resolve the issue of the countless possible opinions of what Scripture is “really” saying in “proper context”?

in summary,never should we form a doctrine out of one or more verses if other verses contradict the doctrine,

Amen! So whose understanding of Scripture do we use to decide of one verse is contradicting another, or if it is just being read out of context? How does SS address this?

God is not an author of confusion, so we should never let traditions, doctrines or dogmas contradict scripture.

Amen! …contradict WHOSE understanding of Scripture? Where does SS give us the proper understanding of Scripture?

The word of God should always be the final authority.

The Word is the final authority…and the Word is not just what is written. What is written comes from the oral Tradition which was passed down. There was not a written word until there was a oral word, and then a hand to record the oral word into writing. If the written word, the Scripture, is the final authority, show us where it claims such authority and show us how it resolves issues where Truth-seeking Christians hold opposing views…both based on SS.