Reformers:1) SS is right, 2) The Bible is wrong...

[cazayoux]

Why wouldn’t a Christian give purview to the Jewish peoples for Canonization of the Old Testament? That is our history, that is where we came from, and it is a Jewish history.

Because Jesus founded a church that is the protector of truth and the final arbiter.
Our church roots ARE so very Jewish and so were the ranks of Christianity at that time.
After the attack on Jews and the temple in 70AD, the Jewish remnant did not represent all Jews.
Even in Jesus’ day there was no agreement among Jews about what was and was not inspired. Pharisees had a different idea than the Sadducees who had a different idea from the Essenes. It doesn’t make sense to listen to a subset of the Jewish community in 97AD after Christ founded His church.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Wait a minute, earlier in this thread someone claimed that the Old Testament was officially declared until 97 and acts was written before 97 – you can’t have it both ways.

Excellent point!
The Jews didn’t even go by scripture alone, because they had differing ideas of what was and was not scripture.
So Paul is talking about the scripture that Timothy knew since his childhood, whichever collection of writings that actually is.
If sola scriptura was the rule of faith, shouldn’t we see a better definition of what was and was not ‘scripture’.

michel

 

[guanophore]

It is very apparent that you’ve never read the things Martin Luther wrote. If you’re going to make statements like this you should really read his large and small catechisms first. Just as Catholics consistently tell protestants to read the CCC, shouldn’t Catholics take their own advice?

I agree that Luther did not believe in SS the way it is practiced today. He would not have retained the sacraments (or a form of them), praying the Rosary, and his notions of Church governance. He just wanted to jettison the corruption, and did not understand how God’s grace works through redeptive suffering.

 

[JustaServant]

I had this thought lying in bed last night and just wanted to get others take on it as a point of fact.
I am not learned enough on the details of the Reformation so please correct me if I am wrong here.

First Martin Luther determined that “The Bible is all you need” (Sola Scriptura)
Then Martin Luther determined that The Bible was wrong and changed it by removing books. (I don’t wish to get into other changes like “adding alone”)

Thoughts? corrections?

peace
James

Luther was a man of great contridictions. We have his actual writings as proof.
Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it “unintelligible” and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it “unbiblical”.
Many evangelicals like to accuse the Catholic Church of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th century Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering.
How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? Makes no sense.
The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454, and it included the deuterocanonical Books.
How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later?
Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice.

 

[cazayoux]

Terrible analogy. In this case, we’re talking about one thing, not several things.

What about this analogy I used earlier?

My son wanted to play basketball. I tell him, “Son, drink plenty of milk, it has protein and calcium for growing strong bones and making you heathly, that you may be complete, equipped for a basketball career.”
Do you understand me to be telling my son that milk ALONE will make him a good basketball player, or do you understand me to be stating the important and profitability of milk?

Hopefully this help you to see what my understanding of the verse is?

Actually, that’s a descriptive way to explain how we are to apply scripture, not a declaration of authority.

The chapter doesn’t say that.

The Bible says that Christ has already made me perfect.

So … no more sin for you?
Paul didn’t even say he was perfect.

Phil 12:3
[12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

You must be talking about James 1:4
[4] And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

You have steadfastness and are now perfect?
Using the same way you read 2 Tim 3, this says you don’t even need scripture or faith or love, just steadfastness.



I do realize that you are talking about Heb 10:14, but do you honestly consider yourself perfect? Paul was not so presumptuous, maybe you shouldn’t be either.

I agree that Paul’s letters were treated as scripture.
I agree that Paul prophesied.

The foundation for my argument says nothing about whether Paul prophesied about other things or that his writings were considered scripture.

My claims is that 2 Tim 3:14-17 speaks of scripture as profitable and not to the exclusion of anything else.
Let me ask.
Is Love profitable, necessary for becoming perfect?
Is Faith profitable, necessary for becoming perfect?

Honestly? No. You don’t even believe what it says in English. If I were to explain the Greek to you, you’d do the same thing you’re doing now.

I’m giving you my understanding of the scripture.
Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me, God. Amen

By your theology I have the right to my interpretation, right?
I’ve studied the text and the history and your defense of your position does not sway me.
Who are you to tell me that my interpretation is wrong.

The Greek word ophelimos (“profitable”) used in verse 16 means “useful” not “sufficient.” An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as “all,” actually means “every,” and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every “Scripture” is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

And where you continue to deny what is there.

I’m the one that is reading the verse plainly.
I’m only taking it at face value.
Scripture is profitable and is something to make us complete.

I’ve already shown you that this can’t mean ‘only’ scripture, since scripture also lists steadfastness as another thing to complete us, make us perfect.
I doubt you consider yourself complete unless you also have love.

2 Tim 3:14-17
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Come to think of it, since you are perfect, you don’t need scripture to help you be taught, reproved, corrected, or trained in righteousness.

Why? First of all, you wouldn’t accept it. Second, what would be the point when we don’t get our doctrine from the 7th century, but from scripture.

The point is that you said the teaching has been taught for 2,000 years now.
I just picked one point in time for you to show me proof.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Do you mean the Council of Nicea?

No. Nicaea was in 325.
Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were at the end of the century.

Are you serious? You’re the one who’s always bragging about how your church is the only true church and how you gave us the Bible and yet, you don’t know that the church already accepted the canon as scripture, but was only reacting to Gnostic heretics and their attempt to sneak non-canonical books into the canon?

Even by 382 there was no agreement even among non-gnostics on which writings were and were not to be considered inspired. The council met in response to heresy and defined the matter once and for all.
Even by 382 some of the writings that made it into the new testament were debated. There were writings that didn’t make it into the canon that many thought were inspired.
Timeline:

• There was not agreement on the list of inspired books.
• There was a council that made a decision.
• There was agreement on the list of inspired books.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The number of letters doesn’t make God’s word any more or any less inspired.

The point that Paul didn’t tell Timothy to rely on Paul’s writings, but on the Holy Spirit.
If Paul believed in scripture alone and that his own writings were from the Holy Spirit, what need does Timothy have for the Holy Spirit to protect the teachings of Paul if he has Paul’s letter (scripture).

I’ve already explained to you at least twice now why sola scriptura is a misleading name and that we do not believe in the Bible alone, but accept other forms of authority, such as the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of the church, the authority vested in pastors and elders to preach and teach the word of God, the authority vested in the church to practice church discipline, etc.

You only believe these creeds, confessions, catechisms, pastors, and elders as long as they are in accord with scripture.
The problem is … who decides if they are in accord with scripture?
Does every individual, armed with scripture, have the right to decide?
It comes down to each individual having the authority, after praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance, to interpret scripture for themselves.
One non-Catholic Christian believes baptism saves you, while another believes baptism is only symbolic, both presenting their position from scripture.
How does a third party know which of these two positions are right? Which is true? What is the truth?

One of two things are true in your theology.
1 - The Holy Spirit is leading both individuals and is schizophrenic since He’s leading them to different truths.
2 - It’s okay to have differing doctrines.

I believe both are false.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

My challenge was for you to provide evidence of NT teachings that can not be found in the OT or spoken of by Jesus.

A teaching that a Christian must believe, but is not stated in scripture as from the OT or from Jesus.

The Gospel according to Mark is an inspired book.

michel

 

[JRKH]

I assume that you believe that we are ALL bound to obey the direct commands of Christ as contained in the Gospels Correct?

If so, then I suggest that, one of us is sinning by preaching a false doctrine (different Gospel), We should invoke the Process outlined by Jesus in Matthew Chaper 18 verses 15-18.
It appears that more than one person has weighed in on each side of this discussion, so me may suppose that we have completed steps one and two of the Christ’s instructions. That leaves only the last one. We should, “Tell it To The Church”, and then we must listen and submit to what The Church decides is the correct interpretation of this passage.

Peace
James

I am bumping this post up here because I think it needs to be addressed as the crux and flaw of SS and of the issues raised on this thread.

I would like to know from the NCC’s that are defending SS here, how we are to obey Christ’s OWN instructions in Mt 18: 15-18 in a way that will Resolve these disagreemnets so that we may:

1. All continue to teach the “Same Gospel”
2. Maintian the Unity that Christ Prayed and that Paul exhorted the faithful to.

SS supporters hold that the Bible has NO Greater Authority - We disagree as to what that Authority is telling us. How do we proceed?

Come on Folks, How shall we Proceed?

Peace
James

 

[JustaServant]

I am bumping this post up here because I think it needs to be addressed as the crux and flaw of SS and of the issues raised on this thread.

I would like to know from the NCC’s that are defending SS here, how we are to obey Christ’s OWN instructions in Mt 18: 15-18 in a way that will Resolve these disagreemnets so that we may:

1. All continue to teach the “Same Gospel”
2. Maintian the Unity that Christ Prayed and that Paul exhorted the faithful to.

SS supporters hold that the Bible has NO Greater Authority - We disagree as to what that Authority is telling us. How do we proceed?

Come on Folks, How shall we Proceed?

Peace
James

The preacher should finish his sermon…oh, around 12:15. After that is lunch at the Golden Corral. I wouldn’t expect an answer till after 1:00.

 

[cazayoux]

The preacher should finish his sermon…oh, around 12:15. After that is lunch at the Golden Corral. I wouldn’t expect an answer till after 1:00.

Same here … praying the noon mass, we’ll be out at 1:15 and head to lunch with the family.

Thanks for all that are sticking around for this great discussion.
God help us to stay mindful of your love for all of us so that we treat each other with the kindness you would like us to.

See ya!

michel

 

[rpp]

There have been papal bulls in support of slavery, what’s your point?

The Bible also supports slavery. What is your point? (This is off-topic. No need to respond.)

By the way, your ad hominum personal attacks on my knowledge of history, rather than actualy addressing my points, only demonstrates that you are unable to refute my references.

Now if you want to behave like an adult and address my points. fine. If you want to continue to make fallacious personal attacks, well, I suspect that eventually you will be banned from here for such egregious behavior. Debate the issues and stop expressing your abject hatred for those who know how utterly wrong you are.

 

[Drawmack]

The Bible also supports slavery. What is your point? (This is off-topic. No need to respond.)

By the way, your ad hominum personal attacks on my knowledge of history, rather than actualy addressing my points, only demonstrates that you are unable to refute my references.

Now if you want to behave like an adult and address my points. fine. If you want to continue to make fallacious personal attacks, well, I suspect that eventually you will be banned from here for such egregious behavior. Debate the issues and stop expressing your abject hatred for those who know how utterly wrong you are.

I am attempting to address the issue at hand, which is Sola Scriptura. You keep attempting to lodge attacks against people instead of talking about Sola Scriptura.

BTW: I made a truthful comment about papal bulls and you responded with an attack against me. Possibly you would like to start telling everyone how I am pseudo pro-life again and see what happens to your account.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Just a small point, but I believe that Luther wanted to delete parts of Daniel also.

My understanding of Luther is that he had a problem with the difference between temptations and sin. This is not a condemnation of him or trying to dis him but after a while it became a problem so much that his theology changed to mitigate these differences and is a matter of human psychology.

He was a scripture scholar that changed scripture in the sense of incorporating just those parts that validated his beliefs to get him out of the theological predicaments he had. He must have mentally wrestled a great deal to do the things he did and make the final “corrections” to scripture. After these changes, I can see how he must have disliked the “authority” that was there in the Catholic Church that gave him so much confusion. This is evident in his writings.

He could only replace the authority of the Church with his own authority which he called scripture. This allowed him to feel the comfort he was now following the will of God without the internal problems he had before. He understood the error of this when he said now that he got rid of one pope, there are many more to take his place. Every group now was their own authority, something Luther did not expect.

I see this same thing happening in this thread. Many have their own interpretations that either conform or diverge from the history of the Church Christ founded. If Christ said He was going to build a Church and keep it from error (the gates of hell), then His Church and not individual followers will have the guarantee of being without doctrinal error. The Holy Spirit works with the Church and the individual members. It is with the Church that the guarantee has been given (Peter and his successors) and it is with the members that the Holy Spirit will give the Graces to be led in all truth if we cooperate with those Graces. I emphasise that the members will be led and not make doctrine. Doctrine is the purvue of those that have that authority given to them.

mdcpensive1

 

[michaelsmth626]

I am bumping this post up here because I think it needs to be addressed as the crux and flaw of SS and of the issues raised on this thread.

I would like to know from the NCC’s that are defending SS here, how we are to obey Christ’s OWN instructions in Mt 18: 15-18 in a way that will Resolve these disagreemnets so that we may:

1. All continue to teach the “Same Gospel”
2. Maintian the Unity that Christ Prayed and that Paul exhorted the faithful to.

SS supporters hold that the Bible has NO Greater Authority - We disagree as to what that Authority is telling us. How do we proceed?

Come on Folks, How shall we Proceed?

Peace
James

Bible practitioners use it as a base line from which to measure that what is taught, is in compliance or agreement with the NT writers. There are 3 points I would like to make that will address your reference to Mathew 18 15-18. Ether one of use could produce more than 3 witnesses to attest to the proper teaching or the true church.

My 3 points of interest.

1. Mathew 16-18 Now where else in scripture does it indicate that anyone other than Jesus is the Rock or foundation of the church. Nether does it indicate an intercessor.
2. Receiving the HS is not the result of being baptized in water. Acts 10-44 Mark 1-8
3. None of the Marion doctrine is found in scripture, Mary’s freedom from sin, conceived without original sin or its stain, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.
4. I’ll ad a forth that was mentioned here, the A and B brand of HS that is given to the believers and the Spirit that was given to the Apostles. It is not a different Spirit the 12 were appointed to testify and establish the new covenant, this mission / ministry was never to be pass on to others. They and they alone carried out the Apostolic mission. These men were completely empowered to present a flawless representation of Jesus to the world threw the power of the HS. That is why the best example Christians today have is the original message contained in the NT letters, not the implied passing of this office threw the ages. Read Mark CH7 and see what Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes about monkeying around with the original message given to Mosses. In Rev we see the new Jerusalem with a wall surrounding it, the foundation contains the names of the 12 Apostles not Peter and the list of Popes. The Church could be indicated as the New Jerusalem the wall with the foundation containing the 12 Apostles will never fail. The gates of hell will never penetrate this wall. The 12 and the 12 alone were empowered by the same Holy Spirit we all receive, their mission was of the highest importance laying the foundation of the wall, it contains no other names but their own. The gates contained the names of the 12 tribes.

Rev 21:12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

So who is the church? You will quote Mathew 16 and reference all the writers except the 12 to support your wall.

 

[SteveGC]

Can you provide some scriptural evidence that supports two flavors of the Holy Spirit one for the Apostles (that now only exist in the catholic church) and one for everybody else?

guidance from the Spirit - given to us by the Church
Sounds to me like you dont have the Spirit but depend on the church to provide it.

One Holy Spirit. Gifts which flow from the Spirit are often not the same for every individual - certainly you would not contend otherwise?

Of course you can’t fathom this if you deny the reality of a visible, authoritative Christ-inspired Church on earth, and believe that a Church Christ decided to build Himself would be constructed by Him deliberately to be invisible to the entire world (a preposterous notion). As a result of all this, you now find it necessary to gratuitously place yourself in the midst of every pronoun found within Scripture…i.e. He will guide you unto all truth (“you” to you is you…vs. the actual meaning, which is that the “you” is the apostles).

Of course, many of the commands and teachings were indeed intended for us, so we can comfortably affirm that we, 2000 years later, are indeed the intended audience and target object of a statement. But you seem incapable of knowing where to draw the line. Do you claim for yourself to be the intended object of ALL the statements written in Scripture, or just the ones that suit you best, as in the aforementioned “you” where the apostles are directly addressed? How about verses 10 and 12 of John 16, which lead up to verse 13, within which you claim to be the “you”. Are you the “you” in those preceding verses too? If you acknowledge that there are some statements intended for others, and not you, then how can you affirm at all what precisely the Holy Spirit’s role in your life really is?

hint…you need a Church to help you understand it, my friend.

Blessings.

 

[guanophore]

 First, the books of the Old Testament come from Jewish tradition -- not Christian tradition. There were two Jewish traditions which recognized different books of Cannon. Luther followed one and the Catholic Church followed another. Thus, Luther did not remove the books he simply followed a different tradition.

Well, yes, but what is so bizarre is siding with those who rejected Christ, and throwing out scriptures used by the Apostles, and those which had prophesies about Christ.

Third, I will not debate if this was in error or not because we will simply both state our cases ad nausium since it is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact.

No, the content of the Holy Scriptures is not a “matter of opinion”. The books that belonged in the canon were revealed to the Church by God. If people cannot accept the Septuagint, they have no basis to accept the NT, since they were both chosen by the same bunch of Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

 When Luther made his translation, he didn't end up doing something new.  He ended up following what he believed was the historic faith.

I believe he was sincere in his objections to Catholic practice.

As for the Old Testament and the Apocryphal books he certainly wasn’t an innovator there either. When you take the references he used in his translation, his treatment really was in agreement with them

They are not “apocryphal” books. They are called the Deuterocanon.

In any case, the treatment of the books did not originate with Luther.

No, but what did originate with him is the rebellion. All the other scholars, in spite of their personal opinons, deferred to the collection used by Jesus and the Apostles that had been officially defined by the Church in 382.

 

[SteveGC]

SteveGC:

Hmm, clever that you assumed that the outside authority I speak of is “greater than the word of God”. Nothing is greater than the word of God. And the Bible is not the only “word of God”. Christ is the word of God. Creation itself is the word of God. The Bible is simply the written form of that word.

kcmekim:

The Bible never says that Creation is the word of God,

It most certainly does.

Then God said, “let there be light”. And there was light.

Any quarrels that what God “says” is the word of God? Any quarrels that what He is doing with His word is creating the heavens and the earth? Can we agree that the word of God is many things, and not just a book?

kcmekim:

nor that the Bible is a written form of Christ

I didn’t say the Bible is a written form of Christ. I said Christ Himself is also the word of God (made flesh). And the Bible is yet another form of the word of God (the written form). Point being, the word of God is not confined to any one thing.

SteveGC:

That aside, the outside authority is Christ Himself

kcmekim:

But the Bible is the word of Christ.

More precisely, it’s the written word of God. But that doesn’t make the written word the supreme authority. God retains supreme authority, and God is not confined to a book. On earth, in Christ’s physical absence from us, some earthly authority must remain - else we have no assurance of what is Truth amidst all who claim to possess it, like yourself. Books, regardless of the claim within them that parts of it are inspired, or that it is profitable, are incapable of wielding authority on their own. People wield authority, not physically inanimate objects, even though the Bible is indeed a living document, spiritually speaking. If it could wield authority, then all who prayerfully come to it would receive the same precise meaning as all others who prayerfully come to it. More precisely, it would solve all disputes by two or more who are in disagreement. This will never happen for those who deny the earthly authority of Christ’s Church, because the truth of the matter is that the Spirit is not intended for the purpose of discerning doctrine or settling disputes from Scripture alone outside of the historic and perpetually LIVING apostolic authority which is meant to forever accompany it.

SteveGC:

It is their authority (given by Christ Himself) which was never meant to be separated from the written word. Never.

kcmekim:

Which verse is that?

Oh, you’re not going to just let me quote ONE verse are you? That’s sort of letting me off the hook, don’t you think? There are too many to list here.
Here you go. Browse through the 3 links on the left under “The Church”.

SteveGC:

The written word does not authenticate itself.

kcmekim:

I disagree.

Unfortunate. I would hope then you’d have an answer as to how exactly it does this on it’s own? Let me clarify, so we’re on the same page, that what I mean by “authenticate itself” is that Scripture validates that it is the complete written word of God on it’s own…without any outside verification or proclamation of authenticity.

SteveGC:

Our belief is that, through apostolic succession, itself a biblically proven concept

kcmekim:

Then why is it that no Catholic can even show Biblical evidence for this?

Because you haven’t talked to that many devout ones yet? Just a guess. Or perhaps you have been shown it, yet are still in denial, and hold fast to the belief that your interpretation supercedes that of Christ’s Church?

I refer you to the webpage I provided above, just in case you really haven’t been shown where to look.

SteveGc:

this authority to authentically interpret scripture has been preserved within the apostolic family lineage for all time. This outside authority does not wield power ‘over’ the scriptures…as in possessing the power to change it, add to or subtract from it. No. The authority is cooperative, as opposed to superlative. It is the possession (from Christ) to preserve, interpret and teach the truths found within it.

kcmekim:

I disagree.

Oh, I know you do. Yet I’m still waiting for your alternative explanation. How is it that an authentic, inerrant interpretation is formulated by a Christian?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I had this thought lying in bed last night and just wanted to get others take on it as a point of fact.
I am not learned enough on the details of the Reformation so please correct me if I am wrong here.

First Martin Luther determined that “The Bible is all you need” (Sola Scriptura)
Then Martin Luther determined that The Bible was wrong and changed it by removing books. (I don’t wish to get into other changes like “adding alone”)

Thoughts? corrections?

peace
James

Both wrong - the second statement more so than the first. An F for you, I think; or maybe an E - -.​

 

[Frankie_M]

Hello, Im Frankie . I have done study on this issue and can tell you that the books that Luther took out originally while making his German translation was Hebrew,James, Jude, Revelations,Judith,parts of Esther and Daniel, Sirach, Baruch,1st and 2nd maccabee ,Wisdom,Tobit,. These books all interfered with the myth of SOLO FIDE(by faith alone)These books interfered with his agenda .Also , (you said you were not interested but I thought you might like to know at least where it came from )in Romans 3:28 is where it says “we are saved by faith apart from the works of the law(Jewish Law.)” Luther added the word “alone”
in between the words faith and apart, adding a whole knew meaning to the verse.I have underlined specific verses in each of the above books that could the reasoning for his illimanation of these books.
God Bless