Sola Scriptura Revisited

[Charlemagne_II]

Beth Martin

Do you believe your post above is pleasing in the sight of God? If so why?

I believe it is pleasing to the extent that it agrees with what is in the Scriptures. For that reason you should also find it pleasing.

*I cannot read your intentions of your heart, but the side bar discussions where you all are “patting yourselves on the back” probably disregards Jesus command to “love your neigbor as yourself”. Is this serious? I don’t know; you and Jesus will have to work that out between yourselves. I will tell you with certainty accord to the Word; there will only be a few Catholics AND a few Protestants that will find the true way to Jesus and of those some will be unable to enter according to Jesus Himself
*

Do you regard yourself as one of the anointed ones? Are you patting yourself on the back?

Beth, it is certainly possible to strongly disagree with others and still love them. Whether you are able to feel the love is another matter altogether.

 

[rinnie]

I decided to look at your post and you have reinforced the reason I do not respond to your posts. Still full of self, no love or understanding for God Holy word and no respect or love for God’s people, only appears to be love for “self”. I pray you will see the love of Christ and the love He has shown you and the rest of us. May He bless you!!

No I will not be responding unless I see a change toward love.

Where are any words that I have quoted you from my self?

I asked you where in scripture does it say that you can forgive my sins? You cannot show me that so you insult me and say I have no understanding for God or his Holy Word when I am just defending God and his Holy word.

Please read 1 Tim 5:22 Do not be too quick to lay hand on anyone. and never make yourself an accomplice in anybodys elses sin, keep yourself pure. ( this gives absolution to a sinner)

1Tim 6: Anyone who teaches anything different and does not keep to the sound teaching which is that of our Lord Jesus Christ the Doctrine which is in accordance with true religion is proud and has no understanding but rather a weakness for questioning everything and arguing;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Go back to St Paul. He was called from Christ to teach in the Name of God. But what happened to him first. He had to have the LAYING OF HANDS which is being ordained into the Priesthood. That is how it has happened from the beg. of time. Passed on from the scripture.

I was only asking you where you received the Laying of Hands by a succ. of an APostles. ANd I showed you were we are told to only listen to the leaders of the Church.

1Tim Timothy my son these are the INSTRUCTIONS that I am giving you in accordance with the words spoken OVER you by the PROPHETS. (the laying of hands, the gift of the Holy Spirit passed on to define and teach scripture)

I just asked you where you have the power when scripture denys this power you claim to have. All I did was ask you to show me where and how you received it. And instead of an answer and showing me the scripture you insult me, you say that I have no Love of Gods people or his word.

Please do not pass judgement on me. That is for God to do. God knows what is in my heart. God knows my love for his people, and my love for him.

I do not see how asking someone to show proof in scripture or OT makes me a enemy to others or God’s holy word or makes me full of self?

 

[rinnie]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

If you want to follow the church that Jesus founded, then all are welcome to join. Keep in mind that only a few will find the entrance to His church and many of those will be unable to enter trhough Him. Also remember that His church is yet to be revealed; so if you belong to a church that has been revealed, then you can bet it is not one that Jesus founded for He does not lie. However, the church you refer may and likely does has members of the church to be revealed. I hope you are a member of His church as I am.

[SIGN]The church is the pillar and support of the truth, which is the [/SIGN]gospel of Jesus Christ and the context of the truth that is to be protected by the collective body of all Christians. Your idea of church and the biblically defined church seem to differ and thus causes a serious problem in understanding the passage in question.

The Church is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church is the Living Christ. Jesus Christ IS THE CHURCH.

Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME? Who was Saul persecuting the Gospel? No. Paul was persecuting the CHURCH. Paul asked who ARE YOU. Jesus answered him JESUS THE ONE YOU ARE PERSECUTING!!!

 

[simspt]

simspt

I think I know the point your making using the byproduct term but just because the NT writings were the products of the Church and chronologically came later I dont know if that would make them mere byproducts.

The word mere is yours, not ours. We think the New Testament is a great product produced by the Church. But let’s be honest: the New Testament did not produce the Church. The gospels were not even written until some time after the deaths of Peter and Paul. What was put into the gospels had to be authenticated by the people who wrote them and accepted by the people who received them. That means the the authority of the Church itself.

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find it said that all teaching authority resides only in the letters of Paul and the Gospels. So that doctrine by itself is not Biblical.

But you will find that at the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15 the teaching authority is very much in the hands of the Church hierarchy, since as yet there was not even a New Testament assembled and approved by the Church authorities, and would not be for several more centuries.

See users.stargate.net/~elcore/wegotnt.htm for the origins of the New Testament.

I was referring to the specific use of the word byproduct interpreting it as having a somewhat diminutive or negative connotation. I tend to view byproducts for example in biological processes as being less than or unintended. This is why i used the word **mere **when describing the NT writings as byproducts.

 

[simspt]

simspt

http://users.stargate.net/~elcore/wegotnt.htm for the origins of the New Testament.

Interesting article, I agree with most of it except "Rome had fixed the ‘Canon’ of the New Testament. There are henceforward but two classes of books — inspired and not inspired. Within the covers of the New Testament all is inspired; all without, known or unknown, is uninspired."

I think there is plenty of evidence that the Church had a more broad view on inspiration. I believe the Church did not use inspiration as the sole criteria for canonization there had to be other criteria eg orthodoxy (rule of faith), Catholicity, apostolicity etc. Inspiration was obviously viewed to be possessed by the NT documents but not necessarily the unique possession of these documents. I gave some examples in post #209 (how do protestants defend the NT).

 

[guanophore]

Justification comes from what? The forgiveness of sins, so you said it right your priests have no ability to justify or forgive sins just as the Scripture teaches, God alone can forgive sins.

I was struck that you sided here with the enemies of Jesus, rather than the disciples, who rejoiced that God has given this power to men.

 

[Beth_Martin]

I was struck that you sided here with the enemies of Jesus, rather than the disciples, who rejoiced that God has given this power to men.

I’m amazed you are unable to see they were speaking of Jesus whom they saw as a man. Can you name one man that can forgive sins against God besides God who “would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” If you read the Acts of the Apostles you will always see the sins forgiven were from heaven, not men on earth…always in the “name of or through Jesus” because of the message that was either accepted or rejected.

Look carefully at John 20 and notice the present and ongoing tense or forgive foloowed by the past tense form forgiven. Why? Because the power comes from the message from the Gospel of God to all men. This should be the best thing we ever hear in our life that God has come to redeem us through the work of the Trinity.

**"If you forgive the sins of any, {their sins} have been forgiven them; if you retain the {sins} of any, they have been retained." ------ John 20:23 **

Salvation belongs to the LORD; Your blessing {be} upon Your people! Selah. - Psalm 3:8

**8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with {me} in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.-------- 2 Timothy 1:8-11

This demonstrated the place where the power of salvation resides and it is not with men, but with God the Father who sent Jesus the Son powered by the Holy Spirit to do perfectly the will of the Father in order that we, the Christian , can be saved from what? Sins and penalty of such. This is the best news any human can hear and believe!!

PS Nice to meet you; this is the first I believe I have "met: you - God bless Beth.

 

[Nicea325]

Do you have reverence for Scripture? Do you believe its claim that it is “living and active”? Do you believe that Scripture is without error? If you found a Bible that had books with errors in it, what would you conclude about that Bible?

If you really wanted to kill Sola Scriptura in the way you understand it; all you need is to read Romans 1 and 2 for it tells us that those that have no revelation of Christ Jesus will be held accountable for what has been revealed, which Romans 1 & 2 obviously is not referring to Scripture.

Since people are unwilling to look to first understand what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not, then compare that to Scripture and some traditions of man, then one would not so easily dismiss. as you and others do, the objective truth of the doctrine. The blind do not always remain blind, but most do according to God.

The doctrine of sola fide or “by faith alone” in it most simplistic form asserts God’s complete forgiveness for sinners and its just penalty which is physical and spiritual death is granted to and received through His grace by faith alone in Jesus alone, free from any human efforts or works is much more important in my opinion than Sola Scriptura. However; the understanding of Sola Scriptura will better help the Christian to understand Sola Fide in my opinion. Perhaps it is time to move onto Sola Fide?

I asked for historical writings by St.Ignatius defending and advocating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura,not your commentary. I’ll wait for those ancient writings supporting your claim the first 3 generations believed and taught Sola Scriptura?

 

[Nicea325]

I think describing the Bible as a byproduct promotes the false idea that many Protestants have that Catholics do not belong to a “Bible Church” or are not faithful to the Bible. I would argue Christ did leave us both the Bible and Church. Weren’t Paul’s writings viewed very early on by the Church as being inspired from God?

Faithful to the bible or to God? I pick God!

As for a Bible Church? Again, Christ founded a church before any one volume book called the Bible existed. Second, it is a false iade by Protestants to believe the Catholic Church is against scripture when it is the very church,which gave us the entire OT/NT in its current form. I have heard the same redundant argument for years,still does not change an iota of history.

 

[Beth_Martin]

I asked for historical writings by St.Ignatius defending and advocating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura,not your commentary. I’ll wait for those ancient writings supporting your claim the first 3 generations believed and taught Sola Scriptura?

I’ll take that as a “red herring” and that you do not want to admit that either God’s revelation has error or your Bible has error. I do not blame you; pride always makes it difficult for us to see the truth. This is what prevents most people from ever entering the Kingdom.

God bless!!

Beth

 

[Beth_Martin]

Faithful to the bible or to God? I pick God!

As for a Bible Church? Again, Christ founded a church before any one volume book called the Bible existed. Second, it is a false iade by Protestants to believe the Catholic Church is against scripture when it is the very church,which gave us the entire OT/NT in its current form. I have heard the same redundant argument for years,still does not change an iota of history.

The Gospel of God is where the revelation concerning salvation is found. If you are faithful to God, then you are also faithful to the doctrines of what God has revealed, which is salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

[Beth_Martin]

I asked for historical writings by St.Ignatius defending and advocating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura,not your commentary. I’ll wait for those ancient writings supporting your claim the first 3 generations believed and taught Sola Scriptura?

How do you convince someone to accept a true, accurate and sufficient answer that he/she is unwilling to accept? You can’t!!

 

[Texasgringo70]

Faithful to the bible or to God? I pick God!

As for a Bible Church? Again, Christ founded a church before any one volume book called the Bible existed. Second, it is a false iade by Protestants to believe the Catholic Church is against scripture when it is the very church,which gave us the entire OT/NT in its current form. I have heard the same redundant argument for years,still does not change an iota of history.

Hold on there buckeroo. After stepping in enough piles of BS you learn to spot them before you foot hits them. I have to call you out on this one. You said the Church gave us the entire OT/NT. You might call me petty for parsing words here, but God gave us the OT/NT, not the Church. The Church was just smart enough to recognize which books were clearly divinely inspired to keep the kooks from whipping up new revelations from time to time. Me thinks you are making a bit too much of a point in trying to smack down Beth for her beliefs. It is painfully clear that protestants hold scripture as a higher authority than tradition or the decree of any man no matter who signs his pay check. This does not diminish the scripture because it was written by man. The scriptures we hold as canon are sufficiently established by multiple methods as reliable. Both Catholics and protestants agree to that.

The only question that remains is does the Church have the authority to contradict scripture and call it infallible interpretation? Sure there are some finer points of theology that might require a higher level of academics and spiritual insight to accurately interpret, but the vast majority of fundamental teachings can be figured out by an honest approach. The biggest problem protestants and Catholics alike have is that we get hung up on the differences and forget how many similarities we really do have in common.

 

[simspt]

Faithful to the bible or to God? I pick God!

As for a Bible Church? Again, Christ founded a church before any one volume book called the Bible existed. Second, it is a false iade by Protestants to believe the Catholic Church is against scripture when it is the very church,which gave us the entire OT/NT in its current form. I have heard the same redundant argument for years,still does not change an iota of history.

The only point i was trying to make was that using the term byproduct could easily be misconstrued by some as having a somewhat diminutive quality in relation to the Church.
I agree with the foundational principle that scripture is the church’s book. I agree with Karl Rahner’s description “the church objectifies its faith and its life in written documents, and it recognizes these objectifications as so pure and so successful that they are able to hand on the apostolic church as a norm for future ages”. The rule of faith IMO was the norm used by the church to objectify itself in the canon.

 

[guanophore]

I’m amazed you are unable to see they were speaking of Jesus whom they saw as a man.

But the HS inspired the word “men”. Yes, they saw Jesus as a man, but the power was given to “men”.

Either way, you have sided with the enemies of Christ, rather than the disciples, who rejoiced that this power was given to men.

One must keep in mind that this passage is written perhaps as many as 70 years after the events, and the priests had been forgiven sins on behalf of God for all that time. This expereince of John is reflected in the text.

Can you name one man that can forgive sins against God besides God

All those who are authorized successors of the Apostles share in this gift.

who “would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

I am sorry, I am not following you on this. Are you suggesting that a person must be perfect in order to forgive sins?

If you read the Acts of the Apostles you will always see the sins forgiven were from heaven, not men on earth…always in the “name of or through Jesus” because of the message that was either accepted or rejected.

Yes. This is the message of the book of Acts. However, the book of Acts was not intended to be a complete history of the early Church. The Aposltes and their successors forgave sins on behalf of Christ.

Look carefully at John 20 and notice the present and ongoing tense or forgive foloowed by the past tense form forgiven. Why? Because the power comes from the message from the Gospel of God to all men.

Yes. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. It is the forgiveness of Christ purchased by His Holy Sacrifice on the cross that the ministers of reconciliation serve.

This should be the best thing we ever hear in our life that God has come to redeem us through the work of the Trinity.

Amen!

"If you forgive the sins of any, {their sins} have been forgiven them; if you retain the {sins} of any, they have been retained." ------ John 20:23

The Reformers wanted to wrest this power from the corrupt clerics by whose unholy actions they were offended. They thought that such power had no place in the lives of persons who had so far departed from the Gospel message.

Salvation belongs to the LORD; Your blessing {be} upon Your people! Selah. - Psalm 3:8

Do you think that the priests forgiving sin somehow means that God is not the saviour?

***8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord ***or of me His prisoner, but join with {me} in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.-------- 2 Timothy 1:8-11

You will have to help me understand how this passage is relevant.

This demonstrated the place where the power of salvation resides and it is not with men, but with God the Father who sent Jesus the Son powered by the Holy Spirit to do perfectly the will of the Father in order that we, the Christian , can be saved from what? Sins and penalty of such. This is the best news any human can hear and believe!!

Are you under some misunderstanding that the priests believe it is by their own power they can forgive sins?

PS Nice to meet you; this is the first I believe I have "met: you - God bless Beth.

And you also.

 

[guanophore]

Faithful to the bible or to God? I pick God!

This is a false dichotomy. there is no conflict or separation between the two. What is divergent is certain persons who interpret the text differently than how it was understood by the Apostles.

As for a Bible Church? Again, Christ founded a church before any one volume book called the Bible existed. Second, it is a false iade by Protestants to believe the Catholic Church is against scripture when it is the very church,which gave us the entire OT/NT in its current form. I have heard the same redundant argument for years,still does not change an iota of history.

I think the problem for our separated brethren is that they are suffering from the separation from Apostolic Teaching that occurred during the Reformation. Since they are missing the Sacred Tradition, their understanding of the scripture is governed by their own perceptions, rather than what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[Loboto-Me]

The only question that remains is does the Church have the authority to contradict scripture and call it infallible interpretation? Sure there are some finer points of theology that might require a higher level of academics and spiritual insight to accurately interpret, but the vast majority of fundamental teachings can be figured out by an honest approach. The biggest problem protestants and Catholics alike have is that we get hung up on the differences and forget how many similarities we really do have in common.

I agree with the first part of your statement but this last part is where I think that you err. There is nothing in scripture that the CC contradicts. Our Traditions are all based on scripture, and yes including the Marian doctrines which many (not all) non-catholics have trouble with.

Pssttt… notice I haven’t replied to Beth’s statements? (except in my own kitchen ) Through the grace of God and the admonishment of “viewers” I’m working on it

 

[simspt]

You might call me petty for parsing words here, but God gave us the OT/NT, not the Church. **The Church was just smart enough to recognize which books were clearly divinely inspired to keep the kooks from whipping up new revelations from time to time. **It is painfully clear that protestants hold scripture as a higher authority than tradition or the decree of any man no matter who signs his pay check.

Hi Tex,
If inspiration was the sole criteria used for canonization (I dont think it was) by the church and the NT docs were clearly divinely inspired why do you think it took the Church so long to form a closed canon? How do you think the early church viewed inspiration? If the bible grew in the cradle of the church and the church existed before the bible then the centrality of the church cant be overly simplified by claiming that the canon was simply a matter of the church recognizing “clearly divinely inspired” documents. The acknowledgment that the Catholic episcopate had a significant role in forming the NT canon is IMO undeniable. I think its misleading to claim “the church didnt give us the bible” just because these are inspired texts. The theological heritage and importance of the church is too often IMO neglected in the foundational role the church played in formation of the NT canon.

 

[Loboto-Me]

I think the problem for our separated brethren is that they are suffering from the separation from Apostolic Teaching that occurred during the Reformation. Since they are missing the Sacred Tradition, their understanding of the scripture is governed by their own perceptions, rather than what the Apostles believed and taught.

I think this is a huge “hit the nail on the head statement”

Also, on another thread I was reading, someone stated this:

This is cut and paste without his/her name because I don’t know if it would be appreciated by the poster to be revealed… but I found their statement to hold much of my thoughts too and it touches on what guanophore said above

***"**Just a thought here -

One of the things that always “gets me” about debates like this over scripture interpretation is how some folks treat Catholic teaching as somehow just as “new” and open to debate as any other non-catholic teaching.

I just spent considerable time on a thread about SDA beliefs and was told time and again that I my interpretation was wrong.

I see the same thing here. The OP is declaring “our interpretation” wrong - Even though that is the interpretation held by the ancient Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as well as by the “Ancient” Protestant Curches of the Lutheren, Anglican communions.

The Truth is that the closer one gets to the Apostles, the more one sees that “the Real Presence” was universally accepted.

Why do these people, who have rejected everything except “The Book”, think that all of this ancient and consistant teaching is even up for reconsideration.

It’s not like the Catholic Church was founded last week or last year or last century…jeeshhh…

End Rant…"*

 

[guanophore]

How do you convince someone to accept a true, accurate and sufficient answer that he/she is unwilling to accept? You can’t!!

You are right. No matter how accurate a person thinks she is, or how sufficiently they may be convinced of their point of view, if it departs from the once for all deposit of faith committted to the saints by the Apostles, then it constitutes “a different gospel”. Those who have embraced the Apostolic Teachings cannot be pursuaded to leave them.