Protestants, why?

[joe370]

MatthewMark -Jesus gave this power to his followers, of which there are hundreds of millions today…

Every Christian was given the power to bind and loose in heaven? I was not given the power to bind and loose…

 

[PRmerger]

But here’s the best part. I am deliriously happy that Catholicism has saved you and brought you closer to God. I’m not here to tell you your religion is wrong, because it isn’t, as long as it helps you to grow in Christ.

With all due respect, MatthewMark, this is a ridiculous paradigm. It smacks of the fable, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.

The Emperor, parading around NAKED, was deliriously happy in his FALSE understanding of the truth.

We do not want to be deliriously happy as fools, thinking we are growing in Christ, when in actuality we are parading around naked.

Either Catholicism is true, or it is not. But the only reason to believe something is because it’s TRUE. Not because it makes me happy.

And no one can “grow in Christ” unless he knows Christ. And how we know Christ is through the Church.

There is no other way.

 

[kempo1]

Hi MATHEWMARK you commented in your post #707 that there are many doors to heaven, that is not what Christ taught us. The only way is through Christ there is one door and its narrow. New age thinking that has crept in to the churches has people believing that their are many ways but that is not what christianity teaches. I have seen where several mega church pastors were interviewed by oprah winfrey and asked if they believe there is more than one way and they said yes. Joel Olsteen, T.D. Jakes, and a few more to name some. I find this quite disturbing because they lead so many people. Its either lack of knowledge of scripture or not believing what you preach. Either way quite disturbing.

 

[XianThinker]

I see that you are sincere, which is all the more a reason for me to reply. It is true that, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (Psst it’s 2Tim, not 1) However, it is not explicit in this declaration that one can live by scripture alone. On those grounds, Sola Scriptura is a self-contradicting fallacy. Please, consider that it says nowhere in the Bible that by faith and scripture alone, are you in the green zone. Hence Sola Scriptura itself comes from without the Bible, effectively contradicting itself.

Xian, you seem intelligent. I don’t think people will go to Hell or fall out of Salvation if they believe the wrong things, but their hearts are in the right place. But for the sake of being at our true Home, I think it best to acknowledge that that poster’s modalistic understanding of the Trinity would not necessarily be eschewed if he were living in the tradition of the Catholic Church. Perhaps there wasn’t scriptural emphasis placed on tradition, but I venture to say it’s because at that time, it seemed self-evident. There was tradition before there was scripture and it was in fact Holy Tradition which guided and dictated the canonization of Holy Scripture and the composition of the Bible. The Council was called in part because so many within the Christian faith had gone astray and into wild practices which differed greatly from mainline, traditional Christianity.

How Protestants came to deny tradition, I don’t quite know or understand, but to be sure, the first generation of Protestants would never have done such a thing. They were reformers, not transformers.

Okay. Thanks for replying. You said 2Tim 3:15 doesn’t explicitly teach scripture alone. When I read, “the holy scriptures … are able to make thee wise unto salvation” I understand it as scripture is all we need to know what is required for salvation. How do you interpret it?

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. Thanks for replying. You said 2Tim 3:15 doesn’t explicitly teach scripture alone. When I read, “the holy scriptures … are able to make thee wise unto salvation” I understand it as scripture is all we need to know what is required for salvation. How do you interpret it?

We interpret it through the lens which provided us with the Scriptures: Sacred Tradition.

And we interpret it in light of the entirety of God’s Revelation.

Interestingly, you have added “ALL” to the verse. It does not mention anything at all about Scripture being the ONLY, or “ALL” that is required for salvation.

And even if it did, how would you reconcile that with the verse in James that says that patience is ALL that is required to be complete?
[BIBLEDRB]James 1:4[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[kempo1]

Hi MATHEWMARK you commented in your post #770 that there are many doors to heaven, that is not what Christ taught us. The only way is through Christ there is one door and its narrow. New age thinking that has crept in to the churches has people believing that their are many ways but that is not what christianity teaches. I have seen where several mega church pastors were interviewed by oprah winfrey and asked if they believe there is more than one way and they said yes. Joel Olsteen, T.D. Jakes, and a few more to name some. I find this quite disturbing because they lead so many people. Its either lack of knowledge of scripture or not believing what you preach. Either way quite disturbing./QUOTE

 

[stewstew03]

Okay. Thanks for replying. You said 2Tim 3:15 doesn’t explicitly teach scripture alone. When I read, “the holy scriptures … are able to make thee wise unto salvation” I understand it as scripture is all we need to know what is required for salvation. How do you interpret it?

“Broccoli is good for your health.”

Do you interpret this to mean: “All you need is broccoli for good health”?

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thess. 2:15

:bible1:

 

[joe370]

Okay. Thanks for replying. You said 2Tim 3:15 doesn’t explicitly teach scripture alone. When I read, “the holy scriptures … are able to make thee wise unto salvation” I understand it as scripture is all we need to know what is required for salvation. How do you interpret it?

"Long ago, I had often wondered why the bible didn’t call the scriptures the pillar and foundation of truth:

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Jesus’ church seems to play a critical role in salvation:

“To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Eph. 3:10-11

Perhaps “the holy scriptures … are able to make thee wise unto salvation” in the church which is house of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[XianThinker]

I’m trying to listen to all sides (Catholic and Protestant) to make up my mind about what to believe. I appreciate everyone’s responses to my questions. I’ve been given verses that seem to disagree with sola scriptura (Heb 13:17, Acts 20:28, and 1Cor 16:16) as well as examples (the canon, council of Jerusalem) that seem to be at odds with sola scriptura which are all very helpful.

One problem I have is that I’m very indecisive. For example, I quoted 2Tim 3:15 and 1Cor 4:6 in support of SS and was given verses that seem to disagree with SS such as:

Sola scriptura as the Christians final authority via individual interpretation or Jesus’ church via leadership, as it is guided by the HS?

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 16:16 to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it.

Now, I’m wondering, should I follow 2Tim 3:15 and 1Cor 4:6 or should I follow Heb 13:17, Acts 20:28, and 1Cor 16:16?

Here’s some helpful responses that seem to refute my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6:

Except the Councils at Hippo and Carthage “went beyond what is written” to develop the canon.

:bible1:

And yet we have an example in Scripture of the Apostles following the exact OPPOSITE of your paradigm.

In Acts 15, when the Council of Jerusalem was called, how was it that the Apostles discerned the will of God regarding the Judaizers?

Answer: they went beyond what was written.

These explanations are helpful. However, because of my indecisiveness, I still need to know how the verse should be interpreted in order to convince myself that it doesn’t teach Bible alone.

Here’s what I need and would like help with:
I quoted 2Tim 3:15 and 1Cor 4:6 in support of SS:

1. “from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2Tim 3:15, NIV)” which seems to say that the scriptures are all one needs to know what is required for salvation.
2. “Do not go beyond what is written. (1Cor 4:6, NIV)" Seems to teach that Christians shouldn’t go beyond the written word of God. My Protestant friends quote this verse often and I don’t know how to interpret it.

Here’s the verses before and after 1Cor 4:6 so you can see the context. It appears Paul is quoting a saying that he heard from somewhere (I couldn’t find it in the OT or anywhere else in the Bible):

1Cor 4:1-7 (NIV):
"So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"

I appreciate all the helpful responses that seem to refute my interpretation of these verses. What I’d like to know now is how these two verses (2Tim 3:15 and 1Cor 4:6) should be interpreted. What is the meaning of “the holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation” and “Do not go beyond what is written”? I’m looking for something like:

2Tim 3:16 - “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”

2 Tim. 3 tells us that all scripture is inspired…Not only

scripture…

That explains the verse in a way that makes sense. Now it seems clear 2Tim 3:16 isn’t teaching Bible alone.

Acts 17:11 (NIV) ~ Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Does it seem plausible that they were examining the OT scriptures to verify and confirm what Paul was saying about the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

That explains it well. They didn’t search the New Testament to see if Paul’s preaching agreed with the Bible. They were looking for the OT prophecies that Paul quoted in support of Jesus being the Messiah.

 

[XianThinker]

“Broccoli is good for your health.”

Do you interpret this to mean: “All you need is broccoli for good health”?

:bible1:

No, but if it said “Broccoli is able to make you healthy.” I would understand it as broccoli was all I needed to be healthy.

If the Bible said, “the holy Scriptures … are helpful for salvation” I’d understand it as meaning that other things could be helpful also. However, when I read, “the holy Scriptures … are able to make you wise for salvation” it seems to imply that scripture is all that is necessary. I don’t know if I’m not reading it correctly.

 

[XianThinker]

We interpret it through the lens which provided us with the Scriptures: Sacred Tradition.

And we interpret it in light of the entirety of God’s Revelation.

Interestingly, you have added “ALL” to the verse. It does not mention anything at all about Scripture being the ONLY, or “ALL” that is required for salvation.

And even if it did, how would you reconcile that with the verse in James that says that patience is ALL that is required to be complete?
[BIBLEDRB]James 1:4[/BIBLEDRB]

I think James 1:4 is clear that patience is only one thing necessary but I guess I read 2Tim 3:15 differently. It seems to imply, at least the way I read it, that scripture alone is enough.

““Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” (James 1:4, NIV)”

“the holy Scriptures … are able to make you wise for salvation (2Tim 3:15, NIV)”

 

[pslzr]

… The authority to “bind and loose” was certainly given by Jesus to his apostles, but nowhere is there any implication that he intended it to be confined to one specific group of believers. Indeed, Jesus gave this power to his followers, of which there are hundreds of millions today. Why is it wrong to think Jesus empowers and blesses all true believers? …

Dear brother in our Lord Jesus Christ, you admit Jesus gave authority to “bind and loose” to his apostles. Now, have you wonder why Jesus took some apostles from all disciples?. Jesus was the one who created a selected group to be the shepherds of the grey. After Judas died, Peter at the head put another in that place. It appears clear Jesus wanted a united head of apostles, and leadership between them, and with more authority to “bind and loose”. When the first Christians had a doubt about circumcision, they went to Jerusalem to ask the apostles what to do. If they would had taken the “bind and loose” for their own hands looking at scripture alone as Christian believers as you propose, probably Christians would be doing circumcision to enter the Church nowadays, or, perhaps their denomination would had been disappearing on the sands of time. I say you brother, it is unthinkable that Jesus pretended to create a seed of his church (with authority, order, discipline) that will no be the same but bigger many centuries after. Love in Christ. Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever.

 

[joe370]

XianThinker

Now, I’m wondering, should I follow 2Tim 3:15 and 1Cor 4:6 or should I follow Heb 13:17, Acts 20:28, and 1Cor 16:16?

The one thing I could not find as a former non-catholic was an early church father who was a sola scriptura advocate; that seemed quite strange if in fact the bible alone is to be the Christians final authority via individual interpretation.

1. “from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2Tim 3:15, NIV)” which seems to say that the scriptures are all one needs to know what is required for salvation.

What I had to ask myself was:

Was Paul referring to the NT, the OT or both? Well, I had thought to myself, the NT didn’t exist when Timothy was an infant.

1. “Do not go beyond what is written. (1Cor 4:6, NIV)" Seems to teach that Christians shouldn’t go beyond the written word of God. My Protestant friends quote this verse often and I don’t know how to interpret it.

On the surface that seems to be the most compelling argument for sola scriptura. However, if that is the case then it does seem to invalidate many passages that say the exact opposite, as well as the writings of the early church fathers. Good thing Jesus left us with His spirit-guided church.

 

[joe370]

I think James 1:4 is clear that patience is only one thing necessary but I guess I read 2Tim 3:15 differently. It seems to imply, at least the way I read it, that scripture alone is enough.

““Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” (James 1:4, NIV)”

“the holy Scriptures … are able to make you wise for salvation (2Tim 3:15, NIV)”

Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything…

By itself that passage seems to be telling the reader that he/she is complete, lacking nothing just as long as he/she possesses perseverance.

 

[pslzr]

I think James 1:4 is clear that patience is only one thing necessary but I guess I read 2Tim 3:15 differently. It seems to imply, at least the way I read it, that scripture alone is enough.

““Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” (James 1:4, NIV)”

“the holy Scriptures … are able to make you wise for salvation (2Tim 3:15, NIV)”

Dear brother in Christ. You are right in what the holy Scriptures say. But, that particular verse you are taken is part of a letter which was written when the holy Scriptures as we know now as the Bible didn’t exist!!!. So, logically, you are interpreting that verse in different way it was intended when it was written. You are thinking different of what the writer and the receiver were thinking when they wrote and read that verse. Let us review from what moment in history your interpretation of that verse was so. It appears it began from 1400 years after Jesus died and rose to heaven. mmm. Or you are creating a new tradition of men. or Christ and the Holy Spirit never were on earth for 1400 years after. Frankly, brother you are closing so much your eyes, you are only taking what you see and what you want to see. Lets for a moment take history, lets review humbly the way the Church interpreted the Bible from 400 to 1400. Praise be to God for ever and ever.

 

[XianThinker]

"Long ago, I had often wondered why the bible didn’t call the scriptures the pillar and foundation of truth:

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

That’s interesting. If you had asked me “What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?” before I started studying Catholicism and learned of that verse, I would have said the Bible and I think many people in the church I attended would have agreed.

Jesus’ church seems to play a critical role in salvation:

“To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Eph. 3:10-11

Perhaps “the holy scriptures … are able to make thee wise unto salvation” in the church which is house of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth?

So you’re saying, “The scriptures, when understood correctly with the help of the Church, are able to make one wise unto salvation.”? Okay. I think that fits and makes sense.

 

[joe370]

XianThinker;9691767]That’s interesting. If you had asked me “What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?” before I started studying Catholicism and learned of that verse, I would have said the Bible and I think many people in the church I attended would have agreed.

Even in light of scripture calling the church the pillar and foundation of truth?

So you’re saying, “The scriptures, when understood correctly with the help of the Church, are able to make one wise unto salvation.”? Okay. I think that fits and makes sense.

That’s how I see it. I came to believe that passages like John 16:13 and John 14:16 support the idea that the HS is guiding Jesus’ church.

 

[XianThinker]

“Broccoli is good for your health.”

Do you interpret this to mean: “All you need is broccoli for good health”?

:bible1:
XianThinker;9691681:

No, but if it said “Broccoli is able to make you healthy.” I would understand it as broccoli was all I needed to be healthy.

If the Bible said, “the holy Scriptures … are helpful for salvation” I’d understand it as meaning that other things could be helpful also. However, when I read, “the holy Scriptures … are able to make you wise for salvation” it seems to imply that scripture is all that is necessary. I don’t know if I’m not reading it correctly.

I guess what I may be misunderstanding is the meaning of “wise unto salvation.” I looked up the word “wise” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and it said “characterized by wisdom : marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment”

That would mean the verse says something like “the holy scriptures are able to give you deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment when it comes to salvation” which seems to imply that scripture is all that is needed.

Interestingly, I checked several translations at biblegateway.com and the translations don’t seem to agree with each other.

Three translations say “wise in a way that leads to salvation” which leaves open the possibility that things other than scripture also lead to salvation.

CEB - “Since childhood you have known the holy scriptures that help you to be wise in a way that leads to salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus.”
CEV - “Since childhood, you have known the Holy Scriptures that are able to make you wise enough to have faith in Christ Jesus and be saved.”
NASB - “the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”

Yet, other translations seems to teach Bible alone such as:

NIRV - “You have known the Holy Scriptures ever since you were a little child. They are able to teach you how to be saved by believing in Christ Jesus.”

NLT - “You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.”

 

[XianThinker]

The one thing I could not find as a former non-catholic was an early church father who was a sola scriptura advocate; that seemed quite strange if in fact the bible alone is to be the Christians final authority via individual interpretation.

What I had to ask myself was:

Was Paul referring to the NT, the OT or both? Well, I had thought to myself, the NT didn’t exist when Timothy was an infant.

On the surface that seems to be the most compelling argument for sola scriptura. However, if that is the case then it does seem to invalidate many passages that say the exact opposite, as well as the writings of the early church fathers. Good thing Jesus left us with His spirit-guided church.

That’s a good point. He can’t refer to the NT if it wasn’t written yet so it must be the OT.

As far as ECFs on sola scriptura, I haven’t read any that said it directly although I’ve heard Protestants quote from the ECFs to support it.

Basil of Caesarea is used to support sola scripture. He wrote, “If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us, and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”

I’d have to read everything else that Basil of Caesarea wrote in order to judge his intended meaning of the quote and I haven’t gotten up to him yet.

 

[XianThinker]

Even in light of scripture calling the church the pillar and foundation of truth?

I don’t think everyone knows that verse. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a pastor quote that verse in church. It’s probably because I attended non-denominational churches that believe the church is just a gathering of believers.