Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Des]

I see. The only two possibilities imaginable are “protestants splintering,” and “Catholics not being in union.” (Sigh).

You’re either obviously not taking the time to read thoroughly what I’m saying, you’re simply not grasping it or you’re just intentionally being stubborn sandusky.

 

[Des]

Speaking as a Free Methodist minister, I can say that as far as the Wesleyan churches are concerned we do and do not hold to Sola Scriptura.

First, when I was ordained I vowed not to teach anything as essential to Salvation that could not be proven from the Scriptures. There is a great deal of theology that is not absolutely essential to Salvation. So one could say that we do believe in a form of Sola Scriptura.

Other the other hand, we believe in tradition, reason and experience. Along with the Scriptures, these form what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The best way to understand our position is to envision a baseball diamond shape.

At the top (2nd base) is Holy Scripture. Everything we teach and believe must be consistent with Scripture (even if it is not expressly taught in Scripture).

At 3rd base, is Tradition - the collective wisdom and teaching of the Christian Church. We differ from our Catholic brethren, in that we believe tradition must be tested by Scripture.

At 1st base, level with Tradition, is Reason. Reason must also be tested by Scripture.

Finally, at the bottom, is Experience. We test Experience by Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

So, in matters not essential to Salvation, Wesleyans believe in Scripture as the highest authority - but not the only authority. You might call it “Prima Scriptura”.

The one big disadvantage to this position is that it puts us squarely in the middle where we can be shot at by both sides

With all due respect PastorVW, when all is said and done, it still comes down to your own private interpretation of the Bible and what you as an individual want to take from it to support your belief system. And in turn you are passing these same beliefs off to your congregation when you preach. Scripture in the end is how you test these traditions or reasonings. If you are not an infallible church then you have no power to preach these doctrines you personally feel are so important or so essential to Salvation depending of course how clear and explicit these essentials are in the Bible to you.

 

[des_scahill]

With all due respect PastorVW, when all is said and done, it still comes down to your own private interpretation of the Bible and what you as an individual want to take from it to support your belief system. And in turn you are passing these same beliefs off to your congregation when you preach. Scripture in the end is how you test these traditions or reasonings. If you are not an infallible church then you have no power to preach these doctrines you personally feel are so important or so essential to Salvation depending of course how clear and explicit these essentials are in the Bible to you.

Hmmm, I think that answers my question too… ( or does it? ). If I read you correctly, you would also say that I as an individual would have no authority whatsoever to tell someone the gospel message that is expressed in 1st Corinthians 15 verses 1 to 8, (which I believe is fairly simple for most people to understand), and to claim as my ‘authority’ - The Book of Corinthians " which is in the New Testament used by all orthodox churches, and seems to have been used in the formulation of the Nicene Creed which is accepted by by Catholic and Protestants?

If you do, that seems like you are raising a “barrier to entry” that I’m not sure Jesus would agree with…

 

[des_scahill]

With all due respect PastorVW, when all is said and done, it still comes down to your own private interpretation of the Bible and what you as an individual want to take from it to support your belief system. And in turn you are passing these same beliefs off to your congregation when you preach. Scripture in the end is how you test these traditions or reasonings. If you are not an infallible church then you have no power to preach these doctrines you personally feel are so important or so essential to Salvation depending of course how clear and explicit these essentials are in the Bible to you.

Just a bit more…
The point I’m trying to make here is that there are significant portions of the various separate inspired writings which are quite clear in their meaning to just about anyone of average intelligence and reasoning powers. Where it says “Don’t steal” and Don’t commit adultry" you don’t really need a theologian to tell you what it means do you? And to my personal observation just about everyone I’ve ever spoken to on the straightforward bits all seem to come up with exactly the same understanding that I have.

I’m not saying ‘traditions’ aren’t important or useful in certain areas eg. eschatology for example where scripture doesn’t really have much that is clear to understand, (except the basics eg. Jesus IS coming again, but nobody knows when) but has a lot that is expressed symbolically.

But to blithely sweep up everything, and say "Oh, you’ve got no ‘authority’ to tell anyone about that because your church hasn’t been around for 2000 years and ours has"seems a tad extremist.

 

[b2memphis]

No, not all protestants believe in “Scripture Alone”, but they should! Catholics DO NOT believe in scripture alone, but REALLY SHOULD!
Where in scripture is the authorization for a catechism? It’s not there! We’ve be given all we need, catholics and denominations just will not accept this simple commandment.

Where is the commandment to allow instruments? Not there!
Where’s the authorization to allow, women to serve in the service; isn’t there!
Where does the Bible tell us there are still miracles? Not there!
Where do we find the approval to worship on Saturday instead of Sunday? Not there!
Where do we find the commandment that priests should be celibate? (what a joke) it isn’t there!

 

[guanophore]

And you don’t think He did? Why? Was He too busy? Was He forgetful? He didn’t care? Why?

Because documents, however inerrant and inspired, lack qualities of leadership necessary to govern the church. Decisions must be made, and Scripture does not do this. Authority must be exercised. This is why Jesus founded a Church, instructed His Apostles, and gave them His authority.

The requirements of God with respect to each of those points can be understood from Scripture.

Much can be understood from scripture, and one of those things is that it is not meant to govern. Scripture does not even say of itself that this is it’s function, which would seem necessary if it were. In fact, it states the opposite.

That’s what you’re doing—knocking off one, SS, in favor of another, Scripture plus Tradition. :shrug:

No, there is one whole Divine Revelation, present in Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. One does not “knock off” the other!

Also, it seems to me that you, as McGluke does, infer that what was taught Orally, differs from what was written down in Scripture. Is that what you believe?

I believe that, when people separated from the Apostolic Teaching interpret what is written devoid of the context in which it was written, then many interpretations exude that are different. However, since the NT is prodiced completely from Sacred Tradition, there is no conflict between the two. If it appears that there is, it is because one does not understand one, or the other, or both.

2 Corinthians 3:5

Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,

2 Corinthians 9:8

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;

2 Corinthians 9:10

Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness;

please give your interpretation of the verses…

The sufficiency comes from several sources, one of them being scripture, another Holy Orders, another the reception and maintenance of the Sacred Traditions.

Paul does not separate these elements from one another, as none of the Apostles ever did.

Here are the relevant parts of the passage; explain it, please.Matthew 18:15-20

15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.

17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

The departure from the Apostolic Teaching into the embracing of disobedience, and eventually, heresy, is a sin. I don’t know if anyone went to Luther in private to tell him his fault. If they did not, then they were out of order. Possible Luther could have been won over. I do know that the other two steps were followed, when he was not won over. Division has continue dto multiply ever since.

And I have sedvacantist, and non-sedvacantist Catholics friends who bicker over who was the last valid pope?

This is a difference in the way “church” is defined. See, the Apostolic teaching is that the Church has Christ at her Head, and her soul is the holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that make up the Church. To the extent that any individual member is not in unity with the Head and the Spirit, they are not Catholic. This is why individual misunderstandings and bickering among the membership is irrelevant when it comes to defining infallible teaching. Either the members are in unity with the Head, or they are not.

This differs from the common Protestant notion (especially modern American Fundamentalists) that define church as the “body of believers”. Unity is compromised, because it is not based on anything external that is higher than the persons joined to one another.

So what’s your point?

The point is that we have to interpret everything we read and hear. Our interpretations are filtered through our education (or lack of it) our experiences, etc. They are individualistic and unique, and this is one of the things that makes unity difficult. If we are not united by something higher and more powerful than our own private interpretations, unity will always be compromised. Yesterday I learned that my building janitor had no
idea that the earth revolved around the sun. He was curious about how the days got shorter in the Fall. He also had no idea that the earth went around the sun one time every year. He was so full of glee when this was made graphic to him. Just an example of how different people perceive things differently.

I ask you the very same question with respect to you as a Catholic.

And a just question, because not all Catholics have received the infallible Apostolic Teaching that has been handed down through the succession. You illustrate this well with your example of Sedavacantists. I thank God for them, because one of them was the reason I came to Catholic Answers!

We know if we are in unity with Peter, because it is to Peter that Jesus entrusted the care and feeding of the sheep.

If you think about what you’re saying for a while, perhaps you’ll see that’s it not about logic, but a double standard.

NO! The Apostles taught us to receive the Word of God. They did not limit it to the written word, but the written word is clearly considered of equal value.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Since only one other letter we know of that was written at the time, how do you think the Truth was preserved?

Do you think the Thessalonians knew everything they needed from the first and second letters alone?

I didn’t say that, but that you seemed to being inferring that.
sandusky;4102258:

“Sigh…”

It is only your perception of them that makes them appear contradictory. There is only One Divine Deposit of Faith. It cannot contradict itself!

That’s your interpretation, thanks.

Do you think embracing and teaching error is not a sin?

One last question: does your last statement, which I’ve put in blue, apply only to non-Catholics?

Certainly not. Luther was a Catholic until he Apostasized from the faith.

I see. The only two possibilities imaginable are “protestants splintering,” and “Catholics not being in union.” (Sigh).

I don’t really see them as being different, from a practical point of view. Protestants can’t be charged with heresy, for the most part, because most of them have never been taught the fullness of the truth in the first place, and many have been led into grievious error, sometimes deliberately, and sometimes in ignorance. Most Catholics that leave the unity do so because they never understood their faith in the first place. (I can speak from personal experience on this point). If I were to go start my own church, then I would be creating more splintering.

 

[JRKH]

I have debated this topic with many people who claim to believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Most of them often referred to or admitted to owning a Concordance to help them understand what scripture means. Owning a Concordance is Scripture plus a Concordance not scripture alone.

Additionally some of them were trained in biblical studies by teachers. This is Scripture plus the Intellectual Tradition (read that as bias) of whatever teacher or teachers the individual has studied under.

If people truly believed Sola Scriptura they would simply hand you the bible and walk away - leaving you and the Holy Spirit alone to come to a perfect understanding. No one does this however - they invariably attempt to press upon you their interpretation or the interpretation or their individual church assuming that it is not only correct but authoritative.

If Sola Scritura were valid then no one would bother teaching the bible to others as that would constitute the bible + someone else as authoritative interpreter and instructor and as we all know, this is in fact the position held by the Catholic Church.

Very Nicely Put.
And Welcome to the Forums

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

Just a bit more…
The point I’m trying to make here is that there are significant portions of the various separate inspired writings which are quite clear in their meaning to just about anyone of average intelligence and reasoning powers. Where it says “Don’t steal” and Don’t commit adultry" you don’t really need a theologian to tell you what it means do you? And to my personal observation just about everyone I’ve ever spoken to on the straightforward bits all seem to come up with exactly the same understanding that I have.

I’m not saying ‘traditions’ aren’t important or useful in certain areas eg. eschatology for example where scripture doesn’t really have much that is clear to understand, (except the basics eg. Jesus IS coming again, but nobody knows when) but has a lot that is expressed symbolically.

But to blithely sweep up everything, and say "Oh, you’ve got no ‘authority’ to tell anyone about that because your church hasn’t been around for 2000 years and ours has"seems a tad extremist.

You might be interested to take a look at another thread runnning about following commandments. It seems that it is not self evident to everyone that God expects us to follow them. This is an excellent example of the problems that arise from interpreting scripture separated from the sacred tradtition that produced it.

 

[grayhog86]

Good. I’m glad you and your church are finally coming around.

Excuse me. This is a forum, not the Church Magisterium. No one on here can represent all the Church nor speak infallibly for the Church.

You might write “I’m glad you are coming around” but please don’t infer that the Church has any coming around to do. The Church is already there…at the Truth.

 

[Roy5]

**PROTESTANTS DIFFER AMONG THEMSELVES
**

   My experience with both Protestants and Catholics if about the same. There are 'conservative' and 'liberals' factions among both.

   As to Sola Scriptura, so-called evangelicals profess to believe every word of scripture literally. But mainstream Protestants are likely to regard different verses differently. When Paul suggests that women should keep silent in the church, for example, this is cited among many evangelicals (not all) to forbid the ordination of women. Mainstream Protestants, however, usually regard this verse as Paul's opinion and not binding, or directed by Paul to the letters' recipients because of some special situations. or they discard the verse because it was meant for another place and another age. Christianity, they would argue, must be a growing, expanding faith and not limited by traditions that contradict the spirit of the modern age.

  I find a similar split among Catholics, frankly. Most of the Catholics I know pick and choose what they accept, and millions - for example - simply ignore the church's teaching on birth control. Many others ignore or toss aside even more basic doctrines or popular beliefs, such as transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and such miracle stories as Lourdes and Fatima.

 

[JRKH]

Where in Scripture did Christ say those with eyes to see READ? Did he not rather say those with Ears to hear, HEAR? There in lies a basis for Oral Tradition.

In order for Sola Scriptura to be valid, it is necessary to show, within the pages of the Bible, that Jesus intended that a Book govern and guide His Church. I know of no such passage. Perhaps I missed something.

Can anyone here show a passage where Christ, in His own words, declares that His Church will be governed by a Written Book?

So far as I am able to see from the pages of the Bible, Christ promised a Church:

1. Built upon Peter (Kephas) (upon this rock I will build my Church…)
2. Guided by the Holy Spirit (I will send the Paraclete who will guide you)
3. Protected by Christ Himself(I will be with you always… - The gates of Hell will not prevail…)
4. With Christ’s own Authority given Him by the Father (What you bind…What you loose…)
5. With the mission to spread the Good news (Go and make disciples…)

Christ promised and delivered us a Church. He never promised a Book, nor did any of the Apostolic writings promise a book. The Question then becomes, where, when and how did this volume we call the Bible come into being. How, and by whom was it assembled, copied, defended, protected and interpreted between the time of it’s codification and the time of it’s separation from the tradition of The Church?

This is the real basic concern I have with the notion of Sola Scriptura. That it negates the historical roots of the Bible and treats the Bible as though it predates the Church, which it does not by about 400 years. Now each time we mention this fact, we are immediately confronted with the retort that “Scripture was around before the Church (OT)”. This is a misnomer and a distraction to the point. The Book we use today, containing the 73 books accepted as Sacred Scripture, simply did not exist until the end of the 4th century.

While it is True that all the OT books predate the Church, there is not a single NT writing that predates it, for the Church was founded in the Year 33 AD, and the earliest NT writing is dated around 40-50 AD. Yet those who hold to SS wish to point to any use of the term “Scripture” in the NT as applying to ALL the Canonized Book. This is simply not true. The Term Scripture, as used in the NT applies only to the OT books.

Finally, there is nothing written in the Bible, or outside the Bible from the time of the Bible’s compilation that indicates in any way that this collection of books is intended by God to be a replacement for the Authority of His Church.

Sola Scriptura is not and indeed cannot be shown as Biblical.

Peace
James

 

[des_scahill]

You might be interested to take a look at another thread runnning about following commandments. It seems that it is not self evident to everyone that God expects us to follow them. This is an excellent example of the problems that arise from interpreting scripture separated from the sacred tradtition that produced it.

I didn’t mention the word ‘commandments’ ( as in 10 of )" . The point I’m making is that there are lots of things that are perfectly clear to any reasonably minded person from a natural reading of the text.

What I’m objecting to is the Catholic stance that no-one else can express even these basic ideas to anyone else because they lack the catholic perception of 'authority".

Well, I’m sorry, but it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus wants ME to tell people the gospel I believe in - and He seems to have arranged for that to be spelt out in 1st Corinthians.15, so I don’t mess it up.

What I can say, is that I became a christian in the first place pretty much just through reading a protestant bible. It seemed quite clear to me at the time what I had to do to ‘become’ a disciple of Christ, and equally clear to me that ‘remaining’ a disciple is another issue altogether. And yes, over time as I matured I made the effort to investigate what the early church believed, and yes I checked the greek texts and made myself aware of some of the issues surrounding various translations etc etc etc.

What catholics of today seem to be saying to me is that I should completely ignore the brain and reasoning powers God gave me, the help He’s given me by ensuring reliable translations of the sacred texts have been preserved for me to read myself, ignore the principle of constantly checking up on things despite the fact that I’m given numerous warnings in the New Testament about false teachers, prophets and brethren within the church and the need to do just that, plus my own life experience and ever deepening personal relationship with Christ since becoming a christian - and immediately stop telling people about what they need to believe in to become a disciple of Christ - all because I lack what Catholics define as ‘authority’.

Is that a fair summation on my part? I certainly haven’t encountered that sort of response amongst the godly Catholics I know, where I live.

 

[JRKH]

**PROTESTANTS DIFFER AMONG THEMSELVES
**

   My experience with both Protestants and Catholics if about the same. There are 'conservative' and 'liberals' factions among both.

   As to Sola Scriptura, so-called evangelicals profess to believe every word of scripture literally. But mainstream Protestants are likely to regard different verses differently. When Paul suggests that women should keep silent in the church, for example, this is cited among many evangelicals (not all) to forbid the ordination of women. Mainstream Protestants, however, usually regard this verse as Paul's opinion and not binding, or directed by Paul to the letters' recipients because of some special situations. or they discard the verse because it was meant for another place and another age. Christianity, they would argue, must be a growing, expanding faith and not limited by traditions that contradict the spirit of the modern age.

  **I find a similar split among Catholics, frankly. Most of the Catholics I know pick and choose what they accept,** and millions - for example - simply ignore the church's teaching on birth control. Many others ignore or toss aside even more basic doctrines or popular beliefs, such as transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and such miracle stories as Lourdes and Fatima.

You are indeed correct that many catholics “pick and choose”. However, a significant difference between the Catholic Church and many, so-called, Bible believing churches is that the Catholic Church, universally, teaches the same doctrines, derived from the fullness of the Bible (73 books) and guided by the Holy Spirit. These are clearly and explicitly spelled out in the many documents generated by the Magisterium.
Anyone who wishes to know the CHURCH teaching on a given subject can find out pretty quickly. it is not subject to “personal interpretation”, regardless of the opinion of any individual catholic. Thus it can quickly and accuratley be know if a catholic is holding to Church teeaching or to personal opinion.
Can the same thing be said of the various protestant denominations that hold to SS? Do all of the Evangelical, Baptist, Pentacostal, or “non-denominational” Churches work from a similarly defined set of documents? Of course they don’t. Each church community, pastor or individual, reads and interprets “scripture” for themselves. Whatever “they” say it means is fine. And if there are disagreements they can look for another community. Yet each comminity, and each individual declares that the Bible is all you need, and the Holy Spirit guides the reader.
But none can explain why the Holy Spirit would give so many people so many different interpretations of the same passages in the same book.
Sola Scriptura defies it’s own premise and has shown this repeatedly over the last 500 years.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I hope you don’t mind my butting in here…

I didn’t mention the word ‘commandments’ ( as in 10 of )" . The point I’m making is that there are lots of things that are perfectly clear to any reasonably minded person from a natural reading of the text.

I agree with you that there is a great deal that is clear on the surface of it. I would even say further that, when looking at the text (of an entire Gospel) as a whole, the teaching holds together extremely well without the need to decifer every nuance of every verse.
Where the danger crops up in my mind is in not having a clear understanding of how and where from we have have this set of books that we call “The Bible”

What I’m objecting to is the Catholic stance that no-one else can express even these basic ideas to anyone else because they lack the catholic perception of 'authority".

Well, I’m sorry, but it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus wants ME to tell people the gospel I believe in - and He seems to have arranged for that to be spelt out in 1st Corinthians.15, so I don’t mess it up.

You certainly may tell others of the Good news, but it is equally important that you keep in mind Jesus admonishment to those who teach. (woe to those who mis-lead…) Thus it is doubly important that one be sure of the authority by which they teach.

What I can say, is that I became a christian in the first place pretty much just through reading a protestant bible. It seemed quite clear to me at the time what I had to do to ‘become’ a disciple of Christ, and equally clear to me that ‘remaining’ a disciple is another issue altogether. And yes, over time as I matured I made the effort to investigate what the early church believed, and yes I checked the greek texts and made myself aware of some of the issues surrounding various translations etc etc etc.

Right on the Mark. We must all work to remain in the faith and to better understand it.

What catholics of today seem to be saying to me is that I should completely ignore the brain and reasoning powers God gave me, the help He’s given me by ensuring reliable translations of the sacred texts have been preserved for me to read myself, ignore the principle of constantly checking up on things despite the fact that I’m given numerous warnings in the New Testament about false teachers, prophets and brethren within the church and the need to do just that, plus my own life experience and ever deepening personal relationship with Christ since becoming a christian - and immediately stop telling people about what they need to believe in to become a disciple of Christ - all because I lack what Catholics define as ‘authority’.

Gee - I’m nost sure where to start on such a sentance.
First, let me say that the Catholic Church recognizes the importance of the Conscience and has addressed this issue in the Catachism. As catholics we are, of course, expected to educate and form our conscience in accordance with Church teaching, but we are NOT to go against our true and honest conscience in matters of faith. In keeping with this, you actually should continue to read and study and deepen your understanding.
As to the last part, regarding authority, I can only say that this comes back to a true and historical understanding of the origins of our Faith, From God, To Christ, Through the Church and to us. The Bible, which is the source of so much good and so much division is but one piece of the Church, compiled by the Church, under God’s direction, to be used with the Church Christ Himself founded, not upon written words, but upon Men.

Is that a fair summation on my part? I certainly haven’t encountered that sort of response amongst the godly Catholics I know, where I live.

From what little I know of you through your posts, I believe you are an honest and true Christian in so far as God has given you to undersatand at this time. The Fact that you study and consider things is all to the good. Of course in study a lot can depend on where one gets there information from. In so far as Holy Mother Church Goes, I highly recomend sticking with official church teachings and not the opinions you might get from people on a message board on the internet.

Peace
James

 

[joessoft]

How easy it is for us as “men” and “women” - creatures of our Creator to judge. That is where Jesus Christ met the most resistance - with the established know it alls. They didn’t even see Messiah was among them they were so blinded by pride and power.

Finally, if your not engaging in debate wherein the end results is “LOVE” of Christ and of each other despite differences, your no more than a clanging gong.

Now why I decided to reply:
To say the bible is just a “book” is pure hog wash.

1. The entire Bible is the inspired word of God.
2. It’s very CLEAR where Jesus was before the world began as a world… and that he has always been with us.

in John 1 we read ( and I believe ) :

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Witness John

6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Word Made Flesh

14** And the Word became flesh**, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Jesus is The Word, He is The Bible, perfect and true, word for word… to say other is not a sin, but I’d certainly take a step back to that Y in the road to make sure I am on the right path, and that “this is the way, walk ye in it”.

In His love as my only righteousness is through Jesus Christ

A former Catholic
A Patriot in Revolt
patriotsrevolt.com

 

[joessoft]

1 Corinth 13 (King Jame - charity = love )

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,** and have not charity,** it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.​

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

===============================================

1 Corinthians 13
New American Standard Bible ©
The Excellence of Love

1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

[JRKH]

How easy it is for us as “men” and “women” - creatures of our Creator to judge. That is where Jesus Christ met the most resistance - with the established know it alls. They didn’t even see Messiah was among them they were so blinded by pride and power.

Wise words to consider.

Finally, if your not engaging in debate wherein the end results is “LOVE” of Christ and of each other despite differences, your no more than a clanging gong.

It is unfortunate that this can get lost in “details”

Now why I decided to reply:
To say the bible is just a “book” is pure hog wash.

You’re right. Actually the Bible is a “collected volume” containing 73 books".

1. The entire Bible is the inspired word of God.

While I personally don’t dispute this, I must ask:
How do you know this? Show me just how we are to know that The Bible is what you say it is. On what Authority do you claim that this particular collection books is the exclusive “inspired word of God”.

1. It’s very CLEAR where Jesus was before the world began as a world… and that he has always been with us.

in John 1 we read ( and I believe ) :

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Witness John

6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Word Made Flesh

14** And the Word became flesh**, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

And there is not a thing in there that:

1. Any Catholic would disagree with and
2. Supports the Idea of Sola Scriptura. (The subject of the thread.)

Jesus is The Word, He is The Bible, perfect and true, word for word… to say other is not a sin, but I’d certainly take a step back to that Y in the road to make sure I am on the right path, and that “this is the way, walk ye in it”.

I did stand at the “Y” as you so nicely put it, and found the true path back into the Church.
To say that Jesus is the Bible is (to coin a phrase) hogwash. It places a limit on that which has no limit. It attempts to define that which cannot be defined by any human language.
Finally it is directly contrary to the Gospel which teaches tha Christ Founded a Church upon Men, upon Faith and the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In His love as my only righteousness is through Jesus Christ

A former Catholic
A Patriot in Revolt
patriotsrevolt.com

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

May God in His Mercy and Love guide you back to the fullness of truth in the Church.

Peace
James

 

[des_scahill]

Thanks for the kind words James,

And don’t worry, I’ve been reading the Catholic encyclopedia as well, and I don’t necessarily think all the views expressed on bulletin boards, (even this one) are always a true reflection of the 'official church position.

You sorta evaded my question a little though

This issue of ‘authority’ and where it lies is probably at the heart of the catholic vs protestant difference. I have a number of christian pastors and missionaries as personal friends - all in different protestant denominations. They all have the same characteristic - their personal loyalty to Christ is completely total, and their loyalty to their ‘denomination’ although very important to them, comes second. None of us get ‘hung-up’ on what we all see as 'secondary issues, nor do we find our ‘differences’ at all divisive or schismatic. And we all pretty much make the same criticisms that catholics do about ‘easy believism’ and the ‘dumbing down’ of doctrine by liberal theologians.

Now I don’t know if I’d be speaking for every protestant, but basically the view amongst protestants I know is that a ‘true’ christian disciple is someone who sees himself as belonging first and foremost to Christ ( and our understanding of ‘discipleship’ is expressed quite well here by yet another Protestant denomination that none of us belong to

shema.com/commentaries/Matthew/Matthew_10.php

If the man who wrote the words on that page truly believes what he has written, I don’t think I’d have any problem at all in accepting him as a brother in Christ, in fact I’d be more worried about whether he would see me as one

So to Protestants, the issue of who is a ‘true’ christian is a relatively simple one. You either belong to Christ as a disciple, or you don’t, and what organizational structure you might use to express your discipleship within is to a large extent quite secondary.

God Bless

Des

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the kind words James,

And don’t worry, I’ve been reading the Catholic encyclopedia as well, and I don’t necessarily think all the views expressed on bulletin boards, (even this one) are always a true reflection of the 'official church position.

You sorta evaded my question a little though

This issue of ‘authority’ and where it lies is probably at the heart of the catholic vs protestant difference.

I did not mean to avoid anything. Sorry -
You are absolutely right though. All the denominational diferences do boil down to this single issue - Authority. And it is that basic issue that ultimately led me back to the Catholic Church.

I have a number of christian pastors and missionaries as personal friends - all in different protestant denominations. They all have the same characteristic - their personal loyalty to Christ is completely total, and their loyalty to their ‘denomination’ although very important to them, comes second. None of us get ‘hung-up’ on what we all see as 'secondary issues, nor do we find our ‘differences’ at all divisive or schismatic. And we all pretty much make the same criticisms that catholics do about ‘easy believism’ and the ‘dumbing down’ of doctrine by liberal theologians.

I don’t mean to distract from the point you are making here, but just how do all these people derive their “personal loyalty to Christ”. Is it not from the Bible?
Doesn’t every person you speak of here accept the Bible as the innerrant and inspired Word of God? Yet by what authority can they know this? How can they Know that THIS book is really THE book.
Thus the question must be asked:
And How did they come by this Glorious Bible? Through the working of the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th Century and down through the all centuries to today.
This Authority - By which we KNOW that the Bible is True and Sacred is at the very heart of Christianity.
As for the various denominations getting along, and seeing “denominational differences” as secondary, what else can they do? I mean the foundation of the Protestant Reformation is a splitting from the Church and subsequent splitting of the splits. The acceptance of ALL Denominations is a simple and necessary tenet if they are going to accept ANY denomination apart from The One Church with the Fullness of Truth.

So to Protestants, the issue of who is a ‘true’ christian is a relatively simple one. You either belong to Christ as a disciple, or you don’t, and what organizational structure you might use to express your discipleship within is to a large extent quite secondary.

God Bless

Des

If one wishes to be a disciple of Christ, outside of the Bible, and outside the structures and commands of Christ in that bible, as well as ignoring the historical growth of the Church for the first 1000 years, then the idea what you say here might be true. However, if one wishes to bind oneself to Christ through the Gospels contained in the Holy Bible, then one must be ready to understand and defend:
The Authority of the bible,
The History of the Bible and the Books therin
The development of Christianity from Pentacost to today - including the writings of various Church leaders in the first centuries, before the “Bible” was compiled and canonized.

For the Catholic it is simple.
The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God.
We know this because we know where it came from and how it got here.
We know that “The Church” Precedes The Bible and that Christ Gave His Authority to the Church.
WE Know this because the Bible tells us that He did.

God the Father Gave us His Son Jesus the Christ
Jesus the Christ Gave us His One Church, Protected by Him and Guided by the Holy Spirit.
Christ’s One Church, as authorized in the Gospels (and there was only one at the time), working in council and under the guidance of The Holy Spirit, gave us the Holy Bible as it exists today.

The Bible is subject to the Church just as the Church is subject to Chirst. Therefore the Chain of Authority is established without any breaks or weak links.

Personally I will condemn no one for whichever faith path they are on. Only God has that right. But when it comes to discussing “Authority” for Scripture, I have yet to see any group that can match pedigree or track record of the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit working through the offices of the magisterium.

Hope this answers your question better.

Peace
James

 

[joessoft]

Jesus is The Rock, not any man and that can be proven in The Bible… He is our only sure foundation.

Any thing that takes your eyes off Jesus in life, run from… for He is The Way, The Truth and the Light, no man comes to the Father except through Him. period.

That the bible needs man makes me grin… that standing on His word and not wavering limits God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit also makes me grin… how pumped up out side of Christ man has become…

Proverbs 30:

Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

John:
1Now there was a man from the Pharisees, a leader of the Jews, whose name was Nicodemus. 2He came to Jesus[a] at night and said to him, “Rabbi,** we know that you have come from God as a teacher, because no one can perform these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”

3Jesus replied to him, “Truly, I tell you with certainty, unless a person is born from above[c] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4Nicodemus asked him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He can’t go back into his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?”

5Jesus answered, “Truly, I tell you with certainty, unless a person is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.[d] 6What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Don’t be astonished that I said to you, ‘All of you must be born from above.’[e] 8The wind[f] blows where it wants to. You hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. That’s the way it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9Nicodemus asked him, “How can that be?”

10Jesus answered him, “You’re a[g] teacher of Israel, and you can’t understand this? 11Truly, I tell you with certainty, we know what we’re talking about, and we testify about what we’ve seen. Yet you people[h] do not accept our testimony. 12If I have told you people* about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

13“No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[j] 14Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[k]

16“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life. 17Because God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s unique Son. 19And this is the basis for judgment: The light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light because their actions were evil. 20Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his actions may not be exposed.[l] 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may become evident that his actions have God’s approval.”[m]

What can we say, then? Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have attained righteousness, a righteousness that comes through faith. 31But Israel, who pursued righteous*ness based on the law, did not achieve the law. Why not? Because they did not pursue it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on achievements. They stumbled over the stone that causes people to stumble. As it is written,

  “Look! I am placing a stone in Zion

over which people will stumble—

  a large rock that will make them fall—

and the one who believes in him will never be ashamed.”

Romans 10
New American Standard Bible
The Word of Faith Brings Salvation

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”
14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?” 17** So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.***
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
“THEIR VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH,
AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD.”
19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,
“I WILL MAKE YOU JEALOUS BY THAT WHICH IS NOT A NATION,
BY A NATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WILL I ANGER YOU.”
20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,
“I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME,
I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.”
21 But as for Israel He says, “ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE.”

The one who is testifying to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon!”

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

May the grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints.**