Sola Scriptura--now I get

[DARichards]

mike182d:

So, after five pages of posts, has a single Protestant been able to show where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible?

Mike,

I understand. I started a thread entitled “Questions for Bible Questions”. And guess what…Not one response…Check it out…Nobody can do it!! IT’S NOT THERE…

 

[DARichards]

boogablue:

I really don’t understand why there is such focus on interpreting scripture as opposed to interpreting the will of God.

I don’t understand why someone would focus on sin today when ALL have SINNED. Everyone, in the Past tense.
That is a done deal.

Its all over, we can’t go onto the New Heaven and New Earth under our own power. There’s nothing we could have done, can do today, or could ever do by our own hands to save ourselves.

This is why we need a Saviour, right?

This is the purpose of Jesus Christ, right? Christ saved us from sin! Isn’t that why God sent Jesus? Isn’t that understanding the will of God?
Jesus did what we could not - he bore the weight of our sin (all of it!). [notice the past tense.]

What else can we do today to ensure our salvation besides NOT rejecting this awesome gift from Jesus Christ? Remember that we could not /cannot save ourselves from sin and are incapable of doing so in the future. Only the Blood of Christ is capable of saving us…and that blood has been shed. (past tense again.)

I don’t think there is anything else we can do to save ourselves.
If Christ paid the price in full at the time of his crucifixion, what more cost is there?
What, are we “paying for the tip?” To whom does the “tip” go to if that’s true?

This confuses me about Catholics. The Blood of Jesus ensured our salvation - There is no more that can be done/nothing that can and will ever compare to the Blood of the Lamb of God to ensure our salvation, yet the Catholic church says that you have yet to get there?!!?!!?!!! I don’t get it!!

I’m confused!!! You’re confusing me!!!
Don’t lie to me.

If you will ask a specific question , we will try to answer. It seem that you have valid questions, but your post is a little broad.

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

BUT, catholicism is saying this writing is about all those who interpret NT writings on their own with no authority will lead them to twisting scripture to their own destruction…

"No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation"… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

geno75:

Magesterium, things that make you go HHHmmmmmmmmm…

geno’s posts-----things that make you go** smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_13_9.gif **

 

[geno75]

DARichards:

Mike,

I understand. I started a thread entitled “Questions for Bible Questions”. And guess what…Not one response…Check it out…Nobody can do it!! IT’S NOT THERE…

Well, the Church of Rome is plainly showing me for NT proof that Peter was pope is found in Matt 16, and from there on out they count the number of times his name shows up. In 2nd Peter he acknowledges his time is near, but doesnt even foreshadow or vaguely hint that his papal “chair” or “office” will be filled. He even mentions himself as an “elder”, no more or less, and the NT show that there were many other elders in different churches. Yes, he was one of the twelve, and that has a whole other meaning than “pope”.

I wonder why the other 2 authors in Mark and Luke decided when it told of Peters confession of Christ, it was not important to EMPHASIZE the fact that Jesus instituted Peter as pope?

Dont even bother listing those post NT fear-filled, swash-buckling letters. The tones in those letters hold no comparison to the letters written in the NT. Maybe those post NT letter writers had a problem with those churches and believers conforming to the greco-roman style of the gospel as they spread out in the world to share the gospel. Even after persecution, you can see the tones of, “we were the ones persecuted, this gospel is ours, and it will be spread out to the world our way.” The ONE TRUE CHURCH!"

 

[Philthy]

kujo313:

I’m not interpreting the Constitution for myself. But both you and I can see what it says. The SAME words in both of our eyes.

What it means is what’s important, not what it says, per se. The difference is not on what it says, but what is meant by what it says. Why else would we have a Supreme Court???
“This is my body” We both know what it says, but what does it mean? What does the “is” mean exactly?

kujo313:

Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible. Yet Peter, your first “Pope”, had to be rebuked by Paul. How DARE Paul rebuke the Pope! WHO does he think he is??

It is mostly comforting to see such a display of ignorance regarding the Catholic faith by nonCatholics. You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about, yet you possess all the confidence in the world. It raises the hopeful possiblility that if you were to ever learn what the Church actually teaches that you might not be so opposed to it. There is no mutual exclusivity between Papal infallibility and Papal sin or error in most situations.

kujo313:

Nonsense. Peter was fallible, but yet, a witness. He could preach it, but not live it. He needed a Savior. Nobody can live it fully. Nobody. We all have sinned and fallen short. We all need a Savior.

Of course we do - what’s your point? Do you think we believe that the Pope doesnt need a Savior? Simply ignorance on your part.

kujo313:

If I were you, I’d fear the traditions that are not Scriptually based.

Ahh. And there is the ultimate Paradox for the Sola Scriptura proponent: Scripture tells us to hold fast to the traditions handed down (2Thess) without telling us what they are. Yet we are bound to uphold them! The people who received them were bound to as well and the people who received them from the first generations were also bound and on and on. No one ever declared oral tradition “obsolete” and no longer part of the faith. Id fear traditions that are not reflected in Scripture AND historical Christianity …

 

[montanaman]

geno75:

Well, the Church of Rome is plainly showing me for NT proof that Peter was pope is found in Matt 16, and from there on out they count the number of times his name shows up. In 2nd Peter he acknowledges his time is near, but doesnt even foreshadow or vaguely hint that his papal “chair” or “office” will be filled. He even mentions himself as an “elder”, no more or less, and the NT show that there were many other elders in different churches. Yes, he was one of the twelve, and that has a whole other meaning than “pope”.

I wonder why the other 2 authors in Mark and Luke decided when it told of Peters confession of Christ, it was not important to EMPHASIZE the fact that Jesus instituted Peter as pope?

Dont even bother listing those post NT fear-filled, swash-buckling letters. The tones in those letters hold no comparison to the letters written in the NT. Maybe those post NT letter writers had a problem with those churches and believers conforming to the greco-roman style of the gospel as they spread out in the world to share the gospel. Even after persecution, you can see the tones of, “we were the ones persecuted, this gospel is ours, and it will be spread out to the world our way.” The ONE TRUE CHURCH!"

Former anti-Catholic minister Tim Staples does an awesome job of explaining the Petrine Office in one of his CD collections. You should check it out.

 

[geno75]

“No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

lol, where did you get all those words?! Peter is referring to the prophecies of Jesus Christ that were made in OT scriptures and that the prophets that recieved them from God, and God only. The prophecies never were created WITHIN the prophet himself.

St.Peter got a theme of reassuring Jesus and his OT prophecies going on there. Dont go picking and choosing like a unlearned protestant.

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

The prophecies never were created WITHIN the prophet himself.

Read it again. It says: the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church.

You can laugh out loud as much as you like, but it will not convince many here as to the validity of your flawed understanding.

 

[Philthy]

kujo313:

If a denomination says it’s foundation is in Christ, and has the Bible verses to prove it, then how can you say it is wrong just because it’s not the denomination you belong to?

I cannot, but the Church can.

kujo313:

Let’s not go to whoever said in whatever year.

History is a painful reality for you isn’t it?

kujo313:

Let’s go back to The Foundation, God’s Word, spoken through the prophets of old, came to life and fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and written and spoken by actual, first-hand eyewitnesses.

We are doing that by following what is “written and spoken”. It is you who is not. You claim to possess the word of God without any authority whatsoever. You have faith in what others have told you, and what others have told them and so on. But your denominational ancestory does not extend back to the original Church, nor does it “hold fast” to much of what was passed on to the original Church. Your claim of possessing the word of God - when it is separated from the Church which provided the records of that word - is meaningless. Your claim to be in a better position of interpreting that word - when it is separated from the Church that has existed since the beginning - is complete nonsense.

 

[geno75]

Face it, when you look back at the history of the church Christ founded, both NT writings and post NT writings and accounts. It is plain to see there was some serious persecutions of the church. And as these events were played out, Jesus’ new covenant of salvation took a halt in the greco-roman region, the wagons were circled around it. And you can say what you want, the gospel was not spread to the rest of the gentile nations the way St. Paul and the 12 Apostles intended it to be. It got sat on and lorded over. Read in Acts, the Church in Jerusalem found joy when churches were acting on their own authority and believers were flocking to them. That was what the pure Word of God did for the world. Yeah, the gentiles, who Paul said they were grafted into the tree. The gentiles still believed in the Jesus’ gospel by learning and accepting the fact that the jews were Gods chosen people. They were still happy to be saved. And the word that was kept by the “one, true church” could not be contained forever.

There is the hearing of the Word by oral speech.
There is the Word that is the Bible, even if it was presented by the RCC hands, the church that lorded over those books.

But you wont accept the fact that evil works best when its subtle, and the persecutions on early christians did the trick.

I firmly believe that the Apostles did not want one, eccumenical headquarterd church.

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

And as these events were played out, Jesus’ new covenant of salvation took a halt in the greco-roman region, the wagons were circled around it. And you can say what you want, the gospel was not spread to the rest of the gentile nations the way St. Paul and the 12 Apostles intended it to be.

Wow. Geno’s revisionist history 101. :whacky:

 

[jim1130]

geno75:

…the wagons were circled around it…

Peace.

This terminology would have been unfamiliar to those in this region at this time or any time.

Peace.

 

[geno75]

Philthy:

I cannot, but the Church can.

History is a painful reality for you isn’t it?

Your claim to be in a better position of interpreting that word - when it is separated from the Church that has existed since the beginning - is complete nonsense.

The first church of believers was in Jerusalem, and even then, it wasnt considered the “vatican” of its day. What the church of Jerusalem had, that alot of the self-authoritive, early churches needed was those who had the Word, those who walked with Jesus in his ministry. Consider them the living NT. The Jerusalem Council in Acts helped the Church of Antioch by assuring them they are still under no law or ordinace they dont want to be in. They offered help by telling them things to obstain from the things like food, polluted by idols, sexual immorality, from strangled meat, and from blood. These were asked of them to do so it would not be any stumbling blocks between the messianic jews and gentiles. And these things were named for them to refrain from because-“Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in synogoues on every Sabbath.”

So how can one come away with an authorive magesterium in Acts 15? Looks like to me the Church of Jerusalem wanted the church of Antioch to be at peace with itself, and didnt decree anything new, but rather what they recommended was very ancient!

 

[geno75]

jim1130:

Peace.

This terminology would have been unfamiliar to those in this region at this time or any time.

Peace.

Im not talking to them, Im talking to you in the year 2006.

 

[DARichards]

geno75:

Face it, when you look back at the history of the church Christ founded, both NT writings and post NT writings and accounts. It is plain to see there was some serious persecutions of the church. And as these events were played out, Jesus’ new covenant of salvation took a halt in the greco-roman region, the wagons were circled around it. And you can say what you want, the gospel was not spread to the rest of the gentile nations the way St. Paul and the 12 Apostles intended it to be. It got sat on and lorded over. Read in Acts, the Church in Jerusalem found joy when churches were acting on their own authority and believers were flocking to them. That was what the pure Word of God did for the world. Yeah, the gentiles, who Paul said they were grafted into the tree. The gentiles still believed in the Jesus’ gospel by learning and accepting the fact that the jews were Gods chosen people. They were still happy to be saved. And the word that was kept by the “one, true church” could not be contained forever.

There is the hearing of the Word by oral speech.
There is the Word that is the Bible, even if it was presented by the RCC hands, the church that lorded over those books.

But you wont accept the fact that evil works best when its subtle, and the persecutions on early christians did the trick.

I firmly believe that the Apostles did not want one, eccumenical headquarterd church.

Geno

Through out your posts, you have still not proven to us BY SCRIPTIRE that Christ intended our faith to be soley based upon a book that wasn’t written in His time, that He didn’t direct to be written, nor did He write Himself. This point is fundamental (sorry to all my Catholic brothers, I don’t generally use this word too much) to the Sola Scriptura debate. Please show us. this information…

 

[geno75]

DARichards:

Geno

Through out your posts, you have still not proven to us BY SCRIPTIRE that Christ intended our faith to be soley based upon a book that wasn’t written in His time, that He didn’t direct to be written, nor did He write Himself. This point is fundamental (sorry to all my Catholic brothers, I don’t generally use this word too much) to the Sola Scriptura debate. Please show us. this information…

Its not written verbatim, but the A-HA! hook question the RCC posesses only holds for so long.
Those that heard of Jesus checked OT scriptures to confirm and believe. That practice was written in NT scripture. Looking up the Word to prove the Word for belief in the faith, and what St. Peter said in 2 Peter, “will always remind you of these things.” And the same is happening today in 2006. They hear, they read. When a prophet in the OT recieved a prophecy(s) in the OT, do you think they keep it all in their head or did they do the sensible thing and write it down?! If the heavens opened up to you today and you were given a message, would you write it down or keep it in your head?

Thankfully, the NT authors did that exact thing.

The RCC is Christs church, but not THE church. The whole idea of this one master, headquartered church handing down authority does not fit the new covenant gospel of salvation.

 

[Pax]

Giver:

The early Christians couldn’t imagine performing the sacrament of reconciliation more than once in their lifetime.

Jesus has taught me that Christians who know God don’t sin.

Why don’t you address what I wrote about war?

This is a gross exaggeration and misstatement, but not unexpected considering your other conjectures.

 

[Pax]

geno75:

…
…

The RCC is Christs church, but not THE church. The whole idea of this one master, headquartered church handing down authority does not fit the new covenant gospel of salvation.

Actually, your contention is the exact opposite of the truth. Try the following scriptures:

John 17:20 visible unity
Matt 5:14 city on a hill
Matt 18:15-17 tell it to the church
Matt 16:18 one church
1 Tim 3:5 bishops care for the church
Titus 1:7 bishop is God’s steward
Titus 1:9-10 bishop is to confute the inusuborinate etc.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey you leaders and be subordinate because they watch over your souls.
Titus 2:15 Paul tells Titus[a bishop] “Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”
1 Tim 4:11 Paul to Timothy[a bishop] “Command and teach these things.”

In the 17th chapter of John’s gospel Jesus prays for unity among the apostles, and then prays for the unity of all of those that will believe by their word. In both cases Jesus prays that the unity He calls for will be the same unity shared by He and the Father. Clearly, this kind of unity can only be achieved by having a guiding hierarchical structure as shown in the above NT passages.

Moreover, look at what Paul says about unity in the following:

Eph 4:1-5
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Phi 1:27
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing** firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith ** of the gospel,

Phi 2:1-2
If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy,make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love,

And look what the NT says about factions:

1 Cor 11:18-19
For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized

Jude 1:18
“In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And convince some, who doubt; save some, by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

I do not believe that your view conforms to the unity called for by Jesus, nor do I believe that your view is conducive to unity, nor do I believe that your view respects or recognizes authority within the church.

 

[Philthy]

boogablue:

I don’t understand why someone would focus on sin today when ALL have SINNED. Everyone, in the Past tense.
That is a done deal.

Sin is not a done deal - we are constantly faced with the choice of sinning or not sinning. We should be striving to not sin.

Its all over, we can’t go onto the New Heaven and New Earth under our own power. There’s nothing we could have done, can do today, or could ever do by our own hands to save ourselves.

You are wrong: we can avail ourselves of God’s grace - in fact we must - throughout our lives

boogablue:

This is why we need a Saviour, right? This is the purpose of Jesus Christ, right? Christ saved us from sin! Isn’t that why God sent Jesus? Isn’t that understanding the will of God?
Jesus did what we could not - he bore the weight of our sin (all of it!). [notice the past tense.]

What else can we do today to ensure our salvation besides NOT rejecting this awesome gift from Jesus Christ?

Absolutely nothing. **This only leaves the million dollar question: **What behavior constitutes rejection of this awesome gift? Could it be…mortal sin? 1John5:16 “If anyone sees his brother sinning - IF the sin is not deadly - he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is ONLY for those whose sin is NOT DEADLY…”
There are deadly sins, called mortal sins by Catholics. They are called deadly because if ignored they kill the life won for us by Christ. Such sins rupture our relationship with God and require Grace to repair that relationship. Ask yourself - honestly - how these verses from 1 John “fit” into your theology.

boogablue:

This confuses me about Catholics. The Blood of Jesus ensured our salvation - There is no more that can be done/nothing that can and will ever compare to the Blood of the Lamb of God to ensure our salvation, yet the Catholic church says that you have yet to get there?!!?!!?!!! I don’t get it!!

So you would say that we can do anything with our lives then - good or bad - and still go to heaven? You know in your heart that is wrong. We must persevere in Grace and by Grace! We are God’s handiwork that we should walk in the good works that He has prepared in advance.(cf Eph 5) Look around you: are you in heaven? Have you faced God’s judgement? No, you haven’t. Salvation is not an instaneous, complete and permanent event during your life. It begins with Baptism and continues throughout your earthly life as you conform yourself - by God’s Grace - to the image of Christ. It is a struggle, but God promises to make it possible: 1Cor 10-13 “No trial has come to you except what is human. God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength. But with the trial HE WILL PROVIDE a way out so that you may be able to bear it” This does not say we will never sin, it does, however, say that when we sin it is our own fault, and not God’s - he never gives us more than we can handle. We simply fail to avail ourselves of his Grace.
The reason you are so confused is because you have assumed that since Christ paid the price that nothing else is required. That is not quite accurate. Christ paid the price that we could never pay ourselves. He made salvation AVAILABLE to EVERYONE. Some have confused this to mean that everyone is saved - this is the heresy of universalism. You have made the assumption that since it was made available that we simply “accept it” and it’s a done deal. All I can say is that at this point in your journey you need to search your heart and read Scripture to see plenty of teachings that contradict such a notion. The simplest one I can provide for you is from Matt6:15
“But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive you…” Part of accepting the gift is accepting the command to
forgive one another - its very simple. Need a parable to understand better? Read the parable of the UNFORGIVING SERVANT. Be sure not to miss the “life application” part: 34"…in anger his master handed him over to the torturers…35 So will my heavenly Father do to you unless (you forgive others)"

 

[geno75]

Douay-Rheims:

This is a little long, but worth the read. I have split it in to parts.

by Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815 - 1890)
Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York.

The Only Church That Christ Established Is The Catholic Church. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” [Mark 16:16].

I.
My Dearly Beloved Christians, from these words of our Divine Savior, it has already been proved to you, that faith is necessary for salvation. And without faith there is no salvation. Without faith there is no salvation. Read your own Protestant Bible [St. Mark 16:16], and you will find it stronger there than in the Catholic Bible.

Now then, what kind of faith must a man have to be saved? Will any faith do? Why, if any faith will do, the devil himself will be saved, for the Bible says the devils believe and tremble.

It is, therefore, not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes. He must profess the right and true religion, and without that, there is no hope of salvation. For it stands to reason, my dear people, that if God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants you to believe it. Not to believe, is to insult God.

Doubting His word, or believing with doubt and hesitating, is an insult to God, because it is doubting His Sacred Word. We must, therefore, believe without doubting, without hesitating.

I have said, outside of the Catholic Church there is no divine faith. Some of our Protestant friends will be shocked at this, to hear me say that outside of the Catholic Church there is no divine faith, and that without faith there is no salvation. I will prove all I have said.
.

Someone should contact this brother in Christ. Proclaiming to all churches of Christ to conform to a church in Christ that gospel it teaches is greco-roman stylized is a false teaching. This banter above sounds alot like those that went from the Church of Jerusalem and preached a false teaching to another church that the gentiles must be circumsized to obey the law of Moses.

Serious stuff going on here, alot of pride on who the gospel belongs to. It belongs to all the nations, and still to the jews. Do you think most messianic jews coming to believe in Christ today going to conform with the church of Rome? Some will, because of fear of the “what if” they are the only authority?