Sola Scriptura--now I get

[kujo313]

Communion? Oh, they get around to it once every couple of months or so.

Why not do communion yourself? There was no formal presentation in Acts, just the apostles going from house to house.
Pastor gave no altar call? You do it.

 

[montanaman]

kujo313:

Why not do communion yourself? There was no formal presentation in Acts, just the apostles going from house to house.

So?

Pastor gave no altar call? You do it.

Where does Jesus teach there should be altar calls?

 

[jim1130]

montanaman:

Blessed Sacrament seems to be one of the “serious seven” (or so) among the orthodox out here. I have yet to go, but it’s on the list. I go to St. Mary’s in Old Town. Great parish, if sadly lacking in Latin Masses.

Occasionally I get talked into going to McLean Bible Church. It’s like a junior megachurch. Ten giant flat-screen monitors with sexy Power Point-like presentations playing on them while the band rocks out. The band, of course, put the drummer where a Catholic altar would be. It’s followed by a hip sermon by a hip pastor. Once he pulled a child up on stage who’d clearly memorized a testimony. Communion? Oh, they get around to it once every couple of months or so.

Peace.

I’ve been to St. Mary’s many times. I like to tell people that the cemetary right next door has the grave of the Unknown Soldier from the Revolutionary War.

I LOVED Alexandria and especially Old Towne. Probably more Catholics in Alexandria than the entire state of Oklahoma.

The priests at Blessed Sacrament gave absolutely the best homilies. One priest was Indian (Pakistan or Indian) and his homilies were brilliant. After he left, there seem to be a run of Scottish/Irish priests and their homilies were good, too, but not as good as the Indian priest. The priest at the parish I attend in OK is pretty good.

I get tired of the Baptists, evangelical fundamentalists, and Bible-Church people prevalent in this state, but my son is here and I cannot leave.

Egad! More than you cared to know!!!

Peace.

 

[MrS]

montanaman:

So?

Where does Jesus teach there should be altar calls?

duh… itsn’t it right after the instructions on the sinner’s prayer… and in the same book where it is explained that you don’t even need an altar to have an altar call

I tried to convince my Baptist son to change that phrase:
“Scripture says…”

To “It says in the Catholic Bible…”
or
“It says in our revision of the Original/Catholic Bible…”

he was totally uncooperative…Oh Sola Meo at work again

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

Why not do communion yourself? There was no formal presentation in Acts, just the apostles going from house to house.
Pastor gave no altar call? You do it.

:yawn:

 

[JSmitty2005]

montanaman:

Communion? Oh, they get around to it once every couple of months or so.

And yet the early Christians “devoted themselves…to the breaking of bread.” (Acts 2:42)
Doesn’t sound like an “every once in a while” practice to me!

 

[Church_Militant]

kujo313:

Why not do communion yourself? There was no formal presentation in Acts, just the apostles going from house to house.
Pastor gave no altar call? You do it.

Oh but you are wrong alltogether on this one. Look here what St. Ignatius of Antioch, Disciple of St. John the apostle and bishop of the church in Antioch wrote in his letter to the church in Smyrna.

CHAP. VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(2) even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast.(1) But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.

Moreover, look at what he tells them the Eucharist means:

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

 

[St.Eric]

Church Militant:

Oh but you are wrong alltogether on this one. Look here what St. Ignatius of Antioch, Disciple of St. John the apostle and bishop of the church in Antioch wrote in his letter to the church in Smyrna.

CHAP. VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(2) even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast.(1) But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.

Moreover, look at what he tells them the Eucharist means:

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Of course you are right Church M, but Kujo will discount your source as not valid since it is not “biblically based” in his mind. Anything that comes from the early fathers or doctors of the church is “not valid” in his theology.

 

[Mickey]

St.Eric:

Of course you are right Church M, but Kujo will discount your source as not valid since it is not “biblically based” in his mind. Anything that comes from the early fathers or doctors of the church is “not valid” in his theology.

And may I add that it does not matter to kujo that the Church father that CM quoted was a disciple and student of the Apostle St John.

 

[kujo313]

Mickey:

And may I add that it does not matter to kujo that the Church father that CM quoted was a disciple and student of the Apostle St John.

I guess that nobody, in your minds, was ever wrong. Even in the slightest.
What is written is what happened and what was taught. It can be used as the “ruler” so to say. A “curb feeler” so to say. If you get too close to the edge of the road, you’ll know it. If you keep going that way, you’ll end up off the road and into disaster.

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

I guess that nobody, in your minds, was ever wrong. Even in the slightest.
What is written is what happened and what was taught. It can be used as the “ruler” so to say. A “curb feeler” so to say. If you get too close to the edge of the road, you’ll know it. If you keep going that way, you’ll end up off the road and into disaster.

The very same can be said of the early fathers. What is written is what happend and what was taught. It is our looking glass into the early church, way before the bible was even a book.

 

[Mickey]

kujo313:

I guess that nobody, in your minds, was ever wrong. Even in the slightest.

Let’s use some simple commom sense kujo. Take a look at the Gospel of St John–Jesus’ Eucharistic teaching on “The Real Presence”.

St Ignatius, being a disciple of St John, describes “The Real Presence” the same way that the Catholic and Orthodox Church interprets this passage in John’s Gospel. You should pray about this.

 

[onesimplemind]

kujo313:

I guess that nobody, in your minds, was ever wrong. Even in the slightest.

Not even you?

 

[onesimplemind]

kujo313:

What is written is what happened and what was taught. It can be used as the “ruler” so to say. A “curb feeler” so to say. If you get too close to the edge of the road, you’ll know it. If you keep going that way, you’ll end up off the road and into disaster.

Do you practice what was written and what was taught? Do you practice the same as was taught to and by the early Christians?

 

[mumof5]

There is no doubt that the disciples of Jesus would have continued to write outside of scripture. However, how do we know which of these teachings to trust? Paul taught things that could be verified through the Old Testament. After this time there were a lot of new ideas that came through in writings that cannot be verified biblically. That is, they are what we call TRADITION. The Bible has a lot to say about tradition. Even Jesus said that the Pharisees put their tradition above the word of God (Matthew 15:1-9 ). So how do we make sure we don’t do the same when giving emphasis to tradition?

This speaks for itself: Col. 2:8-10 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ

Peter as well: 1 Peter 1:18-19 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”

If Peter had no confidence in the traditions of the fathers, why should we have confidence in the so called early church fathers?

Paul knew tradition and the teachings of men would corrupt: Acts 20:28-31 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.”

How can we know that the so called early church fathers were not of this bunch, especially when many of them came along far after the death of the apostles?

How are we supposed to make sure of what is reliable from the church fathers? Acts 17:10-11 “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea who coming [thither ] went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Search the SCRIPTURES to check things, not tradition. It’s tradition that needs to be examined in the light of scripture. How many teachings cannot be found in scripture? Teaching is subject to scripture.

In 2 Thess. Paul does speak favourably of tradition but only as far as it’s verified by the scriptures or the direct teachings of the apostles of the early times. This implies that what was taught by word was in complete agreement with the epistles since what was revealed to the apostles came from God (Gal. 1:12), was preached, and eventually written via inspiration (2 Peter 1:20-21).

2 Tim. 3:16-17 “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Perfectly furnished…scripture is all we need.

And that’s all I have time for right now …

 

[JSmitty2005]

I hearby say, declare, and define that all posters involved with the thread entitled “Sola Scriptura–now I get” are required, without exception, to read the following link in its entirety before further posting. Refusal to do so will result in the penalty of excommunication.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html?200617

Seriously, though, will all of you (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) please read this if you haven’t already before posting the same old arguments over and over and over again.

 

[montanaman]

2 Tim. 3:16-17 “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Perfectly furnished…scripture is all we need.

Except for the fact that it doesn’t say scripture “alone,” it refers to OT scriptures, just before this is an entreaty to remember from WHOM you learned these things (ergo, tradition), etc., etc., etc…

It’s interesting that you quote the Thessolonnian passage, Momof5. It says to hold fast to teachings by word of mouth OR scripture. Not scripture alone.

2 Tim 3:16 is also thorougly debunked as a proof-text in the above link.

 

[montanaman]

montanaman:

Except for the fact that it doesn’t say scripture “alone,” it refers to OT scriptures, just before this is an entreaty to remember from WHOM you learned these things (ergo, tradition), etc., etc., etc…

It’s interesting that you quote the Thessolonnian passage, Momof5. It says to hold fast to teachings by word of mouth OR scripture. Not scripture alone.

2 Tim 3:16 is also thorougly debunked as a proof-text in the above link.

Here’s the Thessalonian passage that you forgot to quote:

15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth OR by letter.

 

[mumof5]

montanaman:

Except for the fact that it doesn’t say scripture “alone,” it refers to OT scriptures, just before this is an entreaty to remember from WHOM you learned these things (ergo, tradition), etc., etc., etc…

It’s interesting that you quote the Thessolonnian passage, Momof5. It says to hold fast to teachings by word of mouth OR scripture. Not scripture alone.

2 Tim 3:16 is also thorougly debunked as a proof-text in the above link.

But note that it says where the word of mouth is to come from. From the writings of Paul and those epistles of his time from the apostles. And don’t forget his warning that future traditions wou ld be corrupt from MANY (not all, but many, which is significant). That is clear.

 

[Eden]

mumof5:

But note that it says where the word of mouth is to come from. From the writings of Paul and those epistles of his time from the apostles. And don’t forget his warning that future traditions wou ld be corrupt from MANY (not all, but many, which is significant). That is clear.

The future corruptions are what are known to us all as “denominations” or “Protestantism”.