Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[PerryJ]

I am sorry that you feel this way, and that you rely wholly upon other men for your faith, and religious comfort. (Chrysostom is not the greatest source of security if you ask me) Not that it’s always wrong to reference other men of the faith- but to simply quote Chrysostom as if he is the final say- and expect me to bow at his word- is a little humorous to me. We can all pick and choose from the fathers to support our interpretations- and then when it comes to another verse- we seem to abandon these same fathers, and jump on the band wagon of another. In my opinion, it is your method- (not my interpretation) - that is “weak.”

Furthermore- I did not twist the Scripture; for just as you accuse me of reading into the text, my preconceived notions- it is plain to all who are on this forum (and who’s conscience is not defiled) that it is you who have the pre-conceived notions.

You salivate over every appearance of the word “tradition” and automatically assume that it speaks of some un-recorded doctrine- (un-recorded in Scripture and unrecorded by Rome). You would assume that these “oral traditions” that are distinctlive to the Roman Catholic Church are actually spoken of in the Scriptures- and yet you could not identify them if your faith depended on it!

Funny that you would use ad-hominem arguments and loose accuasations (stained with double standards) - and yet avoid my original question entirely- great job.

So can you give me an answer to my question please?

If you would maintain that the content spoken by the apostle’s mouth differed from the content recorded in the apostle’s epistle, could you please give me an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle Paul refers in 2 Thes. 2:15?

Interesting that a person that believes in Sola Scriputrae would believe we follow the beliefs of men when it is Sola Scriptura which was invented by a man in the 1500s. I am not sure how you can reconcile history to your belief. Your statement that we follow the teachings of a man shows that you do not understand Papal Infallibilty

Concerning oral traditions I would include the Trinity. You can not find the Trinity in the Bible yet we believe it is true.

Your arguments appear to try and use both sides of a fence. You can believe in tradition; but, it has to be written in the Bible? Am I understanding you correctly?

We would say oral traditions and the Bible do not conflict. Oral traditions can explain the Bible. Again the example of the Trinity. How do you reconcile the Trinity not being in the Bible yet you, I assume, support it.

 

[chosensinner]

Thankyou TWB. As a Protestant, I have done decades of research, gone to a multitude of churches, had bible study with Catholic, Protestant & Jews alike to find out why people believe what they believe & what is their standard of belief. Why? For one, because I love fellowship with people of other faiths & to have an idea where they are coming from so I am not ignorant of their beliefs. So we can have good discussions as we do here. I respect all my brothers & sisters beliefs in this & other threads. I have studied the history, doctrines of many churches & why the Reformation. I have come to my conclusions based on these studies. Too many of my Protestant friends have no clue why they are Protestants. Shame on us if we don’t have an answer for our faith. Sorry for long answer. By the way, as you can tell, a scholar I am not. Just a layman seeking for more insight into Truth as it is in our Savior.

Hey Larry - you’re a Protestant?

 

[chosensinner]

Interesting that a person that believes in Sola Scriputrae would believe we follow the beliefs of men when it is Sola Scriptura which was invented by a man in the 1500s. I am not sure how you can reconcile history to your belief. Your statement that we follow the teachings of a man shows that you do not understand Papal Infallibilty

Concerning oral traditions I would include the Trinity. You can not find the Trinity in the Bible yet we believe it is true.

Your arguments appear to try and use both sides of a fence. You can believe in tradition; but, it has to be written in the Bible? Am I understanding you correctly?

We would say oral traditions and the Bible do not conflict. Oral traditions can explain the Bible. Again the example of the Trinity. How do you reconcile the Trinity not being in the Bible yet you, I assume, support it.

Are you a Catholic or Jehovah’s Witness?

If you would include the Trinity in the category of oral tradition- then I am afraid you do not know your Bible very well. What a shame.

If you are referring to the term “trinity” then you can have it; we do not need it. But if you are referring to the truth of the Trinity- then for you to deny that it is taught in the Scriptures will certainly raise the hairs on the neck of many of your own fellow Roman Catholics!

For Roman Cathoics can defend the Trinity from the Scriptures alone- believe me, I have seen it done- and they do a great job!

I am not sure what you are after- but you just grabbed the dagger by the blade and tried to stab me with the handle. :doh2:

Are you OK?

 

[PerryJ]

Are you a Catholic or Jehovah’s Witness?

If you would include the Trinity in the category of oral tradition- then I am afraid you do not know your Bible very well. What a shame.

If you are referring to the term “trinity” then you can have it; we do not need it. But if you are referring to the truth of the Trinity- then for you to deny that it is taught in the Scriptures will certainly raise the hairs on the neck of many of your own fellow Roman Catholics!

For Roman Cathoics can defend the Trinity from the Scriptures alone- believe me, I have seen it done- and they do a great job!

I am not sure what you are after- but you just grabbed the dagger by the blade and tried to stab me with the handle. :doh2:

Are you OK?

They can prove the inference of the Trinity in scripture. They can not prove the full teaching.

I am a Catholic and former Protestant. I do not know the Bible as well as some and more than others.

If you believe you can support the Trinity solely by The Bible give it a shot. Even copy the Catholic’s you believe have done this. As stated they can infer and can not prove.

Back to the point of my post, your arguments appear to try and use both sides of a fence. You can believe in tradition; but, it has to be written in the Bible? Am I understanding you correctly?

How do you reconcile that Sola Scriptura did not exist prior to the 1500s. How do you reconcile that the theology of the man that invented Sola Scriptura’s is not followed? If he was truly inspired how could this happen? Was he sometimes inspired? I am not trying to make light of the subject. I find the dichotomy of following and not following the reformers fascinating. One chooses to support his theory of Sola Scripture yet not his other beliefs. How do you reconcile not following his other beliefs? If he found it in the Bible how can you not?

 

[chosensinner]

They can prove the inference of the Trinity in scripture. They can not prove the full teaching.

I am a Catholic and former Protestant. I do not know the Bible as well as some and more than others.

If you believe you can support the Trinity solely by The Bible give it a shot. Even copy the Catholic’s you believe have done this. As stated they can infer and can not prove.

Back to the point of my post, your arguments appear to try and use both sides of a fence. You can believe in tradition; but, it has to be written in the Bible? Am I understanding you correctly?

How do you reconcile that Sola Scriptura did not exist prior to the 1500s. How do you reconcile that the theology of the man that invented Sola Scriptura’s is not followed? If he was truly inspired how could this happen? Was he sometimes inspired? I am not trying to make light of the subject. I find the dichotomy of following and not following the reformers fascinating. One chooses to support his theory of Sola Scripture yet not his other beliefs. How do you reconcile not following his other beliefs? If he found it in the Bible how can you not?

First of all- like I said: The Trinity is taught clearly and systematically in the Scriptures- period. It’s too bad that you are not aware of this.

If then, you can teach me anything that is true about the Trinity that is *not * taught in the Bible- then please do. Only use another thread for it, because this is about Sola Scriptura.

About the historicity of the principle of Sola Scriptura- I can only say this. It is clear from a cursory reading of the earliest fathers- that they held the Scriptures as the Highest and Final authority of matters of faith and practice. I would love to give you numerous quotes from various fathers- but 1) I cannot copy/paste that much 2) I am not too interested in switching this conversation over to a debate about men- (the church fathers).

However- because I cannot resist the temptation- I will give you a few examples of things that were said by the Fathers when it came to this business of establishing truth- and combating heresy.

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236)

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (ANF, Vol. V. Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9.)

Irenaeus (130- 202 AD)

“So then, in the first place, we prove from the authoritative Scriptures that all the things which have been mentioned, visible and invisible, have been made by one God. For men are not more to be depended upon than the Scriptures; nor are we to give up the declarations of the Lord, Moses, and the rest of the prophets, who have proclaimed the truth, and give credit to them who do indeed utter nothing of a sensible nature, but rave about untenable opinions.” (ANF, Vol. I, Against Heresies 2:30:6.)

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220)

“He will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.” (ANF, Vol. III, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 3)

NOW- I should also make this point. It is also clear from a cursory reading of the Fathers that they held to many traditions (that we as Protestants know are NOT in Scripture, and are even sometimes contrary to it). BUT- the principle of Sola Scriptura is not disproved by this fact; rather- it is actually established.

For though the earliest fathers may have held to un-biblical traditions- the fact remains that THEY BELIEVED that all they held to was taught in Scripture. They functioned according to this rule- though we know that they fell short. If one were to ask them- if they held to traditions that were un-biblical- they would deny it.

Indeed- when reading the fathers with Roman eyeglasses, one will automatically assume that at every appearance of the word “traditions” or “traditions” the fathers were speaking of extra-biblical traditions. This is not the case. When the fathers spoke of “traditions” they were speaking of the written traditions “handed down by the apostles” THROUGH HOLY SCRIPTURE. And to establish this truth- we need only view a few more citations.

Please consider my next post.

 

[chosensinner]

How do you reconcile that Sola Scriptura did not exist prior to the 1500s. How do you reconcile that the theology of the man that invented Sola Scriptura’s is not followed? If he was truly inspired how could this happen? Was he sometimes inspired? I am not trying to make light of the subject. I find the dichotomy of following and not following the reformers fascinating. One chooses to support his theory of Sola Scripture yet not his other beliefs. How do you reconcile not following his other beliefs? If he found it in the Bible how can you not?

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220)

"But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, while they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: “O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to you;” [1 Timothy 6:20] and again: “That good thing which was committed unto you keep.” [2 Timothy 1:14] What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I commit unto you, son Timothy?” [1 Timothy 1:18] and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge you in the sight of God, who quickens all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that you keep this commandment?” [1 Timothy 6:13] Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase. [2 Timothy 2:2] Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these many witnesses, it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced before many witnesses. Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also, [2 Timothy 2:2] be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.” (ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 25)

Actually- I will stop here. I know how you guys get.

So let’s get back to the Scriptures bro, and I will continue to demonstrate that the Scriptures themselves teach the principles of Sola Scriptura. To argue over men is not only foolish- because men are not the infallible rule- but it is a waste of time- because the Scriptures are so plain- we dont need to use the fathers.

The only reason that I quoted any fathers at all was to answer your repeated question about the historicity of Sola Scriptura- and to de-bunk your anti-Protestant assertions. To set the record straight- we did not invent the principles of Sola Scriptura- we simply restored them.

 

[larry_m]

To Chosensinner. Is that an honest question? Since I have stated many times, including the one you have asked the question, that I am a Protestant, I take it you have a controversy with my claim. If not I apologize for misreading your question. By the way, great answer to PerryJ on the “church” fathers believing in SS. I also have enjoyed your other threads. Keep the faith my brother.

 

[distracted]

WORSHIP GOD, AND NEITHER SCRIPTURE OR CHURCH

My concern is that so many Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, worship a church or a book. .

i worship Jesus and everything He touches… He not only touches his Church… He lives ***in it… ***24/7 (the Real PResence)…

and as far as the bible… that is the word of God… so it is not wrong to reverence it…

though i do appreciate your point tht there is more to serving God & loving Him than can be contained in this small book…

 

[chosensinner]

To Chosensinner. Is that an honest question? Since I have stated many times, including the one you have asked the question, that I am a Protestant, I take it you have a controversy with my claim. If not I apologize for misreading your question. By the way, great answer to PerryJ on the “church” fathers believing in SS. I also have enjoyed your other threads. Keep the faith my brother.

My question was a sincere as the milk of the word! No joke.

Your last post was all I read of yours- and I wasn’t sure if you were still a Protestant- or had become a Catholic convert. Sorry for my un-informed question.

I have had some experience with some undercover Catholics who knew enough about Protestantism to play the role- but it didn’t last long. I am glad that you are truly a Christian- and from now on- I will be checking out more of your posts- on this thread at least.

I work a 9-5 that doesn’t really let me get to the computer much- and once I get home it’s Daddy time- know what I mean?

I am new to this forum, and don’t plan on sticking around for very long. What a lot of people don’t get is that it is so much better to emmerse yourself in the truth, than to argue and debate with error.

Though the latter is certainly necessary (from time to time) - the former is absolutely indispensible to a healthy Christian life.

I am not an apologist- just a lover of truth- and an ex-Catholic. Thought I could shine some light upon these poor souls- but soon I will move on. I can’t actually convince them- Only God can! All I can do is give them sufficient reason to repent and come back to Christ and his word. That’s my job. I am here for that- and then I will be gone. I may stop by and visit from time to time- but this is not my calling- I am called to preach the Gospel and to feed Christ’s sheep. I do hope there are some true sheep among these Catholics- and so I will open the gate, and point them to liberty: We will see if they run to Christ.

Hey thank you for the reply- and sorry if I have offfended you!

God bless you brother.

 

[chosensinner]

i worship Jesus and everything He touches… He not only touches his Church… He lives ***in it… ***24/7 (the Real PResence)…

and as far as the bible… that is the word of God… so it is not wrong to reverence it…

though i do appreciate your point tht there is more to serving God & loving Him than can be contained in this small book…

Please elaborate: For instance, can you give me a good reason that I should love God and serve Him that is not revealed “in this small book?”

Could you give us all some authoritative and necessarry way that we should be serving God - that is not revealed “in this little book?”

I would love to hear what you have to offer the people of God!

 

[distracted]

Please elaborate: For instance, can you give me a good reason that I should love God and serve Him that is not revealed “in this small book?”

Could you give us all some authoritative and necessarry way that we should be serving God - that is not revealed “in this little book?”

I would love to hear what you have to offer the people of God!

i don’t have that much time!!

One thing: The Real Presence of Christ is not explicitly mentioned in Scirpture… but it is about the only “thing” that keeps me being a Christian… and wanting to stay Cahtolic…

Also: Jesus never said (in the Bible) that we must have a “personal relationship with Him” in order to be saved…

 

[Mea_Culpa]

My brother, James, gave me Matt.18:15-18 as a proof text for the church as the last word. We cannot leave out verses19 & 20. If we go by these standards, as interpreted by man, then we have to say that all other beliefs are of the Almighty. Mormons with their BOM. After all they had more than two witnesses. JW’s with their heresy of our Savior not being Divine & equal with the Father. They have many witnesses. The Koran. After all there are a billion witnesses there. So all of these beliefs are bound in heaven by this process? This is why we need a standard to go to for our answers.

You have an uncanny ability to twist Scripture. Matthew 18:19,20 says

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

From this you get that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims are all justified?

The Catholic Church teaches us to read Holy Scripture in context. Here, Jesus is talking to his disciples. Not just anybody, his disciples. So, “two of you” means two of his disciples - or their successors the bishops. And it also says “where two or three are gathered in my name” - do you think this includes Muslims and Mormons? They are gathered together in His Name?

You earlier twisted around John 5:39 - now you’re doing it again with this passage.

This is why sola scriptura is nonsense. People take verses out of context and try to twist them around to fit whatever false doctrine they’re trying to teach.

I do agree with your last sentence - “This is why we need a standard to go to for our answers.” This is why we have the Magisterium of the Church. You are exactly right that we need a standard to go to when false teachers come trying to corrupt and twist the Holy Scriptures. Luckily for us (and unluckily for you) we have that in the Catholic Church.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I am sorry that you feel this way, and that you rely wholly upon other men for your faith, and religious comfort. (Chrysostom is not the greatest source of security if you ask me) Not that it’s always wrong to reference other men of the faith- but to simply quote Chrysostom as if he is the final say- and expect me to bow at his word- is a little humorous to me. We can all pick and choose from the fathers to support our interpretations- and then when it comes to another verse- we seem to abandon these same fathers, and jump on the band wagon of another. In my opinion, it is your method- (not my interpretation) - that is “weak.”

Furthermore- I did not twist the Scripture; for just as you accuse me of reading into the text, my preconceived notions- it is plain to all who are on this forum (and who’s conscience is not defiled) that it is you who have the pre-conceived notions.

You salivate over every appearance of the word “tradition” and automatically assume that it speaks of some un-recorded doctrine- (un-recorded in Scripture and unrecorded by Rome). You would assume that these “oral traditions” that are distinctlive to the Roman Catholic Church are actually spoken of in the Scriptures- and yet you could not identify them if your faith depended on it!

Funny that you would use ad-hominem arguments and loose accuasations (stained with double standards) - and yet avoid my original question entirely- great job.

So can you give me an answer to my question please?

If you would maintain that the content spoken by the apostle’s mouth differed from the content recorded in the apostle’s epistle, could you please give me an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle Paul refers in 2 Thes. 2:15?

Good job of completely avoiding talking about the passage you twisted around to try to justify sola scriptura, when it in fact refutes it!

How about you saying something about 2 Thes 2:15, instead of insulting comments like “defiled” and “tainted”?

 

[chosensinner]

i don’t have that much time!!

One thing: The Real Presence of Christ is not explicitly mentioned in Scirpture… but it is about the only “thing” that keeps me being a Christian… and wanting to stay Cahtolic…

Also: Jesus never said (in the Bible) that we must have a “personal relationship with Him” in order to be saved…

I agree that the Bible teaches nothing of this transubstantiation doctrine that you hold to. That much is clear. To say that it is this alone that keeps you a Christian- then I would say that IF this is all that keeps one a Christian- God sure messed up! Out of all 27 New Testament epistles- He never mentions it once!

Either I am not a Christian- or you are not a Christian- because since this is the badge of a Christian- and I don’t have it- ONE OF US is a false professor.

I also agree that Jesus never SAID “we must have a personal relationship with Him in order to be saved” BUT HE CERTAINLY TAUGHT IT with teachings such as Matthew 7. Those who are not saved are those to whom Christ will say “I never KNEW you.” This word “knew” is more than cognitive intake- but rather it denotes a personal and covenantal relationship- it’s called UNION.

Those who are saved are one with Christ as a husband and wife are also one- see Ephesians 5:25!

Other teachings such as the Head and the Body denote personal relationship. The Shepherd and his sheep have a personal relationship. The Vine and it’s branches have a pretty close relationship as well if you ask me!

Are you asserting that one can be saved without having a personal and covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ?

Surely you do not speak for Roman Catholicism - but rather you speak for yourself- and have grounded your assertions upon your own authority! What would the Pope have to say to you about this?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

i don’t have that much time!!

One thing: The Real Presence of Christ is not explicitly mentioned in Scirpture… but it is about the only “thing” that keeps me being a Christian… and wanting to stay Cahtolic…

Also: Jesus never said (in the Bible) that we must have a “personal relationship with Him” in order to be saved…

I think the Real Presence is pretty explicitly spelled out in John 6:

[26] Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
[27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”
[28] Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
[29] Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
[30] So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform?
[31] Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
[32] Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
[33] For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”
[34] They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
[35]
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

[36] But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
[37] All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
[38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
[39] and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
[40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
[41]
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”

[42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I have come down from heaven'?" [43] Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
[46] Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
[47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
[52]
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
[59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
[60]
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66]
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

 

[JRKH]

I have Started a thread on Church Authority as Shown in the NT.
The Thread it is HERE if anyone wishes to participate.

I hope the new thread can remain as calm and Christian as this one has.

Peace
James

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

Another quote of Irenaeus (AD 140-202)

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self satisfaction of vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the Bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere, have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

Then having listed by name all the first twelve successors of Peter, he goes on to say;

In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

The preaching of the Church truly continues without change and is everywhere the same, and has the testimony of the Prophets and the Apostles and all their disciples.That in which we have faith is a firm system directed to the salvation of men; and since it has been received by the Church, we guard it…In the Church, God has placed apostles, prophets and doctors, and all the other means through which the Spirit works; in all of which, none have any part who do not conform to the Church. On the contrary, they defraud themselves of life by their wicked opinion and most wretched behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit however is Truth.

It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I agree that the Bible teaches nothing of this transubstantiation doctrine that you hold to. That much is clear. To say that it is this alone that keeps you a Christian- then I would say that IF this is all that keeps one a Christian- God sure messed up! Out of all 27 New Testament epistles- He never mentions it once!

Either I am not a Christian- or you are not a Christian- because since this is the badge of a Christian- and I don’t have it- ONE OF US is a false professor.

I also agree that Jesus never SAID “we must have a personal relationship with Him in order to be saved” BUT HE CERTAINLY TAUGHT IT with teachings such as Matthew 7. Those who are not saved are those to whom Christ will say “I never KNEW you.” This word “knew” is more than cognitive intake- but rather it denotes a personal and covenantal relationship- it’s called UNION.

Those who are saved are one with Christ as a husband and wife are also one- see Ephesians 5:25!

Other teachings such as the Head and the Body denote personal relationship. The Shepherd and his sheep have a personal relationship. The Vine and it’s branches have a pretty close relationship as well if you ask me!

Are you asserting that one can be saved without having a personal and covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ?

Surely you do not speak for Roman Catholicism - but rather you speak for yourself- and have grounded your assertions upon your own authority! What would the Pope have to say to you about this?

Instead of trying to change the subject - How about showing us where the Bible teaches sola scriptura?

Also, for the Real Presence, I also like the end of the Road to Emmaus story in Luke 24:35:

Then they told what had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Or Mark 14:22-24

And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a chalice, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

It’s really amazing to me how people who claim to reverence the Holy Scripture above everything else know so little about it.

 

[larry_m]

Thankyou Chosensinner for your reply. Very well put. I am a historicist Protestant. In all the history of Protestantism there has never been a time or subject to which every Reformer, to the last man, was in agreement on who the little horn of Daniel is, the anti-christ, the man of sin, the whore of Babylon is. That I am sure. As a Protestant, knowing that our Judge winks in the time of ignorance, most of heaven will be filled with theologically wrong Catholics & Protestants, due to the Scripture being hidden in the Dark Ages from the masses. Remember, He has sheep in other folds. I am ever thankfull of His patience in my ignorance on subjects. To Meaculpa. Read what you said to me in your last thread & please turn it back on yourself. I believe we are beating a dead horse with each other. I respect your views. I just don’t agree with them.

 

[larry_m]

Thankyou James for the new thread.