Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Could you elaborate what this statement is saying…I mean, what does the Nicene creed contradict?
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Benhur, and the reformed position is referring to baptism of desire. But that is the exception not the norm. (see thief on the cross)

But I suppose we wont solve baptismal regeneration disagreement here today, or anytime over the next thousand years lol
 
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Benhur, and the reformed position is referring to baptism of desire. But that is the exception not the norm. (see thief on the cross)

But I suppose we wont solve baptismal regeneration disagreement here today, or anytime over the next thousand years lol
Agree about not solving it today! I would though be interested in your understanding of “Baptism of desire” as I am not familiar with the term. Please elaborate on the thief on the cross too if you have the time (and patience)!
 
40.png
alwayswill:
It seems like someone (and I guess it will be me) needs to mention the fact that you’ve only been registered here for a week (you’re making Lenten_ashes look like an old timer! 😉 :D)

Heh, but seriously I’m not looking to put you down or anything, but to make the point that you seem to be obsessing on one particular conversation without looking at the rest of this forum, or the various other forums on CAF. At least take a minute to consider that there are thousands of us here and thousands of different conversations, besides the one you’re currently in, that you could get-in-on if you chose. :cool:
 
Agree about not solving it today! I would though be interested in your understanding of “Baptism of desire” as I am not familiar with the term. Please elaborate on the thief on the cross too if you have the time (and patience)!
Hi Wannano,

The church teaches that while God has given us sacraments, He is not bound by those sacraments.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments
We see evidence of this in scripture with the thief on the cross who likely was not baptized and with Cornelius’s household:
The conversion of Cornelius’s household appears to be a case of baptism of desire in Scripture. In this case we know that Cornelius and his household had not yet been water baptized (for after the experience Peter orders that they go on to be water baptized; Acts 10:47-48).
While still in their pre-baptized condition, they hear the gospel from Peter (10:34-43), and as they respond to it the Holy Spirit descends upon them and enables them to speak in tongues (10:44-46). This proves to Peter that they are acceptable to God and do not have to become Jews in order to become Christians.
Since the reception of the Holy Spirit is one of the blessings of salvation and is associated with baptism, it appears that they were placed in a state of grace by their response to the gospel and filled with the Holy Spirit even though they did not yet have water baptism. They thus would seem to be saved by baptism of desire, God allowing them to share in the blessings of salvation that are normally associated with baptism (Acts 2:38) even before the reception of the sacrament. Peter is quick to insist, however, that they go on to receive the sacrament that their desire for Christ has already initiated.
Another possible example of baptism by desire is the thief on the cross. In his case we do not know that he was not baptized (by this time thousands of people in the area had been) and he likely died in the transitional period in history before baptism was mandatory for salvation
There’s also baptism of blood which is suffering martydom for the faith.

So really it’s not a big deal what benhur’s position is on this, I was just curious because I have not chatted with him yet(I don’t think) and since protestants have varying opinions, I like to know who I’m talking to.

Have a great day in the Lord.
 
It seems like someone (and I guess it will be me) needs to mention the fact that you’ve only been registered here for a week (you’re making Lenten_ashes look like an old timer! 😉 :D)

Heh, but seriously I’m not looking to put you down or anything, but to make the point that you seem to be obsessing on one particular conversation without looking at the rest of this forum, or the various other forums on CAF. At least take a minute to consider that there are thousands of us here and thousands of different conversations, besides the one you’re currently in, that you could get-in-on if you chose. :cool:
Would you care to clarify who you are addressing this to?
 
I want you to know Benhur that I am often encouraged by your contributions. That you have vibrant relationship with Jesus evident.
Hi W,

Thank you , that is encouraging and blessings to you also.
 
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Benhur, and the reformed position is referring to baptism of desire. But that is the exception not the norm. (see thief on the cross)

But I suppose we wont solve baptismal regeneration disagreement here today, or anytime over the next thousand years lol
Hi La,

Actually I thought i was strongly referring to whether baptism is regenerational or not, much like was circumcision or not. I mean Jesus did not tell Nicodemus to go get recircumcised. But that is another topic.

But does the CC have one infallibe doctrine that is not claimed to be scriptural , that the bible has not legitimized even provided a rule of faith ?

Blessings
 
Hi La,

Actually I thought i was strongly referring to whether baptism is regenerational or not, much like was circumcision or not. But that is another topic.

But does the CC have one infallibe doctrine that is not claimed to be scriptural , that the bible has not legitimized even provided a rule of faith ?

Blessings
Hi Benhur, I’m not understanding what you are asking?
 
Hi Benhur, I’m not understanding what you are asking?
Hi La’

I guess I am asking is a three legged stool really a three legged stool, if the other two legs must answer to, stand on, not contradict, the constant Holy Scripture leg ?

Blessings
 
Hi La’

I guess I am asking is a three legged stool really a three legged stool, if the other two legs must answer to, stand on, not contradict, the Holy Scripture stool ?

Blessings
I would never discredit the enormous importance of sacred scripture.

But we do see in ACTS 15, a dogmatic decision being made without it.

Thanks for clarifying.
 
I see what you mean. I don’t know what happened there, I had hit the Quote button for this,
I’ve only been here since Lent started and have 133 posts already lol. That’s crazy and I didn’t anticipate that much posting.
 
" the Bible is your only source for religious truths"
the Bible is our only source for infallible and inerrant religious truths

"either the bible is wrong, "
Impossible: the Bible is infallible and inerrant

“or those self-interpreting it are wrong.”
Obviously: we are not infallible and inerrant
**
OK BUT:shrug:

Are Mt 16:18-19

Mt 18:18

John 6:47-57

John 17:17-20

John 20:19-23

Mt 28:1-20

JUST MISUNDERSTOOD or are they wrong? They certainly are NOT widely-accepted
outside of the CC.**

God Bless you; my friend, you can’t have it both ways:)

PJM
 
Only to show that the claim is, at best, speculative, particularly when a specific number or small range is placed on the claim.

Jon
OK:D

BUT I [ME speaking for myself here] suspect that he number has sort of a “bible-number-connotation”; NOT actually meaning 30,000 BUT a “GREAT MANY”

Anyway that’s my take

God Bless you Jon
 
If a Sola Scriptura practice denies the Apostolic Sacred Oral Traditions, the divine authority Jesus places upon His Church, then Sola Scriptura becomes a practice of biblical contradiction.

If a Sola Scriptura practice places itself as the Sole source by which God gives His revelation and teachings to His Church, can disqualify the Sacred Oral Apostolic Traditions, when both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is the full deposit of the one Holy Cathoilc and Apostolic (biblical) faith. The Sola Scriptura becomes a new wind of doctrine invented by men and not a divine revelation from God. Jesus revealed that there are many more things that are not written, when He will reveal to his Apostles, and did not John record in his gospel what Jesus said and done that are not written? Sola Scriptura cannot stand alone here.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole authority and source by which the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ are interpreted and defended from ones own interpretation. This suggests a division and contradiction by varying Christian (ecclisial faith) communities that denominate from one another, which leads to a head without a unified body.

If a Sola Scriptura practice presents itself as God’s living Word written, that can be used for teaching, instruction and correction that is interpreted on a par with Sacred Apostolic Tradition without contradiction. Then the Sola is used in it’s correct context as other Catholic Saints have used it for teaching, instruction and refuting heresies as a canon (measuring standard), with the Keys Jesus gives them. When Sola Scriptura is used in Liturgy to teach, instruct and correct the faithful, Sola Scriptura is used in its’ correct biblical context when the Logos personfied is present in our midst.

Sola Scriptura taken out of the biblical context loses it’s divine element supported by Sacred Tradition. Sola Scriptura by itself has no God given divine Keys to bind and loose on earth in order to define and defend the apostolic faith. Thus how can any Sola Scripturalist use scripture only for teaching, instruction and correction when it has no divine given authority to exercise the Keys Jesus gives to his Apostles to bind and loose upon the whole earth? Martin Luther and others of the reformation were not there when Jesus bestowed his divine Keys to His body in the Catholic Church.

A Sola Scriptura practice or doctrine can negate the True Presence of the Word Incarnate in our midst. A Sola Scriptura (invented by men) since it’s inception has opened the flood gates of chaos that come against the Rock to which Jesus has built His Church, but will not prevail.

I love the Sola Scriptura, that puts the bright light on those divine revelations and teachings revealed by Jesus Christ that are not written, which were apostolically handed down orally practiced in faith by all the faithful since Pentecost, unchanged to today divinely confirmed from liturgy. It is here where the Sola Scriptura is the Logos= Personified in True presence.

In essence, the Sola Scriptura practiced in Liturgy, where the biblical practice of teaching, instruction and correction to the faithful can be heard in practice, when faith comes in hearing and hearing the Word of God in presence personified. Outside of the Liturgy Sola Scriptura becomes word’s on a page subject to anyone’s own interpretation.

It is here where Sola Scriptura is placed in it’s correct context; The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. For it is for this reason ALONE above all others, why the bible books were canonized (by the authority of the Catholic Magisterium) and revealed as God breathed in liturgy.

So that all the faithful can begin and grow their Christian faith by hearing and hearing the Word of God, not reading the Word of God. And then faith from Sola Scriptura in liturgy becomes the living Word in Eucharist, when we can taste, eat and drink the Sola Scriptura = Word made flesh and blood. This is where Sola Scriptura belongs, in the liturgy of the Mass. The Sola Scriptura was sent for man, not man for the Sola Scriptura.

For to Catholics the Word of God is living who is the Sola Word of God incarnate in the Son of man who lives in our midst. A Sola Scriptura by itself that has no Apostolic Sacred Tradition loses it’s divine qualities in the full deposit of faith.

Scripture commands, we must hold fast to the Traditions which the apostles gave us by both Oral Tradition and by Letter. Paul’s teaching contradicts a Sola Scriptura practice here…

Peace be with you
 
If a Sola Scriptura practice denies the Apostolic Sacred Oral Traditions, the divine authority Jesus places upon His Church, then Sola Scriptura becomes a practice of biblical contradiction.

If a Sola Scriptura practice places itself as the Sole source by which God gives His revelation and teachings to His Church, can disqualify the Sacred Oral Apostolic Traditions, when both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is the full deposit of the one Holy Cathoilc and Apostolic (biblical) faith. The Sola Scriptura becomes a new wind of doctrine invented by men and not a divine revelation from God. Jesus revealed that there are many more things that are not written, when He will reveal to his Apostles, and did not John record in his gospel what Jesus said and done that are not written? Sola Scriptura cannot stand alone here.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole authority and source by which the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ are interpreted and defended from ones own interpretation. This suggests a division and contradiction by varying Christian (ecclisial faith) communities that denominate from one another, which leads to a head without a unified body.

If a Sola Scriptura practice presents itself as God’s living Word written, that can be used for teaching, instruction and correction that is interpreted on a par with Sacred Apostolic Tradition without contradiction. Then the Sola is used in it’s correct context as other Catholic Saints have used it for teaching, instruction and refuting heresies as a canon (measuring standard), with the Keys Jesus gives them. When Sola Scriptura is used in Liturgy to teach, instruct and correct the faithful, Sola Scriptura is used in its’ correct biblical context when the Logos personfied is present in our midst.

Sola Scriptura taken out of the biblical context loses it’s divine element supported by Sacred Tradition. Sola Scriptura by itself has no God given divine Keys to bind and loose on earth in order to define and defend the apostolic faith. Thus how can any Sola Scripturalist use scripture only for teaching, instruction and correction when it has no divine given authority to exercise the Keys Jesus gives to his Apostles to bind and loose upon the whole earth? Martin Luther and others of the reformation were not there when Jesus bestowed his divine Keys to His body in the Catholic Church.

A Sola Scriptura practice or doctrine can negate the True Presence of the Word Incarnate in our midst. A Sola Scriptura (invented by men) since it’s inception has opened the flood gates of chaos that come against the Rock to which Jesus has built His Church, but will not prevail.

I love the Sola Scriptura, that puts the bright light on those divine revelations and teachings revealed by Jesus Christ that are not written, which were apostolically handed down orally practiced in faith by all the faithful since Pentecost, unchanged to today divinely confirmed from liturgy. It is here where the Sola Scriptura is the Logos= Personified in True presence.
In essence, the Sola Scriptura practiced in Liturgy, where the biblical practice of teaching, correction

It is here where Sola Scriptura is placed in it’s correct context; The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. For it is for this reason ALONE above all others, why the bible books were canonized (by the authority of the Catholic Magisterium) and revealed as God breathed in liturgy.

So that all the faithful can begin and grow their Christian faith by hearing and hearing the Word of God, not reading the Word of God. And then faith from Sola Scriptura in liturgy becomes the living Word in Eucharist, when we can taste, eat and drink the Sola Scriptura = Word made flesh and blood. This is where Sola Scriptura belongs, in the liturgy of the Mass. The Sola Scriptura was sent for man, not man for the Sola Scriptura.

For to Catholics the Word of God is living who is the Sola Word of God incarnate in the Son of man who lives in our midst. A Sola Scriptura by itself that has no Apostolic Sacred Tradition loses it’s divine qualities in the full deposit of faith.

Scripture commands, **we must **hold fast to the Traditions which the apostles gave us by both Oral Tradition and by Letter. Paul’s teaching contradicts a Sola Scriptura practice here…

Peace be with you
WOW!

Thank you so very much!

God Bless you,

PJM
 
Interesting point. Thanks

God Bless

PJM
If you understand what the point is I would be interested in knowing. I have asked in an earlier post for clarification and none has been offered, can you help?
 
Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.
Why just communions that are loosely designated as “protestant”? Why not a dialogue of all western Christians, for example? Lutherans, for example, have little more in common with Baptists, than Catholics do. And in many ways, we have more in common with each other. I think that’s why dialogue between Lutheranism and Catholicism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism, Catholicism and Anglicanism, makes more sense. Liturgy, sacraments, creeds, put us in a category more closely aligned than “protestant”.
The my first comment set the comparison:
But okay. I’m good with that. I could have been clearer.
OK, let’s use your suggestion and discuss the details of an Ecumenical Council between Catholics, Anglicanism and Lutheranism.

As we have been discussing, this hypothetical Council will be conducted to resolve doctrinal issues, which means that the delegates will pray to the Holy Spirit that they be guided to insure that the decisions that it makes are correct in God’s Eyes. Once the decisions are made and published, each of the three communions will take the doctrinal teachings back and will implement them, as they agreed they would do prior to the Council. Given the pre-Council agreement to abide by the Council, there will be no

Jon, I know that you can’t speak from an Anglican perspective, but would you willing to commit to abiding by the decisions of the Council? Yes or no? Do you think Lutheranism would be? Yes or no?

Now we should discuss the details of who should be invited. How many delegates would you like to see total? And then, how many people do you think should be invited from each of the three groups? In other words, in what proportions? And, specifically, what would you think would be a fair way to apportion the Lutheran delegates among the various Lutheran ecclesiastical communities?

Please let me know what you think.

God Bless You Jon, Topper
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top