Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[passer_by]

I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that not all people come to be Christian by reason alone. I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but I have had enough conversations with my pentecostal in-laws to know that they will never be swayed by reason alone. I stated in my post that I don’t trust feelings and personal experience all the time, but there are some who do. To build your argument on this idea, that there is a correct/ incorrect way to “find God”, seems rather arrogant.

I came to believe the CC has authority through study. I researched my way into the Catholic Church, but not everyone does it that way. Whether someone finds a church through personal experience or through divine revelation, they feel it, but may not be able to defend it. This leads to unproductive conversations and uncomfortable situations. Been there

I am merely addressing the fact that your logical argument falls on deaf ears when someone doesn’t come to God by pure reason. There are millions who go to church and have a good prayer relationship with God, they never use reason to find a church. You could say that they should, but the fact remains unchanged.

But I am not saying that these church goers who were baptized as infants need to necessarily re-analyze their faith to justify remaining in the Church. One could say that they trust their parents or some ancestor long ago who first became Catholic had made that logical judgement.

But if that authority of that ancestor or the Church is challenged, I don’t think one can get away with saying ‘I just believe by personal experience’. They would have to defend the logical reason for accepting the authority of the Church.

The personal experience of God/Jesus/the Blessed Virgin Mother can of course be held on personal experience. After all, we believe that everyone other than us is also real and exists based on personal experience. So yes, coming to believe in the existence of God, Jesus, Angels or the Blessed Mother can be from personal experience.

But it is another thing to claim what they promise, who they are, their nature etc. These truths are not accessible by personal experience or reason. They are Divinely Revealed. So as human beings, we have to arrive at (or to be more precise, identify what is) Divine Revelation through Reason using what we already can know.

So from the truths such as God exists, Jesus is real (which might be from reason or personal experience), it requires a reasonable set of steps to arrive at truths like “Bible is the word of God”.

In the case of JonNC, if he leaves his current church to join either the CC or the EO, without knowing who is right, then he could choose the wrong one. Is being in one wrong church better than being in another wrong church? I pray that we see unity in our lifetime, that many find their way home.

To be honest, in Jon’s case, objectively speaking, it is better for him to leave and become EO than Lutheran. He has more graces open to him through sacraments in the EO.

His position with respect to EO and CC are also problematic. His argument for not choosing either seems to hinge on them both not agreeing on Primacy. But he does agree that the early Church did give Rome Primacy on teaching matters. Then the question becomes, if he does agree that Rome had primacy on teaching matters, shouldn’t he (and the EO) accept the teachings of Rome on Primacy and Infallibility it-self?

To this Jon replies, ‘well the Primacy defined in the Roman teaching doesn’t look like what was in practice and believed as to what is meant by the Primacy of Rome by the early Church’.

But Jon’s point does not matter since there was no strictly defined official teaching on Primacy prior to the Roman Church’s definition of it. So when it was defined after putting the matter to study, the strict definition of Primacy might include attributes which were not clearly or overly expressed in the years before.

So it logically follows that if Jon holds that Rome had Primacy on teaching in the early Church, then he must accept the Roman teaching on Primacy as well.

Therefore I think if Jon is really willing to do what it takes, the option to join CC logically follows from all that he accepts as true. The division between EO and CC is not relevant at all.

 

[Safia]

So it logically follows that if Jon holds that Rome had Primacy on teaching in the early Church, then he must accept the Roman teaching on Primacy as well.

Therefore I think if Jon is really willing to do what it takes, the option to join CC logically follows from all that he accepts as true. The division between EO and CC is not relevant at all.

Amen!

 

[passer_by]

I understand we are discussing this on a apologetics forum. I understand why we use reason. I agree with much of what passer has brought up. The insinuation in his posts was, if it is cannot be supported with reason, then you should abandon it. Statements like, “IF the Catholic Church is unacceptable for you and IF the Orthodox are unacceptable for you. YOU STILL HAVE TO ABANDON PROTESTANTISM.” from post #236, and “The depressing part about all this is that you somehow seem to think it ‘logical’ that if Catholicism is also circular in its reasoning, you can remain a Protestant
If Catholicism is also circular, then you must abandon both Protestantism and Catholicism.” from post #212, make it seem like a reason only event.

Well if it is in-fact circular, then yes, one would have to abandon all the belief systems and hold on to only what he/she knows by reason and personal experience (possibly something like Christ and God exists).

But as far as my logical reasoning capabilities go, I don’t see the CC having any circular reasoning involved.

Now one point you might say is, what if the person is incapable of reason to the level of making such a determination. Apart from possibly qualifying for ‘not a fault of their own’, I believe a valid answer is that then he or she will have to rely on a person’s judgement who they think is intelligent enough to make such an analysis.

So this in a sense is how someone else can give witness to the faith of others. This is how in-fact parents pass on their faith to Children. The Children accept the faith from their parents because they respect and trust the authority of their parents.

But if the authority or the reasons presented by that intelligent person is questioned, or when the reliant person becomes capable of reasoning things out and is challenged, that intelligent person must evaluate the charges leveled against him and see if he should correct his position for he might even be leading others astray who look up to him.

 

[Newsy]

But I am not saying that these church goers who were baptized as infants need to necessarily re-analyze their faith to justify remaining in the Church. One could say that they trust their parents or some ancestor long ago who first became Catholic had made that logical judgement.

But if that authority of that ancestor or the Church is challenged, I don’t think one can get away with saying ‘I just believe by personal experience’. They would have to defend the logical reason for accepting the authority of the Church.

This is where some use the term faith. “I have faith in my church”, you may call it ‘blind faith’, but they just call it faith. From my experience, it is hard to get past the “I have faith in …” to a productive conversation. If one refuses to accept their “faith” statement, most leave the conversation.

So from the truths such as God exists, Jesus is real (which might be from reason or personal experience), it requires a reasonable set of steps to arrive at truths like “Bible is the word of God”.

I agree with your logic here, btw I may use this elsewhere.

 

[Newsy]

Well if it is in-fact circular, then yes, one would have to abandon all the belief systems and hold on to only what he/she knows by reason and personal experience (possibly something like Christ and God exists).

But as far as my logical reasoning capabilities go, I don’t see the CC having any circular reasoning involved.

Now one point you might say is, what if the person is incapable of reason to the level of making such a determination. Apart from possibly qualifying for ‘not a fault of their own’, I believe a valid answer is that then he or she will have to rely on a person’s judgement who they think is intelligent enough to make such an analysis.

So this in a sense is how someone else can give witness to the faith of others. This is how in-fact parents pass on their faith to Children. The Children accept the faith from their parents because they respect and trust the authority of their parents.

But if the authority or the reasons presented by that intelligent person is questioned, or when the reliant person becomes capable of reasoning things out and is challenged, that intelligent person must evaluate the charges leveled against him and see if he should correct his position for he might even be leading others astray who look up to him.

Many use this approach. Something like, “I am no scholar, so I believe my pastor”. Their personal experience then solidifies their feelings. Sometimes this lasts for a lifetime, other times it only lasts until the next church fight. As a rule, I think society has gotten lazy when it comes to matters of faith, but I am addressing what I have seen.

And, yes, I think there are many capable people leading others in the wrong direction:sad_yes:

 

[passer_by]

This is where some use the term faith. “I have faith in my church”, you may call it ‘blind faith’, but they just call it faith. From my experience, it is hard to get past the “I have faith in …” to a productive conversation. If one refuses to accept their “faith” statement, most leave the conversation.

Well I think Catholics do have faith in the Catholic Church. But when challenged, or when searching, we have to come to it by reason or our trust in the authority of someone else (like parents as children, or someone else we respect for their advise etc).

After we arrive, then yes, we have to have Faith in the Church.

But, if our reasons for arriving are questioned, like our reasoning, or our trust in that person we took the advise from, shouldn’t we re-evaluate our choice or see if there are other reasons?

I think one thing clear is that such a person when re-evaluating is not starting from scratch. If the person was a Protestant for an example, they might have come to realize through personal experience or reason that Christ and God are real and have a personal relationship with them. So it won’t make sense for them to abandon those truths. But he would have to see if the authority of the Protestant church (which teaches the divine revelation) can be arrived at logically, or look at a different Church (like CC, EO etc) which include the truth of existence of Christ and God and see if they have logical reason for their authority.

But I agree with you that is usually hard to convince a Protestant to do this because most are used to arguing theology. If they did though, they could probably end up at the Catholic Church with much less energy they spend on Theological analysis and trying to see if teachings make sense.

 

[passer_by]

Many use this approach. Something like, “I am no scholar, so I believe my pastor”. Their personal experience then solidifies their feelings. Sometimes this lasts for a lifetime, other times it only lasts until the next church fight. As a rule, I think society has gotten lazy when it comes to matters of faith, but I am addressing what I have seen.

And, yes, I think there are many capable people leading others in the wrong direction:sad_yes:

Yes, and in these cases, I think the pastor is more responsible (given that the followers are actually incapable or have no means) and possibly the person to engage with such discussions.

Usually I see a lot of Catholic vs. Protestant debates on “Faith vs. Works”, Calvinism, Penal Substitution etc where the Protestants are men or women with good academic standing or credentials. But I have not seen any of those debates get out of the Theology and move in to the Logical/Historical approach. I think if we moved on to that plane of argument, a lot more progress can be made. Not just with Protestant vs. Catholic debates but even Muslim vs. Catholic etc.

Right now the game-plan for Muslim vs. Catholic debates seems to be to list logical inconsistencies in the Koran. But since its possible to interpret these problem passages in some way that does not lead to inconsistencies or justification (in the case of violence), in the end it becomes “I think that contradicts that over there for sure and the Koran is false” and the Muslim saying “I think such a contradiction does not exist and hence the Koran is true”. All this when the whole debate should have been centered around, “why believe the Koran as divinely revealed?” in the first place.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Wrong! No where does Jesus or the Apostles or any author the NT teach, scripture alone is enough! No where! You like so many are merely isolating passages to prove an agenda invented way after the Bible was compiled. Second, 2 Tim 3:16 was not written to prove or support the Bible-alone as you believe. Third, the verse says: All scripture…not ONLY scripture.

Please, there is no need to get aggressive. I was only trying to SHARE what I have been taught.

I am also here to learn and grow in the faith.

And, yes, I know that it says all scripture…but what of it saying that it is profitable so that the man of God may be “thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works”? How can it make them capable of performing ALL good works if they are not ALL contained IN the scripture? That was the point I was trying to make from it. I’m humbly asking your opinion, NOT trying to prove some agenda.

I am sorry,but I was not trying to be aggressive. I understand you are here to learn and grow in faith. As for your reply where the scripture states it is “profitable” so that man of God may be “thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works.” Yes just as water is “profitable” for survival,but food,rest,exercise, and good health are also “profitable” for survival-correct?

Again, St.Paul is not teaching scripture-only is profitable. Let me you ask you something? If scripture-alone is enough,why is it God himself never once says it or teaches it? Would you not consider vital for one’s salvation?

 

[mrjinx777]

Hi, Mrjinx777,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this an excellent source for dialogue and discussion.

Let me try my hand at responding to your inquiry.

I think it would be best to look at the context of this partial quote you provided. Take a look at Matthew 15
**
"
Like Passer said, the condemnation from Christ was for the Jewish leaders setting aside the Laws of God for the traditions of men. You will note, that not much has changed since the 1st Century when this was said! For example, Christ made statements concerning the following:

1.) necessity for baptism (John 3)

Response: Yes by the Holy Spirit and by Water - Jesus himself was Baptized as an example (He said that was important that we fulfil all righteousness Matt 3:14,15. (for context Matt.3)

2.) giving Peter the power to bind and lose whatever he chose and the Keys as a symbol of this authority (Matthew 16)

Response: Please note that binding and loosing was not exclusively given to Peter but to all the disciples.
.Matthew 18:18. Matthew 18 for context.
After the death of the 12 apostles none were replaced with exception of Judas (to fulfil the scripture). However Paul was called by Jesus himself as an apostle. Elders (Bishop) were appointed in the churches.
The council of apostles and elders which were stationed in Jerusalem of which Peter, James and John were members ( Act 15) had authority over the church (Gal 2).

3.) His Flesh is Real Food and He has required that we eat it if we are to live (John 6)

Response: Jesus is very clear what he means in John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 1 speak of Word which was made flesh
Jesus during his temptation said to Satan “ it is written man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God”.
The Communion (a symbol) was set up in remembrance of him.
As the Lamb in the earthly Sanctuary was a symbol of him (John the Baptist said behold the Lamb of God) before he died.
When we come to Jesus and believe on him we are eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
Matt 26:26 (Context 26) Mark 14:22. Luke 22. 1Cor 20: 16,17.

4.) giving the power to forgive or retain the sins of men (John 20)

Response: Jesus provided the example and instruction on this in Matt18:15 -25.

Jesus said so that you might know that the Son of man has power to forgive sins (is it easier to say rise up and walk or your sins be forgiven you) Matt 9:1-6

Peter and John when healing the lame man, Peter said “ in the name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk” rather than saying your sins be forgiving you, (if Jesus is right about what he said in Matt 9:1-6 of which I am certain he is) Peter was saying to the lame man, In the name of Jesus of Nazareth your sins are forgiven.

James gives counsel that the elders are to pray for the sick with the prayer of faith and they shall be healed and if any have sinned their sins will be forgiven them James 5: 13 - 16 .

Paul said in 2 Co. 2: To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

Paul agrees with James and Peter’s method.
And finally they preach the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus (he that beliveth in me (Jesus) is not condemned, he that beliveth not is condemned already.

5.) providing the Holy Spirit to His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) to give it all truth (John 16)

The Holy Spirit was given to the apostolic church which was Jewish at Pentecost According to Acts 1, 2.

And all that believed on Jesus through them which included the gentiles.

Yet many have left the Church of Christ to follow the traditions of men in such areas as they themselves have created. Much of this confusion and dissension is a direct result of Sola Scriptura (the thread we are posting to) which has its origin with Luther. So, we see Christ’s condemnation as having real meaning today for those who interpret away the Words of Christ to satisfy their own ends.

Those are my thoughts on your question, hope that was helpful.

God bless**

I am convince from the 52 comments made directly about scripture and the indirect mentioned of it by the names of prophets or others from the old testament for references to
substantiate the doctrines and fulfilling of those scriptures that the old testament alone was used.

Can you provide other sources that was used by Jesus and his Disciples ?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx777,

Your response was difficult to work with based on the format you used.

Let me make two comments -

You are still apparently having a problem with context:
Yes Christ gave the power to bind and lose to Peter in Matt 16 and to the other 11 in Matt 18 - but, Protestants ALWAYS fail to mention that the Keys went ONLY to Peter - there were not 11 other sets handed out in Matt 18 or anywhere else. This is not unimportant - Keys were the symbol of authority.

In John 6, are you telling me that the Flesh of Christ profits nothing?

Christ basically spends 70 verses talking about His physical role in our salvation and how He will always be with us and that He has created this very intimate union - and none of His listeners understood. The Jews, like many of today’s religious people say this is not what He meant (“This is a hard saying”) and just walk away - refusing to believe. The Apostles did not understand, either - but, they (save Judas) had enough Faith in Christ not to walk away in disbelief.

And you know, St. Paul - who had personal revelations from Christ was quite clear in 1Cor 11 about abusing the Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Paul was not talking about a metaphor. But, tell me, how do you dismiss this reference from Paul?

As I see it, Protestant arguments against the Real Presence seem to hinge on the fact that they simply do not believe God can or even would do such a thing. The fact that they did not have an ordained priesthood with Apostolic Succession is the practical aspect to this disbelief - they no longer were able to effect transubstantiation. Any comments on this would be appreciated.

I did not understand your question about providing ‘other sources’. Would you please clarify the request? Thanks.

God bless

I am convince from the 52 comments made directly about scripture and the indirect mentioned of it by the names of prophets or others from the old testament for references to
substantiate the doctrines and fulfilling of those scriptures that the old testament alone was used.

Can you provide other sources that was used by Jesus and his Disciples ?

 

[mrjinx777]

Hi tqualey

         Sorry for the format, I was still trying to work out how to use the tools of the site, and forgive me for the red color at the end of the page I had intended to have it blue but that did not work out for me.

 
The Keys (the Gospel and prayer) of the Kingdom - It is my understanding from the context of (Matt 16) the keys that was given to Peter was what enable him to bind and loose, the same keys was what enable the other disciples to bind and lose.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ Paul say’s “is the power of God unto salvation to them that believeth” Peter had just confess who he and the other disciples believed Jesus to be “The Christ The Son Of the Living God” (The Rock on which the Church is Built) this could only be reveal by the Father and whom the Son revealed himself to. The Son loosed the disciples (through the gospel and prayer) on earth and the father loosed them in heaven.

Peter was yet struggling with the Gospel (The Keys of the Kingdom) a few verses down Peter rebukes Jesus and Jesus in return rebukes Peter,Letting him know that he was now being controlled by Satan.

quote:
In John 6, are you telling me that the Flesh of Christ profits nothing?

No quite the opposite the Flesh and Blood of Christ profits everything. The Lord Supper was set up to commemorate the Death of Christ - When we eat the supper it’s in commemoration of His Body that he gave for us and His Blood which He Shed for us once for all. This is the Gospel being preach in type through a new system. We become one with Christ as he is with the Father through our partaking of HIM by Faith.

But the bread and the fruit of the vine are not his actual body and blood neither turns into them, no more than the body and blood of the bulls and goats (Heb 10) that was sacrificed in the earthly tabernacle (which represented Jesus Body and his Blood) did for the Jews that partook of that bulls and goats which represented Christ sacrifice for the sins of the world, It was by Faith they were to partake of Christ Body and Blood.

As I understand from scripture a great number of the Jews and their leaders, the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes missed this very fact and rather than accepting the Actual Lamb of God rejected Him and they rightly traced their heritage ( biologically) back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the Patriarchs and to Moses who received the Ten Commandment that was placed in the Ark of the Covenant and book of the laws which was placed in the side of the Ark, the lavitical order the sanctuary and its system.

But Jesus Wept over Jerusalem saying " Jerusalem, Jerusalem thou that killest the prophets, how long would I have gather you , but now your house is left unto you desolate"
he had to call unto him men who where not of the lavitical priesthood but men whom he would make fisher of man, men that would believe on him The Real Bread, The Real Lamb, The Real Way, The Real Life, The Real Truth, The Real Light, The Giver Of The Real Water of Life.

Today again many who claim to trace their heritage through preistly susscession are again holding to the type, the physical bread and the physical fruit of the wine rather the The Real Bread and Blood who abides in us through The Holy Spirit.

They are The Royal Priest Hood, The Holy Nation, That show forth the Praises of Him that Call us out of darkness unto His Marvelous Light and they Fulfill all Rightfulness that the Scriptures might be Fulfilled

The Question: Sorry for the mix up.

My request is can you provide the other sources that the Apostles used other than the scriptures (old Testament) to build or formulate their doctrine and their practice?

Its is my understanding that they used the scriptures alone to be the rule which they measure, shape, test and correct doctrines and practice as they were led by the Holy Spirit (which led them in all Truth as long as they Continue In Him).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx,

Again, the trick here is context - and flipping back and forth to try and wrest out a verse to prove a point doesn’t really provide the proof you want.

Matthew 16 - Peter gets the power to bin and lose AND the keys, Matt 18 - the others can bind and lose - but no keys are given. The keys represent authority and this is what the Primacy of Peter is all about. Yes, Christ did rebuke Peter, “Get behind me Satan” and this is critical to understand that the Pope is not sinless - and Peter proved that point several times.

The context of John 6 and the ‘… flesh profits nothing…’ has to be taken in the John 6, not in other verses. Christ is talking about His Flesh BEING real food - not a ‘real symbol’. Besides , who walks out on symbols as the Jews did? Then there is the Last Supper where Matthew, Mark and Luke all quote Christ as saying the Bread He was now handing them was His Body - not a symbol of his Body. This is a context issue.

Now, in answer to your question. Go to Acts Chapter 15. Here we have Peter resolving the question presented by the Judiazers who wanted to enforce the Law of Moses on Gentile converts, especially male circumcision. Now EVERYTHING in the OT (the only existing Scripture at the time) indicated that circumcision was ordered by God for His People - there is no option here or separate groups of Jews breaking off that said that circumcision was an option or anything like this. Every Jewish male is circumcised - period. Now, we come to the First Council of Jerusalem - and there is absolutely NO precedent for what Peter says - but, there is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So to formulate doctrine and practice (as we see in Acts 15) we have the Holy Spirit guiding the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Holy Spirit) so that inerrant decisions are made.

Note, that it was the Catholic Church that provided the Canon of Scripture in about 400AD. There were no Protestants at this time. Prior to Scripture, those who were following Christ had to have something - and that ‘something’ was Sacred Traditions that was given to all the by the preaching of the Apostles - the First Bishops…

Hope this helps.

God bless

Hi tqualey

         Sorry for the format, I was still trying to work out how to use the tools of the site, and forgive me for the red color at the end of the page I had intended to have it blue but that did not work out for me.

 
The Keys (the Gospel and prayer) of the Kingdom - It is my understanding from the context of (Matt 16) the keys that was given to Peter was what enable him to bind and loose, the same keys was what enable the other disciples to bind and lose.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ Paul say’s “is the power of God unto salvation to them that believeth” Peter had just confess who he and the other disciples believed Jesus to be “The Christ The Son Of the Living God” (The Rock on which the Church is Built) this could only be reveal by the Father and whom the Son revealed himself to. The Son loosed the disciples (through the gospel and prayer) on earth and the father loosed them in heaven.

As I understand from scripture a great number of the Jews and their leaders, the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes missed this very fact and rather than accepting the Actual Lamb of God rejected Him and they rightly traced their heritage ( biologically) back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the Patriarchs and to Moses who received the Ten Commandment that was placed in the Ark of the Covenant and book of the laws which was placed in the side of the Ark, the lavitical order the sanctuary and its system.

But Jesus Wept over Jerusalem saying " Jerusalem, Jerusalem thou that killest the prophets, how long would I have gather you , but now your house is left unto you desolate"
he had to call unto him men who where not of the lavitical priesthood but men whom he would make fisher of man, men that would believe on him The Real Bread, The Real Lamb, The Real Way, The Real Life, The Real Truth, The Real Light, The Giver Of The Real Water of Life.

Today again many who claim to trace their heritage through preistly susscession are again holding to the type, the physical bread and the physical fruit of the wine rather the The Real Bread and Blood who abides in us through The Holy Spirit.

They are The Royal Priest Hood, The Holy Nation, That show forth the Praises of Him that Call us out of darkness unto His Marvelous Light and they Fulfill all Rightfulness that the Scriptures might be Fulfilled

The Question: Sorry for the mix up.

My request is can you provide the other sources that the Apostles used other than the scriptures (old Testament) to build or formulate their doctrine and their practice?

Its is my understanding that they used the scriptures alone to be the rule which they measure, shape, test and correct doctrines and practice as they were led by the Holy Spirit (which led them in all Truth as long as they Continue In Him).

 

[Newsy]

The Keys (the Gospel and prayer) of the Kingdom - It is my understanding from the context of (Matt 16) the keys that was given to Peter was what enable him to bind and loose, the same keys was what enable the other disciples to bind and lose.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ Paul say’s “is the power of God unto salvation to them that believeth” Peter had just confess who he and the other disciples believed Jesus to be “The Christ The Son Of the Living God” (The Rock on which the Church is Built) this could only be reveal by the Father and whom the Son revealed himself to. The Son loosed the disciples (through the gospel and prayer) on earth and the father loosed them in heaven.

Peter was yet struggling with the Gospel (The Keys of the Kingdom) a few verses down Peter rebukes Jesus and Jesus in return rebukes Peter,Letting him know that he was now being controlled by Satan.

quote:
In John 6, are you telling me that the Flesh of Christ profits nothing?

No quite the opposite the Flesh and Blood of Christ profits everything. The Lord Supper was set up to commemorate the Death of Christ - When we eat the supper it’s in commemoration of His Body that he gave for us and His Blood which He Shed for us once for all. This is the Gospel being preach in type through a new system. We become one with Christ as he is with the Father through our partaking of HIM by Faith.

But the bread and the fruit of the vine are not his actual body and blood neither turns into them, no more than the body and blood of the bulls and goats (Heb 10) that was sacrificed in the earthly tabernacle (which represented Jesus Body and his Blood) did for the Jews that partook of that bulls and goats which represented Christ sacrifice for the sins of the world, It was by Faith they were to partake of Christ Body and Blood.

As I understand from scripture a great number of the Jews and their leaders, the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes missed this very fact and rather than accepting the Actual Lamb of God rejected Him and they rightly traced their heritage ( biologically) back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the Patriarchs and to Moses who received the Ten Commandment that was placed in the Ark of the Covenant and book of the laws which was placed in the side of the Ark, the lavitical order the sanctuary and its system.

But Jesus Wept over Jerusalem saying " Jerusalem, Jerusalem thou that killest the prophets, how long would I have gather you , but now your house is left unto you desolate"
he had to call unto him men who where not of the lavitical priesthood but men whom he would make fisher of man, men that would believe on him The Real Bread, The Real Lamb, The Real Way, The Real Life, The Real Truth, The Real Light, The Giver Of The Real Water of Life.

Today again many who claim to trace their heritage through preistly susscession are again holding to the type, the physical bread and the physical fruit of the wine rather the The Real Bread and Blood who abides in us through The Holy Spirit.

They are The Royal Priest Hood, The Holy Nation, That show forth the Praises of Him that Call us out of darkness unto His Marvelous Light and they Fulfill all Rightfulness that the Scriptures might be Fulfilled

The Question: Sorry for the mix up.

My request is can you provide the other sources that the Apostles used other than the scriptures (old Testament) to build or formulate their doctrine and their practice?

Its is my understanding that they used the scriptures alone to be the rule which they measure, shape, test and correct doctrines and practice as they were led by the Holy Spirit (which led them in all Truth as long as they Continue In Him).

OK, this makes no sense. You think all they used was scripture? What about the direct teachings that Christ gave them? He showed them the OT scriptures and He explained it. All the Church does is pass on the teachings Jesus gave us, that were not written down. We are told, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” - 2 Thess 2:15. So it is what is written and what is taught orally. By your statement, where does the Bible fit in?

You reference Hebrews 10, but do you understand that book was written to Christians, who were thinking about returning to Judaism? The reference to the blood of Christ vs the blood of bulls is about Christianity vs Judaism. The OT sacrifice is a foreshadow of what Jesus does, but this has nothing to do with John 6 or the Real Presence. This passage is comparing the Cross vs the OT sacrifice. BTW, the OT sacrifice never forgives sin, Christ does.

Christ does not condemn the Temple or the Levitical system. Matt 23 says, “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”. He wants our hearts, not empty praise or hypocrisy. But, He wants us to accept His teaching, passed on to us by His Church.

As far as communion, if it is only symbolic, how does it benefit us? If it is only symbolic, why does Paul talk about receiving unworthily being sin against the Body and Blood of Christ? Why did Jesus use the word for “to gnaw or chew” in John 6 instead of the normal word for “to eat or consume”. Why didn’t Jesus correct the Disciples in John 6, like He did elsewhere?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Newsy,

Great post!

God bless

OK, this makes no sense. You think all they used was scripture? What about the direct teachings that Christ gave them? He showed them the OT scriptures and He explained it. All the Church does is pass on the teachings Jesus gave us, that were not written down. We are told, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” - 2 Thess 2:15. So it is what is written and what is taught orally. By your statement, where does the Bible fit in?

You reference Hebrews 10, but do you understand that book was written to Christians, who were thinking about returning to Judaism? The reference to the blood of Christ vs the blood of bulls is about Christianity vs Judaism. The OT sacrifice is a foreshadow of what Jesus does, but this has nothing to do with John 6 or the Real Presence. This passage is comparing the Cross vs the OT sacrifice. BTW, the OT sacrifice never forgives sin, Christ does.

Christ does not condemn the Temple or the Levitical system. Matt 23 says, “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”. He wants our hearts, not empty praise or hypocrisy. But, He wants us to accept His teaching, passed on to us by His Church.

As far as communion, if it is only symbolic, how does it benefit us? If it is only symbolic, why does Paul talk about receiving unworthily being sin against the Body and Blood of Christ? Why did Jesus use the word for “to gnaw or chew” in John 6 instead of the normal word for “to eat or consume”. Why didn’t Jesus correct the Disciples in John 6, like He did elsewhere?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

OK, this makes no sense. You think all they used was scripture? What about the direct teachings that Christ gave them? He showed them the OT scriptures and He explained it. All the Church does is pass on the teachings Jesus gave us, that were not written down. We are told, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” - 2 Thess 2:15. So it is what is written and what is taught orally. By your statement, where does the Bible fit in?

“By word of mouth” - Paul’s preaching of the gospel in Thessalonica (Acts 17)

“or by letter” - The first letter to the Thessalonians.

In what sense does Paul’s statement here have to do with papal primacy, infallibility, the Magisterium, Marian dogmas, et al. that are not recorded in Scripture? This verse is made much of, however, I don’t see how it reflects the idea that the Church passes down teachings that were not written down.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, IggyAntiochus,

Welcome to CAF. Let me offer an answer…

The quote by Paul you provided fits perfectly into this thread of Sola Scriptura (SS) - and I think that was the intent.

SS is strictly a man-made doctrine in the biblical warning of a ‘tradition of men’ (Mark 7:8, Col 2:8) Here is a link you may find helpful concerning the various problems of SS: scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

In my judgment, the Bible is truly a very complex collection of books - and unlike any other collection of books on Earth. There is One Principal Author with numerous human writers and today there is no complete original set of writings - all we have are translations of previous copies! You may be interested in knowing exactly how we got the Bible - even your abridged version - and here is an interesting link explaining this: catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

This list of items you have asked about:
papal primacy,
infallibility,
the Magisterium,
Marian dogmas,
et al. (a bit vague here, wouldn’t you say? )

implies that everything is in the Bible. And the Bible tells us that not everything is in the Bible - look how St. John ends his Gospel.

The fact of the matter is that the Canon of Scripture did not exist until the Catholic Church developed in about 400AD. So, the real issue is - what happened to the belief structure of the early Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) prior to 400AD? Don’t forget, persecutions by the Roman Empire took off in earnest with Nero. I would truly be interested in hearing your answer on this.

God bless

“By word of mouth” - Paul’s preaching of the gospel in Thessalonica (Acts 17)

“or by letter” - The first letter to the Thessalonians.

In what sense does Paul’s statement here have to do with papal primacy, infallibility, the Magisterium, Marian dogmas, et al. that are not recorded in Scripture? This verse is made much of, however, I don’t see how it reflects the idea that the Church passes down teachings that were not written down.

 

[Newsy]

“By word of mouth” - Paul’s preaching of the gospel in Thessalonica (Acts 17)

“or by letter” - The first letter to the Thessalonians.

In what sense does Paul’s statement here have to do with papal primacy, infallibility, the Magisterium, Marian dogmas, et al. that are not recorded in Scripture? This verse is made much of, however, I don’t see how it reflects the idea that the Church passes down teachings that were not written down.

Oh, I thought we were discussing SS! That was what I was addressing.

As tqualey pointed out, the premise of SS assumes that everything is in the Bible. Scripture tells us that is not the case. There is support for the doctrines drawn from scripture, our difference of opinion is based on interpretation. Interpretation is not the duty of scripture, that is the duty of the Church, to pass along the teaching of Christ and the Apostles (this includes interpreting scripture). If someone rejects the Church’s Authority, then how would you prove your interpretation is correct? This is the problem of SS, it allows each person to interpret scripture differently, sometimes in an incorrect manner. The Church leaves plenty of room for scripture to teach us on an individual level, but maintains the truths handed down to her by the Apostles.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Newsy,

I think one of the most - if not the most - destructive aspects of SS is it innate contempt for the Word of God - no matter what verbal smoke screen is provided.

If anyone can interpret the Word of God to mean anything they want - and that is why there are 30,000+ Protestant groups all claiming SS is the way to go… Then the Word of God means nothing. One can not have it both ways: either there is a definitive teacher for God’s Word - established by God Himself (Matt 16:18) or everyone can just do their own thing.

God bless

Oh, I thought we were discussing SS! That was what I was addressing.

As tqualey pointed out, the premise of SS assumes that everything is in the Bible. Scripture tells us that is not the case. There is support for the doctrines drawn from scripture, our difference of opinion is based on interpretation. Interpretation is not the duty of scripture, that is the duty of the Church, to pass along the teaching of Christ and the Apostles (this includes interpreting scripture). If someone rejects the Church’s Authority, then how would you prove your interpretation is correct? This is the problem of SS, it allows each person to interpret scripture differently, sometimes in an incorrect manner. The Church leaves plenty of room for scripture to teach us on an individual level, but maintains the truths handed down to her by the Apostles.

 

[Newsy]

Hi, Newsy,

I think one of the most - if not the most - destructive aspects of SS is it innate contempt for the Word of God - no matter what verbal smoke screen is provided.

If anyone can interpret the Word of God to mean anything they want - and that is why there are 30,000+ Protestant groups all claiming SS is the way to go… Then the Word of God means nothing. One can not have it both ways: either there is a definitive teacher for God’s Word - established by God Himself (Matt 16:18) or everyone can just do their own thing.

God bless

I agree:thumbsup:. I keep thinking, “You will know a tree by its fruit, a good tree cannot produce bad fruit”, and we see that SS has led to division and separation. Sad:sad_yes:

 

[Izdaari]

Not all Protestants are sola scriptura. Some are prima scriptura (not scripture alone, but scripture first and foremost). Anglicans and Methodists are often in this category. I favor the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, in which Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience are all important, with Scripture being the most important. and the other factors mainly serving to shed light on it.