Sola Scriptura again

[ezeekl]

Can not speak to Luther’s attitude towards his parents…P’s do not claim perfection and i believe are gracious in accepting faults of other churches also. I would say that is strained from time to time when CC alone claims perfection in her doctrine… Reform succeeded because of Luther, that is, as a catalyst. That reform was tried but unsuccessfully is shown by Wycliffe or Huss or Savanrola. It also came with Loyola before and at trent. and much of his reform was aimed at winning back Lutherans in germany…

Not really, The protestant movement occurred at one of those junction points in history where change is more or less inevitable. Luther lived at a time when Nationalism was on the rise. People began to think of themselves in terms of a national identity. Henry VII of England would use this political mechanism to form his Church of England rather than obedience to Rome. It was here that the Catholic Church was given the qualifier “Roman” to show it was somehow foreign to England. The idea caught on with other groups. This is the world that Luther experienced. If Luther did not receive help from the German princes who sought political gain from the German king he would have had far less impact. Luther was in the right place at the right time and thus did not end up like Wycliffe or Huss. Neither Wycliffe nor Huss had the political support that Luther did. Nor did they have the benefit of the printing press. Luther did. As for Savanrola, I would hesitate to lump him in with Luther, Wycliffe and Huss although like Luther he did enjoy some political support.

 

[benhur]

Well, would the Holy Spirit permit someone to bind or loose something that was not true?

doe he override free will /? there is a bit if binding that is ‘unauthorized’ .

If the Spirit did so is that really guiding into all truth?

i would not tempt him by assuming whom he will guide or more importantly, whom he will not.

He said He had more things to tell the Apostles but they could not bear it at the time. Those things would be revealed by the Spirit. Jesus could have very easily given the Apostles a book of all truth but He didn’t. Instead he chose to reveal things to them over time.

Yes and…

But I still have a problem with the notion that somehow the church apostasized, slipped into error or whatever way one wants to justify another denominations belief system. Scripturally such a notion is a contradiction. In addition to the Spirit leading into all truth, Jesus said He would remain with His church until the end of the age. I can’t imagine Jesus just standing idly by and watching his church fall into error especially after He paid a very heavy price for it.

First of all, what is the apostasy that is foretold? Is there one ?

 

[ezeekl]

doe he override free will /?

I don’t think free will enters into the equation. If what is bound on earth has already been bound in heaven does free will apply. I think of the OT prophets when they said, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” Did free will enter into the picture? I don’t think so.

there is a bit if binding that is ‘unauthorized’ . i would not tempt him by assuming whom he will guide or more importantly, whom he will not.

If one accepts that the OT is a foreshadowing of the NT which most christians do then
no assumption is necessary. God had designated prophets who received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and led the people. The OT church knew the prophets. So too in the NT the NT church knew the Apostles were God’s designated leaders. And just as the mantle was passed in the OT from one generation to another so too in the NT that succession is maintained.

Yes and…
First of all, what is the apostasy that is foretold? Is there one ?

Yes there is an apostacy prophecized in that there will be a falling away from the faith. But there is nothing that says that the church will not endure. I don’t want to get into a discussion on millenialism or end times because quite frankly that whole area is clouded in mystery which has not been fully revealed.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good call. Not sure right now except that at times or maybe only once he says I not The Lord say this.the inference is that the rest is The Lord saying, speaking.

Are you saying that where Paul writes it is he but not the Lord who is saying something that this part of his letter is uninspired?

PAX
:heaven:

 

[SyroMalankara]

sola scriptura strikes again:

Benny Hinn, Christian faith-healing evangelist, has asked supporters to step up to “higher seed-level giving” by donating $1,000 to his ministry, with the suggestion that they would enter a “new dimension of favor and increase” like he did after trying out financial teacher Todd Coontz’s “thousand-dollar principle.”

Hinn, whose followers number more than 1.7 million on Facebook and Twitter, credited Coontz as inspiration for the higher seed-level giving principle in a newsletter emailed to supporters over the weekend.

“I’ve believed in seed-faith giving for decades, and I’ve seen it work time after time, but where do you get this $1,000 teaching?” Hinn says he asked Coontz during a conference in Dallas. “He showed me from the Bible how Solomon offered a thousand animals to God. He told me there’s something very special about the number 1,000 and the miracles he has seen when people cross that line in giving.”

After trying out Coontz’s “$1,000 teaching,” Hinn claims he received from God “quick” results that were “nothing short of miraculous, and totally life-changing!”

“Because of what I heard, and responding to his challenge, I stepped into a new dimension of favor and increase,” adds Hinn. “And that’s the purpose of this email!”

Hinn goes on to cite Luke 6:38 and 2 Corinthians 9:6, verses popular among prosperity preachers, about receiving or “reaping” in proportion to one’s giving, or “sowing,” stating, “Give God more to work with. Expect more. Greater faith releases the anointing!”

Prosperity preachers commonly claim that God rewards financially those who donate money, oftentimes to their own ministries or churches, and that the more one gives, the bigger the reward.

In his request for supporters to “move up to a higher level,” the Israel-born televangelist explains why the figure 1,000 holds significance in the Bible: “In fact, the word thousand is recorded in the King James Version of the Bible 521 times, so it is obviously a number that is important to the kingdom of God.”

Hinn concludes his appeal by encouraging supporters to “sow a generous gift of $1,000 or whatever God places on your heart today.”

Although Hinn reports having several outreach ministries, such as orphanages in places like Asia and Mexico, and relies on donations to finance his national and international “miracle crusades” and evangelistic meetings, the minister remains controversial among some in the Christian community for teaching a prosperity message. Hinn, who reportedly has a net worth of $42 million, also has been criticized and investigated by numerous news organizations for his purported faith healings.

Coontz is described as a businessman, entrepreneur, television host, financial teacher, philanthropist and best-selling author. He also is a televangelist who promotes on his RockWealth International Ministries website at least four different options for “seed” giving. The giving options range from a “Hope Seed” of $30 a month to feed the hungry, to the “Triple Favor Seed” with a price tag of $1,000.

http://images.christianpost.com/ful...-to-feed-the-hungry-or-get-a-triple-favor.jpg

Coontz, who claims that “for over 20 years he has carefully embraced his lifetime assignment and passion to teach people how to Qualify, Receive, and Manage Wealth according to Deuteronomy 8:18,” was the subject of a news investigation last year for telling viewers of his TV program to rush him a $273 “Recovery Seed” donation. His RockWealth International Ministries is affiliated with RockWealth International Church, which is registered in South Carolina with the IRS and appears to exist only online.

Coontz and Hinn frequently work together, with the financial guru and minister tweeting on Monday that he had just arrived at Los Angeles International Airport to do a taping with the charismatic preacher. Coontz also shared a photo over the weekend of himself and Hinn, whom he identified as an “Uncommon Healer & Teacher of Jesus Christ!”

Benny Hinn Ministries is affiliated with his Texas church, World Healing Center Church, a nonprofit organization that is registered with the IRS and not required to publicly disclose its financial information, as is the case with Coontz’s organization.

Next up for Hinn on what he calls his worldwide miracle healing crusade is an event on June 19 in Tunapuna, Trinidad, described on the evangelist’s website as a “fire impartation conference.”

 

[spina1953]

Not really, The protestant movement occurred at one of those junction points in history where change is more or less inevitable. Luther lived at a time when Nationalism was on the rise. People began to think of themselves in terms of a national identity. Henry VII of England would use this political mechanism to form his Church of England rather than obedience to Rome. It was here that the Catholic Church was given the qualifier “Roman” to show it was somehow foreign to England. The idea caught on with other groups. This is the world that Luther experienced. If Luther did not receive help from the German princes who sought political gain from the German king he would have had far less impact. Luther was in the right place at the right time and thus did not end up like Wycliffe or Huss. Neither Wycliffe nor Huss had the political support that Luther did. Nor did they have the benefit of the printing press. Luther did. As for Savanrola, I would hesitate to lump him in with Luther, Wycliffe and Huss although like Luther he did enjoy some political support.

Hi ezeekl: Great point! I have tried to make that very point in several early posts on SS. I would also like to point out that King henry VIII also needed monies for his ships and armies and saw the Church’s in England as rich which is why he took them over, so it was not just because he could not get an annulment. I doubt that Luther would have been able to do what he did with out the political help from the German princes as you so well stated.

 

[Good_Fella]

No one is denying the shepherding of the church…Actually Luther was part of that…

He was until he started scattering our Lord’s sheep.

the binding scripture is actually in favor of Luther for it really states that what is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth, that is you can not bind something God won’t bind.

You’re begging the question. You’re attempting to reach what you have already concluded - that Luther bound what God would bind. I suppose you think that God corrected Himself and decided to abolish the final teaching authority of an ecumenical council which the Lord had initially conferred on the Apostles.

So let’s say indulgences are wrong or ungodly god doesn’t say it is ok if pope or council say it is…

First of all, the problem wasn’t with indulgences, but rather with their abuse by some of the wayward clergy and laity. Luther was right in attempting to redress the abuses that were going on. But, unfortunately, he went too far. Meanwhile, if the Magisterium says that indulgences are ok, then they must be; since Christ speaks through it, just as he has spoken through every ecumenical coumcil.

Scripture does not say what ever you bind is bound, or whatever you say goes. It is very careful to make the strong implication that what is heavenly will be earthly…the correct Greek translation understanding of the verse will bear me out. It should be understood as , “whatever is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth”.

Scripture certainly doesn’t say what you’re implying, that occasionally the Church has attempted to teach or legislate something against the will of God. What the Church binds or looses on earth is heavenly. And the power to bind and loose rests with the Magisterium of the Church on Christ’s authority. What the teaching authority of the Church binds and looses on earth “will have been bound and loosed” in heaven. Jesus is telling Simon Peter that he shall have the power to bind and loose on earth because he will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mt. 16:17-19).

PAX

 

[benhur]

Are you saying that where Paul writes it is he but not the Lord who is saying something that this part of his letter is uninspired?

PAX
:heaven:

Not sure ,but he makes a differentiation of sorts doesn’t he ? What is the verse ? do you have it?

 

[benhur]

He was until he started scattering our Lord’s sheep.

Yes, peter will bind on earth and has the keys to do so ,what is bound in heaven . it does not intimate perfection but the path to perfection (better know what is bound in heaven).

 

[benhur]

If one accepts that the OT is a foreshadowing of the NT which most christians do then
no assumption is necessary. God had designated prophets who received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and led the people. The OT church knew the prophets. So too in the NT the NT church knew the Apostles were God’s designated leaders. And just as the mantle was passed in the OT from one generation to another so too in the NT that succession is maintained.

And no prophet erred ? No prophet was stoned and for what ? God was still sovereign and was not respecter of persons. Did God’s people (Jews/Israel) always recognize the correct prophet ?

Yes there is an apostacy prophecized in that there will be a falling away from the faith. But there is nothing that says that the church will not endure.

Correct, and it seems you are implying you are the only church with believers. But even according to CC teaching ,other churches have grace and salvation, therefore even if CC apostasizes she remains thru these other churches who owe all graces to CC…Do the Lutherans say they can not apostasize because , "the church will always endure " ?

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl

If one accepts that the OT is a foreshadowing of the NT which most christians do then
no assumption is necessary. God had designated prophets who received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and led the people. The OT church knew the prophets. So too in the NT the NT church knew the Apostles were God’s designated leaders. And just as the mantle was passed in the OT from one generation to another so too in the NT that succession is maintained.

And no prophet erred ? No prophet was stoned and for what ? God was still sovereign and was not respecter of persons. Did God’s people (Jews/Israel) always recognize the correct prophet?

No true prophet erred on his prophecy. A 99% score was not acceptable to God. As for always recognizing the correct prophet, did the Jews recognize the Messiah? But look at today, how many people do not recognize the true church established by Jesus.

Quote:
Yes there is an apostacy prophecized in that there will be a falling away from the faith. But there is nothing that says that the church will not endure.

Correct, and it seems you are implying you are the only church with believers. But even according to CC teaching ,other churches have grace and salvation, therefore even if CC apostasizes she remains thru these other churches who owe all graces to CC…Do the Lutherans say they can not apostasize because , "the church will always endure " ?

Not really but we are the church with the total deposit of faith given to the Apostles. All other denominations have a share or a portion of that deposit but none have the full deposit. But as for the church not apostasizing it is not just Catholics who say it. Jesus said it. Scripture says it. Again, we are getting into matters involving end time events and due to the fact these events have not been fully revealed and remain in mystery, I would choose to not delve into a discussion of the end times. Also, it is somewhat off topic

 

[benhur]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl

If one accepts that the OT is a foreshadowing of the NT which most christians do then
no assumption is necessary. God had designated prophets who received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and led the people. The OT church knew the prophets. So too in the NT the NT church knew the Apostles were God’s designated leaders. And just as the mantle was passed in the OT from one generation to another so too in the NT that succession is maintained.

No true prophet erred on his prophecy. A 99% score was not acceptable to God. As for always recognizing the correct prophet, did the Jews recognize the Messiah? But look at today, how many people do not recognize the true church established by Jesus.

Quote:
Yes there is an apostacy prophecized in that there will be a falling away from the faith. But there is nothing that says that the church will not endure.

Not really but we are the church with the total deposit of faith given to the Apostles. All other denominations have a share or a portion of that deposit but none have the full deposit. But as for the church not apostasizing it is not just Catholics who say it. Jesus said it. Scripture says it. Again, we are getting into matters involving end time events and due to the fact these events have not been fully revealed and remain in mystery, I would choose to not delve into a discussion of the end times. Also, it is somewhat off topic

so the Catholic Church is going to apostasize ?..it is immaterial to say you have the full deposit of faith in regards to apostasy.it will not prevent it

 

[Good_Fella]

…All I said is I think Luther only meant that church was wrong and if you are wrong it is not binding cause it is not truthful therefore not bound in heaven…He said church did not match heaven primarily . If he was suggesting he ( the truth he was espousing on the matter) matched heaven that was secondary.

The selling of indulgences by some corrupt clergy was something never proposed or officially sanctioned by the Church, although this abuse had been somewhat negligently ignored until the Council of Trent condemned it and put a stop to it. The authority to take final measures and reform the Church rested with the College of Bishops in union with the Pope.

Yes, peter will bind on earth and has the keys to do so ,what is bound in heaven . it does not intimate perfection but the path to perfection (better know what is bound in heaven).

The power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven represents the Church’s preservation and immunity from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic doctrines pertaining to matters of faith (i.e., justification) and morals (i.e., homosexuality) by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s assistance. Peter pronounced a dogmatic statement when he declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And it was not by “flesh and blood” (human reasoning) that Peter grasped and proclaimed this divine truth. Also, the keys represent the power of the Church to legislate over matters of practice. Again, this authority lay with the Council of Trent with respect to the sale of indulgences. Paul had the Church’s immunity from liability to error and failure in mind with regard to her definitive teachings and sanctions when he described the Church as Christ’s “unblemished” bride.
“I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you."
John 14, 18

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

so the Catholic Church is going to apostasize ?..it is immaterial to say you have the full deposit of faith in regards to apostasy.it will not prevent it

Just because men like Martin Luther and John Calvin renounced their affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church, that doesn’t mean the deposit of faith didn’t rest with the Church. Apostasy occurs because the apostate has a free will which, nonetheless, God will still respect despite the error of their ways. And as for individual Catholic apostates, they do not speak for the entire Church whose definitive teachings they have renounced and abandoned. Thus they cannot make void the Church’s divine authority to teach what belongs to the deposit of faith: sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition.

For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true.
Romans 3, 2-4
PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Not sure ,but he makes a differentiation of sorts doesn’t he ? What is the verse ? do you have it?

I do recall that Paul occasionally asserted that what he taught or upheld did not originate from him, but from God and the authority of his divine commission. But he was referring to his preaching and what was written in the OT in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Definitely he didn’t mean to say that he had written his letter by a singular inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Since you have brought this question to our attention, perhaps you should provide the scriptural passages pertaining to it so that it can be discussed properly.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[ezeekl]

so the Catholic Church is going to apostasize ?..it is immaterial to say you have the full deposit of faith in regards to apostasy.it will not prevent it

No, I did not say that. Jesus said He would remain with His church until the end of the age. It is inconceivable that He would remain with a church that apostacized. The Jews lost their temple when they turned from the Lord why would Jesus remain with a church that did the same? Therefore, it is very material to say that the Catholic Church possesses the full deposit of faith that Jesus entrusted to the apostles. No protestant denomination can or actually does, claim a history that goes back to that first Pentecost. No protestant denomination is therefore apostolic. In addition, protestant denominations have a plethora of beliefs and doctrines that contradict each other. Baptism is a good example of this. Protestant denominations are therefore not united as one. Jesus prayedthat His followers would be one just as He and the Father were one.

So this whole idea among protestants that there is a catholic church (note small"c") and a Catholic Church (large “C”) is baloney. There is only one Catholic Church. That name was given to the church by Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch, in 107 AD. So when protestants recite the Nicene Creed and say that they believe in “…One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” they are affirming the Catholic Church and not their own denomination.

 

[spina1953]

There has always been abuses within the Church since nearly the beginning since there are those who for their own personal reasons wanted to force their private views on others and also wanted power over others, yet when it came to faith and morals as pertains to doctrines they were or did not make any. There have been priests, bishops and popes who lived a life of sin, bishops and popes who abused their power, yet declared no doctrines or dogma’s. There were those outside the Church who thought to control popes bishops and also to elect popes and bishops who lived a life contrary to the Gospels. yet never once were doctrines or dogma’s declared by them. However there were always those who tried to reform the Church from those abusing it, yet, did not leave it or go against accepted doctrines and dogma’s.

People like Luther Calvin Zwigli and others who, saw abuses took it upon themselves to dictate their own personal beliefs in a manor that instead of trying to help correct the abuses and those who were abusing their power sought to instead leave the Church and cause others to leave with new ideas that everyone could read Scripture without the guidance of the Catholic Church. Since those who broke away from the Church needed some sort of authority after rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, the Bible became the sole authority.

While reading Scripture is always a good thing and can bring comfort, and profit and understanding in how can live a life God desires of all of us, PI in turn does nothing but put the authority into the hands of the person reading Scripture as to whatever that person thinks it says and means. This in turn does more harm than good since one can by a lack of knowledge assure many different meanings and can and often does distort the meaning and what Scripture is saying and how one is to understand it. One can see this on a daily basis as there are those who think that whatever they think Scripture is saying and whatever they think it means becomes the only one, one can have and if one does not agree with it they are simply wrong. While this may not be true of everyone who reads Scripture, nonetherless, there are far to many who do think this way. Scripture never says that it is of itself a sole authority nor does it say that private interpretation is the means to understand by anyone and everyone. Without the guidance of the Catholic Church, Scripture is often distorted by those lacking in understanding of many of the difficult writings found in Scripture and the many different literary styles that were used by the writers found in Scripture.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Call it for what it is. It was a revolt against the authority of the church. It matters not what sugar coating you want to place on it by calling it a “reforming” of the church. The real reformation occurred at Trent just as in prior centuries the church underwent reforming at councils. .

For the sake of clarity, this was your response when I asked for scholarly academic citations. I understand this is an internet forum where personal opinions are more than welcome for exploratory purposes, but even if this were Wikipedia, this is the sort of thing that would be deleted from any relevant entry within minutes.

I understand that this is your opinion. But that is all. It is not authoritative because the only source that you’ve produced is you and your own opinion. Just because you are Catholic does not necessarily mean you personally speak for the Catholic Church when you have a deeply-felt opinion, and just because you’re talking about the Catholic Church does not mean you necessarily speak with the authority of the Catholic Church. I respect your view as your personal opinion, but I am not convinced that it is the precise view (in toto) of the Catholic Church. I would surmise that the actual position articulated by the CC is not entirely different from what you’ve stated, and I would not be at all surprised if your own personal opinions succeed in avoiding opposition to the stated view of the CC. But if you really want to help me understand what the Catholic Church truly says about itself and about the Protestant Reformation, you’re going to have to cite some Church scholars, some Church leaders, some Church sources. Ideally, there would be multiple sources from multiple centuries allowing me to see what was said at and around the time of Trent along with commentary from more recent Catholics of importance who talk about the issue as well as developing the ideas found in the statements from previous sources. This is the same sort of sourcing that everyone else on this forum does when they wish to help non-Catholics know what the Catholic Church teaches. I’m not asking for anything that’s weird, unusual, or off base.

If you have any sources pertaining to what the Reformation should properly be called, I would be happy to read them. If you only have a deeply felt opinion, however, I’ll remind you that I have some deeply held opinions of my own but I’m choosing to keep them to myself in favor of genuine inquiry. It’s possible that you’re not the right person to talk to, though. Maybe I should make a call to a Catholic apologist and get some sources to go along with personal opinion.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If you have any sources pertaining to what the Reformation should properly be called, I would be happy to read them.

Fine. Call it a reformation. I have no problem with that name.
MEN “re-formed” the Church that Christ had originally formed Himself.
Think about it.

 

[benhur]

The power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven represents the Church’s preservation and immunity from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic doctrines pertaining to matters of faith (i.e., justification) and morals (i.e., homosexuality) by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s assistance. Peter pronounced a dogmatic statement when he declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And it was not by “flesh and blood” (human reasoning) that Peter grasped and proclaimed this divine truth. Also, the keys represent the power of the Church to legislate over matters of practice. Again, this authority lay with the Council of Trent with respect to the sale of indulgences. Paul had the Church’s immunity from liability to error and failure in mind with regard to her definitive teachings and sanctions when he described the Church as Christ’s “unblemished” bride.
“I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you."
John 14, 18

PAX
:heaven:It was much more than human reasoning that fails or is “inadequate.” Jesus did not say thru the scripture, thru tradition, thru your parents, thru My miracles, thru the rabbis or pharisees or other established teachers gave him this revelation. To insist that divine revelation rests in an office is missing the context of the story. This revelation is willing to be poured into any who come to desire it, any man, any “you”, for Jesus asked, " who do men say that I am… and what about you ?". He did not ask what do the pharisees think or the Sanhedrin, or the Saducees, or any institution think but "men’’ . It was a “people” moment, a one on one confrontation with Jesus, that we can all have now if not later.