Sola Scriptura help please

[Maui71]

Went to that CARM website and I had forgotten I had an account there. Read what TB2 posted pretty good but the people there are ruthless how they reply. I don’t mean substantive I mean beyond rude and crass.

Good luck on your project please post it when you are done. Have you asked the same question there?

 

[loneviking]

Went to that CARM website and I had forgotten I had an account there. Read what TB2 posted pretty good but the people there are ruthless how they reply. I don’t mean substantive I mean beyond rude and crass.

Good luck on your project please post it when you are done. Have you asked the same question there?

Yeah, I’m thinking a better term would be ‘vicious’.

That’s why I came over here. I like dialoguing with Roman Catholics and as a Lutheran I share many of the same beliefs and practices—which does not endear me to that nasty crowd of folks over on CARM.

 

[Maui71]

Well I hope you enjoy CAF. I have. You know the Tiber is not that far from Luther…

 

[fermat]

I see the Bible as containing the whole works of God as described by Him in words, stories, similitudes, symbols, numbers, visions and human history.

For me, this is where the wheels came of the SS bus. John 21:25 tells us that the whole could not contain the books if everything that Jesus did was written down. If I follow that the bible contains everything that a Christian out to know and believe, then I wouldn’t know how to handle abortion, gay ‘marriage’ or a host of other issues. I wouldn’t know which church to go to if I have a conflict. Jesus tells us in Matthew 18:17 that the ultimate place to take a disagreement is to the church. There has to be One Single Version of the Truth if that is going to work.

Then there is the fact that the early Christians had no bible. They had the teaching authority of the apostles, which is the same authority modern Catholics enjoy the benefit of. Heck, if it weren’t for that same teaching authority, we wouldn’t have the modern bible at all! The bible doesn’t tell us which books are supposed to be in the bible. That list had to come from somewhere.

I offer this towards the OPs original purpose of ‘dismantling the belief’.

 

[1sicht]

I am not Sola Scriptura but you just did not properly interpret 2nd Peter 1:20…
It is stating that scripture, or the prophecy of scripture, is not the work of one independent person but by men who moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. It has to do with how scripture was written or spoken and not interpretation itself.
In my view, your interpretation does not take into account verses 19 and 21 and the context. It states in verse 16 they do not follow cleverly devised tales, that sets the framework for where the discussion is going.

:clapping: :tiphat:

 

[excubitor]

And that extends to things such as how we worship. There’s no mention made of worshipping at an altar in the New Testament—so it’s not used; incense–ditto; candles—ditto; and the list goes on and on depending on which group you talk too.

Good luck with your project!!

In fact there is some scriptural evidence for all of these things in the scripture. Protestants actually reinterpret the scriptures and then say that they do not teach what they were formerly interpreted to say.

Just one example. You said that there is no mention of worshipping at an altar.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances [1] of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

This is Hebrews 9. Notice that word “also”. What Paul is saying is that the first covenant just like the new covenant ALSO had rubrics of a divine service, an earthly sanctuary, candlesticks, a table, and bread in a sanctuary.

Paul is pointing out the similarities between the two covenants just before he goes on to point out the differences.

Notice also his use of the word “table”. He is describing the Altar of the Old Temple. This word is synonymous with altar. In fact the Lord’s table IS an altar.

Notice here:
1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

He is talking about sacrifices to idols by the Gentiles. The Gentiles ALSO sacrificed upon altars. So the “table” is synonymous with altar here as well.

Even in the OT the altar was referred to as the Lord’s table.
Admittedly in the tent sanctuary there was a table and an altar but look at this incredible passage which almost perfectly describes a Catholic mass.
Numbers 4:7 And upon the table of shewbread they shall spread a cloth of blue, and put thereon the dishes, and the spoons, and the bowls, and covers [1] to cover withal: and the continual bread shall be thereon:

Here is a prophecy of the Ezekiel temple where it prophecies that the table is an altar
Ezekiel 41:22 The altar of wood was three cubits high, and the length thereof two cubits; and the corners thereof, and the length thereof, and the walls thereof, were of wood: and he said unto me, This is the table that is before the Lord.

Ezek 44:16 They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.

And now a prophecy for the corrupt last days found in Malachi 1:7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.

 

[excubitor]

We also have a series of OT examples. Noah, when he came out of the Ark, built an altar.
Abraham built an altar to sacrifice his son upon. Isaac and Jacob also built altars. These are the fathers of the faith.

Moses built an altar.
Notice this incredible passage
Leviticus 6:15 And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the Lord.

Notice the sacrifice is a memorial with incense, flour and oil. All symbols of the Catholic mass. But look at the parallel with the table of the Lord at his supper before his passion.
“This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.”

So the sacrifice upon the Lord’s table is a memorial.

Notice back in Hebrews 9 Paul is contrasting the sacrifices of the Old Covenant with the sacrifices of the New Covenant. Hang on did You hear me right? Yes Sacrifices in the plural
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

We know that he is not talking about prayer. He is talking about the sacrifice of Jesus once for the sins of many? So how can the one sacrifice of Jesus be “heavenly sacrifices” plural. This is explained in Catholic theology which regards the mass as a sacrifice. Thanks John Salza www.scripturecatholic.com .

Also if we have a look at the book of Revelation there is constant reference to the altar in heaven with all the candles and incense. It is basically a description of the catholic mass, but in heaven. That heavenly altar is attended by the saints who were redeemed from all men. So too the altars of the catholic mass are an extension of this heavenly altar. Not separate altars but earthly representations of that one altar which is in heaven.
Just as the statues of the Saints represent the true Saint which is in heaven. And according to the Catholic teaching that Christ is the true altar and the earthly altars merely represent him.

And I have only scratched the surface. What about the patristic fathers which some protestants claim to respect. There are so many references to an altar it was clear that they were talking about the altar they approached every week or daily. They were not talking about some abstract altar from long ago.
Where shall I begin with them.
For example Ignatius referring to Christ as the celestial altar he says: "All are directed to the one Jesus Christ who proceeded from the Father, who was one with Him . . . To Him must all go as to the one temple and one altar.
St. Ephraim
“The table was an altar for Him which He fully consecrated . . . The table was the sacred altar”

Athanasius goes so far as to say that the Christian service is a continuation of the Levitical service but that it adds the dimension of the consecration

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).

Incredible. So the Levitical priesthood is not done away but fulfilled and expanded and completed. In fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 33.18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

Anyway for more information here is a great article about the Christian altar. No Christian no matter how protestant could not be awed by the power of this symbolism. What great tragedy that an unworthy rejection of the Catholic religion could cause such potent truths to be lost to so many Christians.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2787&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=325269

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach wrote, in response to my observations about candles, incense and the rest:

Zach, I’m Lutheran and I don’t have any problem with these things. Over on CARM.org in the Roman Catholic forum though, there are a lot of prots that do and won’t hesitate to tell folks like you and me exactly why we are pagans and how unChristian these things are!

Go over and find the thread on ‘symbols’ started by TP2 who is a RCC parish priest. I think you’ll find the responses nothing short of amazing.

I had an account over there about a year ago now and I only used it for a few months, I had to stop because that site was basically making me physically ill. I just couldn’t handle their utter hatred for Catholicism and their ruthlessness, it literally made me sick to my stomach when I read some of their posts. But I know who you’re talking about, TP2 is quite an astonishing apologist!

 

[zach_dunn]

The object for me in the scriptures being the “sola escritura” is its true basis for determining the “works of God” in behalf of mankind.

That is what has to be determined and not what mankind thinks is that God should require of mankind.

If you can set aside for a moment all your beliefs, regardless of who you are, and concentrate on determine just what the works of God are in the whole of the scriptures, you will be pleasantly surprised at wonderful and loving our God is!

The argument amongst all of us is never ending, and one which is good for the exercise, for in the argument some may come to realize the truth about the works of God verses the works of mankind.

Your work in determining the validity of the “Sola escritura” should be in determining what part of it is the fabrication of mankind and what part of it is God’s.

I see the Bible as containing the whole works of God as described by Him in words, stories, similitudes, symbols, numbers, visions and human history.

The bible is inspired by God as He led numerous man with short comings to write in His behalf.

The whole bible is as like a puzzle, the more we look at it the more the pieces seem to fall into place, that is if the Holy Spirit deems it necessary according to your growth spiritually.

I hope that in this your work, you will define both sides for yourself, and present it objectively to others, so that they to may have the opportunity to decide for themselves what is truth.

Blessings on your endeavor, AJ

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that you hold to sola Scriptura because they contain everything God has done and wishes to reveal to us? Is this along the vein of 2 Tim 3:15 perhaps?

 

[zach_dunn]

Personally, doctrine is that which must be believed. For Lutherans, doctrine has explicit roots in scripture. SS is not explicit in scripture, and therefore not a requirement to be believed (no reason to think there won’t be Catholics and Orthodox in Heaven).

OK, thanks for the clarification! This is kind of off topic, but how do you define “explicit roots”? I mean, do you say the Trinity has explicit roots? Or Christ’s divinity?

It is, however, a reasonable practice to require that teachers and teachings, in the post apostolic era, to at least not contradict scripture.

So is this the essence of traditional Lutheran sola Scriptura? It would seem that Bible is more for keeping doctrines in check then actually basing your doctrines on it, because lots of people could say things that don’t contradict the Bible yet are still wrong . . . right?

The Church - through the Lutheran Confessions - are the authority of Lutheran belief. We also accept the 7 early councils as authoritative. To remain a confessional Lutheran, I must conform to the confessions.
I’m certainly free to create my own religion, but then I would no longer be Lutheran.

So are you saying that the Lutheran Confessions and the 7 early councils are the definitive interpretations of Scripture? That they’re authoritative in some way, possible “infallible”?

 

[look3467]

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that you hold to sola Scriptura because they contain everything God has done and wishes to reveal to us? Is this along the vein of 2 Tim 3:15 perhaps?

Yes, and add this one to: Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

And: 1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Not that we need no instruction, but as children first spiritually, we are instructed by our parent church, which ever that may be, then mature towards a better understandings of the word of God as His holy Spirit gives revelation.

Revelation coupled with experience as that is the only way we learn.

Blessings, AJ

 

[zach_dunn]

If the passage is referring to what not to do as you contend in terms of biblical interpretation, does 2nd Peter say what you should do?

I don’t think Peter states what to do explicitly, but it is implied. I think essentially what he wants Christians to do is the opposite of the the false teachers will do, they will be ignorant, lustful, and despise authority [2 Pet 2:10, 12]. I’m sure it would also help if Christians would supplement their faith-life with some good ol’ knowledge [2 Pet 1:5-6, 8]. What do you think?

 

[zach_dunn]

Went to that CARM website and I had forgotten I had an account there. Read what TB2 posted pretty good but the people there are ruthless how they reply. I don’t mean substantive I mean beyond rude and crass.

Good luck on your project please post it when you are done. Have you asked the same question there?

Yeah, I’m thinking a better term would be ‘vicious’.

That’s why I came over here. I like dialoguing with Roman Catholics and as a Lutheran I share many of the same beliefs and practices—which does not endear me to that nasty crowd of folks over on CARM.

Yeah, I simply cannot make myself go over there anymore!

 

[zach_dunn]

For me, this is where the wheels came of the SS bus. John 21:25 tells us that the whole could not contain the books if everything that Jesus did was written down. If I follow that the bible contains everything that a Christian out to know and believe, then I wouldn’t know how to handle abortion, gay ‘marriage’ or a host of other issues. I wouldn’t know which church to go to if I have a conflict. Jesus tells us in Matthew 18:17 that the ultimate place to take a disagreement is to the church. There has to be One Single Version of the Truth if that is going to work.

Then there is the fact that the early Christians had no bible. They had the teaching authority of the apostles, which is the same authority modern Catholics enjoy the benefit of. Heck, if it weren’t for that same teaching authority, we wouldn’t have the modern bible at all! The bible doesn’t tell us which books are supposed to be in the bible. That list had to come from somewhere.

I offer this towards the OPs original purpose of ‘dismantling the belief’.

Haha, thank you, you make some valid points which I plan to use!

 

[zach_dunn]

:clapping: :tiphat:

What do you think about the interpretation I proposed?

 

[look3467]

For me, this is where the wheels came of the SS bus. John 21:25 tells us that the whole could not contain the books if everything that Jesus did was written down. If I follow that the bible contains everything that a Christian out to know and believe, then I wouldn’t know how to handle abortion, gay ‘marriage’ or a host of other issues. I wouldn’t know which church to go to if I have a conflict. Jesus tells us in Matthew 18:17 that the ultimate place to take a disagreement is to the church. There has to be One Single Version of the Truth if that is going to work.

Then there is the fact that the early Christians had no bible. They had the teaching authority of the apostles, which is the same authority modern Catholics enjoy the benefit of. Heck, if it weren’t for that same teaching authority, we wouldn’t have the modern bible at all! The bible doesn’t tell us which books are supposed to be in the bible. That list had to come from somewhere.

I offer this towards the OPs original purpose of ‘dismantling the belief’.

You have a good argument there.

Jesus had but a short time here to spread the good news, thus He choose 12 Apostles as His foundation.

After the laws of Moses, and the laws enacted by the Jewish nation amounting in the hundreds, it was impossible to introduce a new belief system, especially of grace.

Thus, Jesus left two Commandments that encompasses all 10 Commandments without and other requirements.

You see, under grace there are no requirements, since grace is freely given.

So, the Church, made up of believers in Christ, are free to determine their own behavior based on, get this, not laws, but of love towards God, wanting to be obedient rather than having to.

So where then is the authority come from to free lance, if you will?

From this verse: Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Anything that binds us by requirement is not being free, thus remain under the yoke bondage.

Your authority is Jesus who set you free, not the church, not any other institution.

Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Are you…indeed…free?

Blessings, AJ

 

[zach_dunn]

Yes, and add this one to: Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This message is given to the Apostles and not to everyone in general. While the Bible does speak of Christians being led by the Spirit [Rom 8:11; Gal 5:16, 18], it does not say that every Christian will be taught all things directly by the Holy Spirit, or the that Holy Spirit will bring these truths to the remembrance of every single Christian.

And: 1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Not that we need no instruction, but as children first spiritually, we are instructed by our parent church, which ever that may be, then mature towards a better understandings of the word of God as His holy Spirit gives revelation.

Revelation coupled with experience as that is the only way we learn.

Blessings, AJ

So are you saying that the Holy Spirit gives individuals private revelation as they mature so that they can understand the Scriptures?

 

[zach_dunn]

You have a good argument there.

Jesus had but a short time here to spread the good news, thus He choose 12 Apostles as His foundation.

After the laws of Moses, and the laws enacted by the Jewish nation amounting in the hundreds, it was impossible to introduce a new belief system, especially of grace.

Thus, Jesus left two Commandments that encompasses all 10 Commandments without and other requirements.

You see, under grace there are no requirements, since grace is freely given.

So, the Church, made up of believers in Christ, are free to determine their own behavior based on, get this, not laws, but of love towards God, wanting to be obedient rather than having to.

So where then is the authority come from to free lance, if you will?

From this verse: Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Anything that binds us by requirement is not being free, thus remain under the yoke bondage.

Your authority is Jesus who set you free, not the church, not any other institution.

Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Are you…indeed…free?

Blessings, AJ

It sounds like you’re basically saying that Christians are free to do whatever they want as long as they love God, Jesus gave more commandments than just two you know!

 

[look3467]

This message is given to the Apostles and not to everyone in general. While the Bible does speak of Christians being led by the Spirit [Rom 8:11; Gal 5:16, 18], it does not say that every Christian will be taught all things directly by the Holy Spirit, or the that Holy Spirit will bring these truths to the remembrance of every single Christian.

Yes, to the Apostles first, since they had to be the first to have revelation not thaught by Christ, for Jesus’ short time period.

But the job of revelation is not to the Apostles, but to the Holy Spirit who indwells a soul and knows just what is needed at the time it is needed and not before.

You see, we are one on one with God, directly linked to Him via the Spirit of God in us.

God reveals to us about Himself based on what God sees in our hearts and what is needed at the time.

So, we are never alone as promised, “Lo I will be with you always”.

And yes, as babes in Christ, our churches do teach us some basics, hopefully towards the maturing of our spiritual quest.

As mature Christians, we are independent from any organization, though we choose to belong to one, but that in itself has no beaing on our individuality, unless we allow to be placed under subjection.

So are you saying that the Holy Spirit gives individuals private revelation as they mature so that they can understand the Scriptures?

Yes, it has to me.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

It sounds like you’re basically saying that Christians are free to do whatever they want as long as they love God, Jesus gave more commandments than just two you know!

Can you name them?

And basically, if one needs the law to be governed by, than why have love for God willingly?

Sort of like pad locks on doors for the honest?

Honesty needs no locks of any kind, for there is no desire to steal.

If I am free, than I must be able to exercise my freedom in everything, otherwise, I would need restraints.

But read this verse: Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Does that not sound like we have the option? “Only use”?

You decide what you want to do, if God dwells within you, your desire is to Him willingly.

Blessings, AJ