Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Mea_Culpa]

Absolutely! :yup:

I believe that if Peter was convinced that Paul’s writings were scripture- then Paul must have known as well. Listen to Peter:

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:15-18)

This is the same passage some other sola scripturist tried to say supported his false doctrine. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Sola scriptura asserts that the Bible is self-interpreting. Peter, on the other hand, says it is “hard to be understood” and you can be “led away with the error of the wicked.” Obviously, we need some kind of authority to help us interpret the Bible, maybe a Magisterium of the Catholic Church, for example.

Makes sense coming from the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

All I can say is this- even in the earliest congregations there were disagreements among true believers- Read Corinthians. This is not only a Protestant thing- but it is a human thing. We all fall short. But the simple fact is- on that last day, I will be accountable to God for myself- so will I take a chance in putting my trust in men to guide me, or will I search the scriptures for myself and try to serve God the best I can?

The Reformers were not trying to be popes, who would start their own religions and denominations- indeed if they saw the professing Evangelical Church today- they would be quite disturbed. The Reformers were not starting denominations and pointing people to themselves for salvation- NO! All of the Reformers were pointing poor men and women to the risen savior for the redemption of their souls.

Yes they disagreed on certain issues- like the Lord’s Table etc. BUT when it came to the way of Salvation- they were ONE- for the Bible is more than clear on this core issue- and that was their whole purpose; to loose the bonds of false religion and set the people free to seek the Lord for themselves, knowing that he who seeks the Lord with his whole heart shall find Him- and finding Him, they shall find true rest for their souls.

The word of God is precious and food for our souls. We need God’s word to be poured into us daily, and to remind us of certain truth. Let’s keep talking about this- but can I ask you to do something?

If you are willing- get onto a BIBLE SEARCH website and do a word-search in the Bible. Pick a good translation like the King James Version- and do a New Testament search of the word Scripture.

You will be shocked at how often the New Testament Saints, and our Lord himself would quote Old Testament Scripture in order to prove any and all points of contention. And if this is the way that they conducted themselves- then ought not we , who have the full deposit of Divine Revelation handed down to us in Holy Scripture do the same?

When we have a question about something- and there is a point of contention- ought not we to search the Scriptures until we find the answer? And when God is pleased to with-hold certain answers from us- ought not we to humble ourselves to the point of admitting that if the Lord has not revealed it- then He has kept it for Himself?

This is the spirit of a true Evangelical. If we are not certain and the Bible is not clear- then we are not to speculate or dogmatize; for this only brings division. We are to submit our minds and our hearts to the Lord our God, and hold tightly onto that which He has revealed to our souls through His word; and at the same time we are to walk in the fear of God with meekness and longsuffering toward our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

There are issues to divide over- and then there are issues to be humbled by. These need not cause division among God’s elect! And yet- we often experience this very division ourselves don’t we? However- I want you to understand this very well:

This is the Problem of Humanity- not Protestantism.

Division exists within Roman Catholicism as well does it not?

**Please provide the chapter and verse where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible.

It won’t happen, it’s not in there.

sola scriptura = everything we need to know is in the Bible
sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible
therefore, sola scriptura is not something we need to know**

 

[JRKH]

TWO QUICK POINTS

 1. The books in the Protestant Old Testament are the same ones that you will find in any Jewish synagogue. Moreover, I believe St. Jerome did not believe that the apocryphal books should be included. (I could be wrong, but I believe I read that years ago.)

The Books found in a Jewish synagogue today has no bearing on which books are Sacred Texts in the Christian Bible.
As to St Jerome, You are correct, he did express concerns about whether the Deutero’s should be included. However, there is a very large and important factor in this that is conveniently overlooked by Protestants.
St. Jerome subjugated his personal will and opinion to the the Will of the Holy Spirit acting through the councils of the Church.
St Jerome showed proper humility and obedience to the Authority of Christ in the Church.
It is too bad that Martin Luther and John Calvin were unable to find that same humility and obedience in their hearts.

1. I don’t understand how Christians of any flavor can consider the Bible inerrant. When I was a teenager I came across the story of Saul, being commanded by God to slaughter all the Amalekites. I simply did not believe that the God of love would order such genocide - ethnic cleansing in today’s verbiage. Then I noted that Jericho was told by God to murder every one in Jericho except Rahab, a collaborator. And other crimes "ordered by God’ are plentiful. No, sorry, my God would never do that. Can you image Christ giving such a command, the Prince of Peace who blessed the peacemakers?

    When I have raised such questions with literalists, they are apt to tell me that my argument was with God not with them! Quite a dodge. Christians, Protestants and Catholics, need to get beyond the childish way of accepting such stories as true.

     Those early myths - Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, Noah and the Ark - also are not to be taken literally. They are at best legends, or parables that carry certain lessons, but not history except - as in the case of Noah - possibly a smidgen of truth that was exaggerated.

     Keep smiling.

Of course none of this has anything to do with whether SS is true.
The debates on the complete accuracy of the OT Scriptures is a matter for an entirely different thread so I will withold any further comment on that.

Peace
James

 

[KathleenElsie]

This is the same passage some other sola scripturist tried to say supported his false doctrine. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Sola scriptura asserts that the Bible is self-interpreting. Peter, on the other hand, says it is “hard to be understood” and you can be “led away with the error of the wicked.” Obviously, we need some kind of authority to help us interpret the Bible, maybe a Magisterium of the Catholic Church, for example.

Makes sense coming from the first Bishop of Rome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chosensinner forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Absolutely! :yup:

I believe that if Peter was convinced that Paul’s writings were scripture- then Paul must have known as well. Listen to Peter:

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:15-18)*

This is the same passage some other sola scripturist tried to say supported his false doctrine. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

The scripture quoted supports the Catholic view of tradition and scripture.

So still no chapter and verse for SS.

 

[guanophore]

That’s a good question. It also applies to the Catholic church. Do you know that the Catholic has offically interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures? This means that Catholics are in the same position as protestants on this issue.

Where do you go to get the final and true interpretation of a specific passage of Scripture?

No, ja4, this is not what it means. What it means is that our Church is not “bible based” as are those referenced above that have so many divergent intrpretations. Our Church is based on Jesus HImself,and His teachings, not our own private understandings of what the Holy writing means. we read the Scripture through the lens of what the Apostles handed down to us, so you see, we are NOT in the “same position as protestants on this issue”, and especially not “bible christians”, since our faith is based on a person, not a book.

Do you know of any place in Scripture where tradition is used to discern truth from error?

Yes, this is a very good question, and there are hundreds of examples.

Jesus Himself corrected people when they misunderstood what was written. For example, He told the Pharisees that they were ignorant and misguided because they did not believe that the saints were alive with God.

The Apostles taught that their preached words (the Deposit of Faith) should be used as a ruler.

1 Tim 6:2-5
3 Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree **with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching **that is in accordance with godliness, 4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, 5 and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. "

The sound words and the teaching are what Sacred Tradition is. It is from these sound words and teachings that the NT was produced.

2 Cor 11:3-5
4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough…"

Paul speaks about the gospel he proclaimed that was accepted by the believers. This is the standard they were to use to
measure error.

The oral preaching of the apostles was a special time in church history. Even though it could be said what they taught was in a sense “oral Scripture” during those days that is no longer true today. The only thing that qualifies as Scripture today is found in the Old and New Testaments.

I agree that the books identified by the Catholic Church as Scripture are the only ones that qualify. However you are in error in thinking that the oral preaching of the apostles has not been equally preserved. Although this has not been done among the children of the Reformers, it has been kept intact by those who have been obedient to the Holy Word to preserve the Traditions, whether they were delivered by word of mouth, or by letter. It is a myth that these sacred teachings “dissolved” when some of them were committed to writing.

 

[guanophore]

How does this follow from Sola Scriptura?

If everything we need to know to live the Christian life is in the Bible, then the Bible needs to state this.

We know it ended because the apostles all died out. Secondly, there is no such thing as an oral tradition that can be proven unless you accept the written Scriptures.

It is true that the Apostles did pass on their authority to their successors. They chose faithful men, who were able to teach others also, and committed to them the Holy Gospel so that it could be preserved. Bishops were given the special charge to guard the Teachings.

" Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us." 2 Tim 1:14

That “good treasure” is the Divine Deposit of faith, once and for all delivered to the Saints.

I agree that the Sacred Traditions cannot be proven to you, ja4. You have demonstrated that you hold and intractible mindset that prevents you from being open to the evidence.

It was when it was first spoken.

Indeed it was, and God is able to preserve His spoken word by the power of HIs spirit. He especially prepared a people for millenia in how to preserve Oral Tradition.

They certainly used the OT to support their conclusions. See verses 15-21.

Yes, just as Catholics see the support of their doctrines in the OT and in the NT. This is the proper function of scripture, not the other way around. The Scriptures reflect the teaching, they are not the Source of it. The Source is Jesus Himself. Jesus committed the fullness of His teachings to the Apostles, and gave them the authority to go and teach it to others.

 

[Roy5]

WORSHIP GOD, AND NEITHER SCRIPTURE OR CHURCH

My concern is that so many Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, worship a church or a book. The Bible is inspired, and central to our faith, but it has many contradictions and even false teachings. Should slaves obery their masters? Should parents kill rebellious sons? What about garments made of more than one thread? Should followers of Christ hate their mothers, fathers, spouses, children (Luke 14:26)? And, really now, is it really as big a sin to look upon a woman with lust as to commit adultery? And we could go on and on, both with the Old and New Testaments. 

As for the church, it has made so many blunders over the years that it doesn't deserve to be trusted at all times. The Pope was ready to condemn communism without qualms. Why was he so 'neutral' when it came to fascism and nazism during WWII? If you have read Abelard's Sic et Non you are aware that the church contradicted itself many times in earlier times. Take even the matter of women wearing their heads at worship. The Catholic Church once insisted on it in following Paul in I Cor. 11:5, but now doesn't. Protestant literalists seem to ignore that verse entirely nowadays, too.

 When the lawyer asked Jesus how to enter life eternal, Christ said nothing about doctrine, creeds, joining a church, etc. He said love God and your neighbor, then gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Catholicism and most Protestants have gone well beyond that. To me, those two requirements - love God and one another - is where it's at. The rest is largely chaff.

 

[JRKH]

Chosensinner,
Allow me to congratulate you on a well written, insightful and highly Christian post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I have only a couple of comments/points I would like to bring up.

All I can say is this- even in the earliest congregations there were disagreements among true believers- Read Corinthians. This is not only a Protestant thing- but it is a human thing. We all fall short. But the simple fact is- on that last day, I will be accountable to God for myself- so will I take a chance in putting my trust in men to guide me, or will I search the scriptures for myself and try to serve God the best I can?

You are absolutely right about the “Human thing”. We humans have a great propensity for looking for loopholes and asking “What if…” Thus, no matter how simple God makes it, we make it complicated.:hypno:
I believe that this tendancy for “What iffing” is the reason Jesus founded His Church on People and Gave His own Power and Authority to said Church.
Further, you are correct that, when we stand before the Lord at judgement, we will stand alone and be accountable.

The Reformers were not trying to be popes, who would start their own religions and denominations- indeed if they saw the professing Evangelical Church today- they would be quite disturbed. The Reformers were not starting denominations and pointing people to themselves for salvation- NO! All of the Reformers were pointing poor men and women to the risen savior for the redemption of their souls.

There are so many political, national and social aspects tied to the reformation it is difficult to seperate what happened into proper contexts.
However, regardless of the original intention of the reformers, the result of their efforts is today’s large and confusing range of Protestant Churches and the root of this is the pride of the individuals who refused to submit to the authority of the Church as Christ commanded.

Yes they disagreed on certain issues- like the Lord’s Table etc. BUT when it came to the way of Salvation- they were ONE- for the Bible is more than clear on this core issue- **and that was their whole purpose; to loose the bonds of false religion **and set the people free to seek the Lord for themselves, knowing that he who seeks the Lord with his whole heart shall find Him- and finding Him, they shall find true rest for their souls.

This is an interesting Choice of words here, for in one quick statement, you both declare Catholicsim false, and place upon the reformers the very authority Christ Gave to The Church to Bind and Loose.
I’m sure you did not mean this to sound as harsh as it reads, but review the Authority Christ Gave to His Church and see what you think.

The word of God is precious and food for our souls. We need God’s word to be poured into us daily, and to remind us of certain truth. Let’s keep talking about this- but can I ask you to do something?

If you are willing- get onto a BIBLE SEARCH website and do a word-search in the Bible. Pick a good translation like the King James Version- and do a New Testament search of the word Scripture.

**You will be shocked at how often the New Testament Saints, and our Lord himself would quote Old Testament Scripture in order to prove any and all points of contention. **And if this is the way that they conducted themselves- then ought not we , who have the full deposit of Divine Revelation handed down to us in Holy Scripture do the same?

None will dispute the importance of Scripture, or that our Lord uses it extensively. Even today the Church, the most stout defender of Scripture, binds herself fully and strongly to biblical truths.
However, when speaking of Jesus and others quoting Scripture, and discussing it, how often is Jesus admonishing the listener for their inability to fully comprehend it, or to completely mis-interpret it? Often the people Jesus was admonishing were the very people charged with teaching scripture. Yet Jesus did not tell the faithful Jews to ignore their teachers, but to obey them.

(cont)

 

[JRKH]

When we have a question about something- and there is a point of contention- ought not we to search the Scriptures until we find the answer? And when God is pleased to with-hold certain answers from us- ought not we to humble ourselves to the point of admitting that if the Lord has not revealed it- then He has kept it for Himself?

But did Jesus tell the Jews to ignore their leaders? No he did not. He told them ot be obedient to what they were taught for their teachers sit upon the chair of Moses. Our Obedience to Christ’s Church is not held against us, even if the teaching is less than correct, or it the teachers happen to be sinful men.
And what did Jesus tell the faithful to do with disagreements in Matthew 18. Take it to the Church - And submit to the Church.

This is the spirit of a true Evangelical. If we are not certain and the Bible is not clear- then we are not to speculate or dogmatize; for this only brings division. We are to submit our minds and our hearts to the Lord our God, and hold tightly onto that which He has revealed to our souls through His word; and at the same time we are to walk in the fear of God with meekness and longsuffering toward our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is also very near to the spirit of the true Catholic. The only difference is that we have the Blessing of Christ’s Holy Church with Her power to Bind and Loose, to aid us in our journey. Of course even with that, we are taught in the Cathechism that we must abide by our Conscience.
Here is a link to the appropriate section of the Catechism. It makes very interesting reading. You can see from this how much importance the Church places upon the individual’s relationship with God, and God’s desire to speak to and guide His Children.

There are issues to divide over- and then there are issues to be humbled by. These need not cause division among God’s elect! And yet- we often experience this very division ourselves don’t we? However- I want you to understand this very well:

This is the Problem of Humanity- not Protestantism.

While I don’t agree that there is any issue worth dividing over, I agree with the rest. If we could only Humble ourselves enough to truly be worthy children…
Praise God for His loving Mercy.

Division exists within Roman Catholicism as well does it not?

This might depend upon what you mean by division.
There are a variety of views among individuals on issues within the Church, but the Church herslf is not divided on teaching. The varying opinions of individuals cannot properly be called a division.
There are certain groups that are in some level of Schism with Rome. However these cannot be properly called “Roman Catholic” since they are not in union with the Holy Father and the Magisterium.

Again, I want to thank you for your thoughful post. God is obviously working through you to help build His Kingdom. It is a pleasure to read.
God Bless

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Roy5,
Your post is quite good and I like how you cut through to the root teaching of Christ, that the proper path leads through the first two commandments.
There are, of course things in your post that I disagree with…

WORSHIP GOD, AND NEITHER SCRIPTURE OR CHURCH

My concern is that so many Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, worship a church or a book. The Bible is inspired, and central to our faith, but it has many contradictions and even false teachings. Should slaves obery their masters? Should parents kill rebellious sons? What about garments made of more than one thread? Should followers of Christ hate their mothers, fathers, spouses, children (Luke 14:26)? And, really now, is it really as big a sin to look upon a woman with lust as to commit adultery? And we could go on and on, both with the Old and New Testaments.

While I agree that people can become too tied up in partisanship and “bible worship” I would not go so far as to say the bible contains false teachings.
Teachings in the Bible were appropriate to the times in which they were written. The thing is that these “Lessons” must be looked upon for their deeper meaning and reasoning.
This is why Christ founded a Living Church and not a “document” that could eventually become “dated”.

As for the church, it has made so many blunders over the years that it doesn't deserve to be trusted at all times. The Pope was ready to condemn communism without qualms. Why was he so 'neutral' when it came to fascism and nazism during WWII? If you have read Abelard's Sic et Non you are aware that the church contradicted itself many times in earlier times. Take even the matter of women wearing their heads at worship. The Catholic Church once insisted on it in following Paul in I Cor. 11:5, but now doesn't. Protestant literalists seem to ignore that verse entirely nowadays, too.

You might want to re-read your posts before submitting - Women have always been allowed to “wear their heads at worship”
As to the other issues, they really do not bear on the issue of Sola Scriptura so I will leave them for another thread.

When the lawyer asked Jesus how to enter life eternal, Christ said nothing about doctrine, creeds, joining a church, etc. He said love God and your neighbor, then gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Catholicism and most Protestants have gone well beyond that. To me, those two requirements - love God and one another - is where it’s at. The rest is largely chaff.

While I would not go so far as to say “Largely Chaff”, I believe you have hit the nail quite hard. If people would begin with this point - Love of God and Love of neighbor and build out from there, so much of Christ’s teachings would simply fall neatly into place.

Peace
James

 

[Roy5]

JRKH

Appreciate your polite response.

You seem to imply that in Biblical times it was acceptable to teach that parents should kill a rebellious son, that followers of Christ should hate their parents, spouses, etc., that slaves should obey their masters, etc. I dissent. 

 You didn't deal with various other issues I raised, partly because I did get off thread a bit. It's difficult not to. 

  As for women covering their heads, that is a scriptural matter, found in St. Paul, so it does seem to fit. Catholics today and most Protestants for many years have ignored Paul's dictum that women should cover their heads at worship.  I think it's fine that they don't, but it seems to be against Biblical teaching. 

   And, yes, I do fail to catch errors when I post sometime. When I reread, I'm too much in a hurry, perhaps, as I shouldn't really give time to this exercise. Too many more important duties to attend to. But it is a form of mental and even spiritual exercise, and I justify it on that basis. Probably I'm kidding myself and I should resist the temptation. I wonder if it does any good. Then, who knows? God does work in mysterious ways. At least, I haven't figured out many of those ways as yet. Natural disasters? Holocaust? Wars? "Shock and awe!"? That possible hurricane aiming at the Gulf Coast again? If they're actually God's will, that's a major problem. If they aren't: God, where are you when we need you?

 Keep smiling - and a happy Labor Day weekend.

 

[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. The Bible is inspired, and central to our faith, but it has many contradictions and even false teachings. Should slaves obery their masters? Should parents kill rebellious sons? What about garments made of more than one thread? Should followers of Christ hate their mothers, fathers, spouses, children (Luke 14:26)? And, really now, is it really as big a sin to look upon a woman with lust as to commit adultery? And we could go on and on, both with the Old and New Testaments. 

As for the church, it has made so many blunders over the years that it doesn't deserve to be trusted at all times. The Pope was ready to condemn communism without qualms. Why was he so 'neutral' when it came to fascism and nazism during WWII? If you have read Abelard's Sic et Non you are aware that the church contradicted itself many times in earlier times. Take even the matter of women wearing their heads at worship. The Catholic Church once insisted on it in following Paul in I Cor. 11:5, but now doesn't. Protestant literalists seem to ignore that verse entirely nowadays, too.

 When the lawyer asked Jesus how to enter life eternal, Christ said nothing about doctrine, creeds, joining a church, etc. He said love God and your neighbor, then gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Catholicism and most Protestants have gone well beyond that. To me, those two requirements - love God and one another - is where it's at. The rest is largely chaff.

you don’t know the Church… I can tell by what you have posted.

No one is denying there have been imperfect members of the Church thoruhgout history. Show me an instituttion that has humans for members that has never been corrupted.

But the teachings can be trusted because they come from Christ, who promised that corruption of his Church’s truth would not happen. He knew that humans mess things up every time… That is why he took over and is the one teaching, not the popes or priests, etc… They just relay the message.

Also, i am sick of hearing this nonsense about the Nazis and how the Church didn’t do anything. Even this anti-Catholic soiunding book i read about Hitler finally admitted that the Church did more the save the Jews than all other churches & religious institutions combined… hiding them in convents and even the Vatican. The reason the Church wasn’t against the Nazis at first was because they (like most everyone else) did not know what they were doing in the concentration camps… No one wanted to believe Hitler wa anything but a great leader…

 

[JRKH]

JRKH

Appreciate your polite response.

You seem to imply that in Biblical times it was acceptable to teach that parents should kill a rebellious son, that followers of Christ should hate their parents, spouses, etc., that slaves should obey their masters, etc. I dissent. 

 You didn't deal with various other issues I raised, partly because I did get off thread a bit. It's difficult not to.

In each case, we can look at the texts in various ways and various levels. The Church teaches this (though I forget the terms for the different levels).
Obviously there is the literal level and meaning that comes simply from the words themselves, but then there are other levels. For instance, where Jesus mentions slaves obeying masters, is this any different from telling us to love our enemies or for the Jews to obey their teachers? Does not each teach a submission to authority for the Glory of God? Does not each show a detachment of the individual from the bonds of the material world and a clinging to God regardless of their station in life?
As to “hating” parents and spouses and children, this carries the meaning that we must serve God first and foremost.
I’m not familiar with the “Killing a rebellious child” reference.

  As for women covering their heads, that is a scriptural matter, found in St. Paul, so it does seem to fit. Catholics today and most Protestants for many years have ignored Paul's dictum that women should cover their heads at worship.  I think it's fine that they don't, but it seems to be against Biblical teaching.

This only becomes a problem for literalists. Paul is refering to a matter of practice and not one of doctrine. This is a fine example of the ability of the Church to act as interpreter for us.

   And, yes, I do fail to catch errors when I post sometime. When I reread, I'm too much in a hurry, perhaps, as I shouldn't really give time to this exercise. Too many more important duties to attend to. But it is a form of mental and even spiritual exercise, and I justify it on that basis. Probably I'm kidding myself and I should resist the temptation. I wonder if it does any good. Then, who knows? God does work in mysterious ways. At least, I haven't figured out many of those ways as yet. Natural disasters? Holocaust? Wars? "Shock and awe!"? That possible hurricane aiming at the Gulf Coast again? If they're actually God's will, that's a major problem. If they aren't: God, where are you when we need you?

 Keep smiling - and a happy Labor Day weekend.

Don’t sweat it. I’ve made plenty of errors myself. I just couldn’t pass that one up though - such an interesting mental image.

I do hope that you keep posting.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

WORSHIP GOD, AND NEITHER SCRIPTURE OR CHURCH

My concern is that so many Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, worship a church or a book. The Bible is inspired, and central to our faith, but it has many contradictions and even false teachings. Should slaves obery their masters? Should parents kill rebellious sons? What about garments made of more than one thread? Should followers of Christ hate their mothers, fathers, spouses, children (Luke 14:26)? And, really now, is it really as big a sin to look upon a woman with lust as to commit adultery? And we could go on and on, both with the Old and New Testaments.

No, Roy5, there are no contradictions or false teachings in Scripture. If it seems that way to you, it is because you don’t understand what you are reading. You are in the chariot with the Eunuch, but you have not invited Phillip.

As for the church, it has made so many blunders over the years that it doesn't deserve to be trusted at all times. The Pope was ready to condemn communism without qualms. Why was he so 'neutral' when it came to fascism and nazism during WWII? If you have read Abelard's Sic et Non you are aware that the church contradicted itself many times in earlier times.

You clearly are not differentiating between political activity, and the Apostolic Teaching in faith and morals.

Take even the matter of women wearing their heads at worship.

:bigyikes:



What is the matter with the Church? What were they thinking!? Everyone knows women should be beheaded before Divine Liturgy.

The Catholic Church once insisted on it in following Paul in I Cor. 11:5, but now doesn’t. Protestant literalists seem to ignore that verse entirely nowadays, too.

Roy5, you are way out in left field. It is interesting to see the view from there…

  When the lawyer asked Jesus how to enter life eternal, Christ said nothing about doctrine, creeds, joining a church, etc. He said love God and your neighbor, then gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Catholicism and most Protestants have gone well beyond that. To me, those two requirements - love God and one another - is where it's at. The rest is largely chaff.

Well, apparently you don’t recognize that all of doctrine, creeds, and Church are about loving God and your neighbor.

 

[larry_m]

I would like to thank Meaculpa & those that responded to my (name removed by moderator)ut. Especially Meaculpa for taking the time to address each Scripture I presented. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. I may disagree with your interpretation of those Scriptures, but that doesn’t interfere with the hope we have in our Precious Savior as being brothers in Him, Protestant & Catholic alike. May the Almighty bless us with his Spirit to lead us in to all Truth as it is in Yeshua Messiah. Have a safe weekend all.

 

[justasking4]

I had posted this definition earlier and no one challenged it, or adjusted it so it would appear this is the definition we are working off of.

So Chosensinner, I’d say your safe working from this definition.

Peace
James

I would add this to the definition:
Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. This is why they are inspired-inerrant.

 

[justasking4]

This is the same passage some other sola scripturist tried to say supported his false doctrine. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Sola scriptura asserts that the Bible is self-interpreting. Peter, on the other hand, says it is “hard to be understood” and you can be “led away with the error of the wicked.” Obviously, we need some kind of authority to help us interpret the Bible, maybe a Magisterium of the Catholic Church, for example.

Makes sense coming from the first Bishop of Rome.

It would be great if there was some kind of “infallible interpreter” that has infallibly interpreted all the Scriptures. Sadly there is not. Not even the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has come even close to doing so.

 

[adstrinity]

:bigyikes:



What is the matter with the Church? What were they thinking!? Everyone knows women should be beheaded before Divine Liturgy.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!

Alas, I still have my head (I was this close, thisclose to quoting Shakespeare). I someday aspire to be this holy, though.

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

A few questions for any one of the believers in Sola Scriptura that have not been answered in this thread.

1. Explain please how the Holy Spirit guided the Church into all Truth in the days before the printing presses were invented.
2. If Martin Luther discovered how to discern the truth of interpreting Scriptures because the Catholic Church was teaching error in its interpretations, did Jesus fail to keep His promise that the Holy Spirit would teach all Truth to His Church? Did the Church only start with Martin Luther?
3. Ignoring those SS believers who “prove” from the Scriptures that Jesus was not God, would the Trinitarian believers be able to arrive at their beliefs alone? If there is no infallible interpreter, can trinitarians be sure of this vital Truth or is it irrelevant to the Gospel message.
4. Was the Council of Jerusalem the only Council to teach a Gospel truth because it is the only one documented in Scripture?

 

[justasking4]

Agnes Ainsworth;4123763]
A few questions for any one of the believers in Sola Scriptura that have not been answered in this thread.

1. Explain please how the Holy Spirit guided the Church into all Truth in the days before the printing presses were invented.

Good question. How would you know when a person is actually being led by the HS? What are the characteristics?

Keep in mind that the Scriptures were already in written form before the printing press as you know. What the printing made possible was for the “common” man to have his own copy of the them. This should not be taken lightly since this was not possible for centuries for the common man to have his own copy of the Scriptures. What a matchless gift this is and yet so many Christians don’t recognize the great gift they have.

1. If Martin Luther discovered how to discern the truth of interpreting Scriptures because the Catholic Church was teaching error in its interpretations, did Jesus fail to keep His promise that the Holy Spirit would teach all Truth to His Church? Did the Church only start with Martin Luther?

No. The guidance that Jesus promised does not mean the church would be incapable of teaching error or be protected from false teachers. In fact it warns the false teachers will come into the church itself and deceive many. History has proven this to be the case.

1. Ignoring those SS believers who “prove” from the Scriptures that Jesus was not God, would the Trinitarian believers be able to arrive at their beliefs alone? If there is no infallible interpreter, can trinitarians be sure of this vital Truth or is it irrelevant to the Gospel message.

1. Was the Council of Jerusalem the only Council to teach a Gospel truth because it is the only one documented in Scripture?

Not necessarily so. We would have to know specially what these council said before we can determine if they did always teach the truth.