Sola Scriptura

[golfjack]

Has formal religion got that bad? Scripture interprets scripture. I must leave now, as I have to prepare for a sermon tomorrow. God bless.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[CWBetts]

Has formal religion got that bad? Scripture interprets scripture. I must leave now, as I have to prepare for a sermon tomorrow. God bless.

    Peace,   Golfjack

Poppycock. If this was true, then why are there as many Protestant denominations as there are? Everyone is going their own way, and ignoring the authority of the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Has formal religion got that bad? Scripture interprets scripture. I must leave now, as I have to prepare for a sermon tomorrow. God bless.

    Peace,   Golfjack

Then why do all the different denominations have different messages from those interpretations? And again, no scriptures or sources to support that view.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Pope John Paul II in 1994 signed an agreement with The Lutheran Church saying Martin Luther was right, Salvation is by Faith alone and not of works, Look it up online. We are to listen to the POPE

Please research all I Have said

I have, and the Pope never said Martin Luther was right. This is evident from the following quotes from John Paul II and the president of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Dr. A.L. Barry:
In his remarks at the October 31 Angelus in St. Peter’s Square, Pope John Paul II expressed satisfaction over the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and the World Lutheran Federation. The signing, which had taken place that morning in the German city of Augsburg, lifted the mutual condemnations due to theological differences that go back to the time of Martin Luther.

“This is a cornerstone for the complex road in the reconstruction of full unity among Christians,” the Pope said. He thanked God for having been able to witness “this intermediary goal in the difficult—but full of joy—road of unity and communion among Christians.” John Paul II called the declaration a significant response to Christ’s desire “who, before his passion, prayed to the Father so that all his disciples would be one.”
Almost two weeks earlier, on October 18, Dr. A. L. Barry, president of the conservative Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, called the accord “an opportunity for Rome to appear ecumenical without conceding a thing, and it is but the latest example of Lutherans sacrificing God’s truth on the altar of unity.” Barry rightly noted, "The document does not represent a change in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It does nothing to repudiate the doctrinal formulations put forth by the Council of Trent.

“That being said,” his statement continued, “Lutherans not participating in the Joint Declaration continue to pray for true, God-given unity in the confession of the Christian faith. . . . However, it is a great tragedy when those who claim to be the leaders of Lutheranism depart from the very essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through their participation in, and support for, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. These leaders, in their quest to achieve unity, fail to see the declaration for what it truly is: a woefully inadequate and misleading document and a betrayal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

For a thorough explanation of the document, see James Akin’s “Justification: Setting the Record Straight” (This Rock, November/December 1999, 10-17).

**JUSTIFICATION **
Setting the Record Straight
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think he was trying to use a source that Catholics usually use to back up their points to help you see that it’s not just in the Bible, even Early Church Fathers believed/taught these things. Maybe that only works for Catholics trying to prove their points to Protestants and not the other way around?

It would be a mischaracterization of the Early Church Fathers’ beliefs to state that they held to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Will you find a few quotes here and there that are strongly supportive of the authority of scripture? Of course! Why should we expect otherwise. But you will be very hard pressed to find any ECF who states, “Ignore the bishops and the traditions that have been handed down. Just go with the Bible Alone.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

PS, OK, I will take the bait by giving you my interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16: All scripture refers to the entire Bible (Old and New), from the creation account in Gen.to the new heaven and new earth in the Book of Rev. All Scripture refers to the written Word. The doctrine Biblical inerrancy asserts that God’s Holy Spirit so guided holy men of God so that the words they wrote, and which have been preserved as our Bible, were kept free from error, in fact or doctrine. It is not affirmed that Luke never erred as a person; rather that when he penned his Gospel and the Book of Acts, God’s Spirit, by a special act of supernatural superintendance, so guided these particular writings that they said what God wished to be said; and were written error-free in the autographs

Here are a few of my thoughts on this passage:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Tim. 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am not disputing that the Catholic didn’t exist during the early centuries, probably starting around the 3rd century. What I am disputing is the Catholic Church started in the Gospel age. Actually, church is only mentioned one time in the Gospels. As far as the first and second century goes, I believe they called themselves Christians. I also think there were many forgeries around that time, but I am not a historian.

Golfjack-

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

What youmay not realize is that as early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the Catholic Church. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote,
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])
Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.

As a side note, it is interesting that the believers in Antioch coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church”.

As for where we got the Bible, there is no question that it was inspired by God. However, it was written by men, and these men were thoroughly Catholic. As one famous person wrote, “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Commentary on St. John, ch. 16)

Who was that famous person? Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Great job Randy. All of your posts are are articulated very well and on the spot.

I’d also like to add another passage that demonstrates spoken authority verses scriptural authority, that was brought to my attention by a friend on another forum.

Acts 17:10 - 12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. (KJV)

They heard the word and searched scriptures to find out whether these things were so. Now many Protestants will attempt to use this as support for “sola scriptura”, because they searched the scriptures to see if these things were true. The problem, for those who espouse private interpretation, is verse 12 and the word “many”. This means some of them did not believe, even though they searched the same scriptures. We see that some Greek women and men believed. Isn’t it safe to assume Greeks, especially women, did not search the scriptures, but simply believed on what they had heard?

St. Paul was “sent”, with authority, He said this. St. Paul did not tell them to search the scriptures. He did not tell them he was speaking truth because the Bible says it’s truth. Paul taught with the authority he was sent with.

The authority outside of the Bible brought the teaching to them and even though they found scriptures useful to understand the teaching, some of them did not believe, which means some of them did not agree, yet they read the same scriptures.

Paul taught with authority and instructed those he appointed to speak with ALL authority

Tit 2:15 These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Great job Randy. All of your posts are are articulated very well and on the spot.

I’d also like to add another passage that demonstrates spoken authority verses scriptural authority, that was brought to my attention by a friend on another forum.

Acts 17:10 - 12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. (KJV)

They heard the word and searched scriptures to find out whether these things were so. Now many Protestants will attempt to use this as support for “sola scriptura”, because they searched the scriptures to see if these things were true. The problem, for those who espouse private interpretation, is verse 12 and the word “many”. This means some of them did not believe, even though they searched the same scriptures. We see that some Greek women and men believed. Isn’t it safe to assume Greeks, especially women, did not search the scriptures, but simply believed on what they had heard?

St. Paul was “sent”, with authority, He said this. St. Paul did not tell them to search the scriptures. He did not tell them he was speaking truth because the Bible says it’s truth. Paul taught with the authority he was sent with.

The authority outside of the Bible brought the teaching to them and even though they found scriptures useful to understand the teaching, some of them did not believe, which means some of them did not agree, yet they read the same scriptures.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

+++

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

 

[mesl4]

Christ chose a Magisterium, through the Apostles. Not one Apostles appointed themself. Even Judas Iscariot’s replacement was chosen by the holy men Christ chose, demonstrating an apostolic succession. St. Paul wrote about appointment through the imposition of hands, and nowhere in scriptures does it tell us of anyone that imposed hands upon themself, or appointed themself.
Now, through private interpretation, there are many who have appointed themselves and become their own “magisterium”. They lead Churches and preach the Gospel according to their own private interpretation. There are many different denominations, as I’ve said, with many different doctrines and teachings based on someone’s private interpretation, all claiming guidance from the Holy Spirit. Aren’t these just “men” as some have said about the men of the Catholic Church?
.

Good point. This is one of the reasons I’m skeptical of the Protestant system.

The thing that’s holding me back from converting to Catholicism is that maybe “The Church” is a much broader definition thatn Catholics claim it to be. As a Prot. I always thought of the Church as being all who love Christ, which really, can incorporate even more than most Protestants would admit (LDS/other cults also “love Christ.”). If Christ’s main purpose is for us to follow the teachings of love in the The thing is, this doesn’t explain those examples above, of laying on of hands for succeeding leaders. Unless those that leave the RC institution (Luther, etc.) are still annointed and pass on their “power” to those that they later choose. It’s so confusing. It would be obvious if the RCs stuck to what was in the Bible , but w/all the extra dogmas that are required to believe to be a part of the Church, and thus, required for salvation, it makes it so questionable.

I will add that there seems to be just as much division among RCs as Prots, they just don’t claim another name for themselves. I know few RCs that really believe everything the Magisterium teaches.

[/QUOTE]

 

[mesl4]

Back to the topic of sola scriptura. So far no one has produced scriptural support for that teaching, or private interpretation of scriptures. That only leaves some of us to assume, we are correct in thinking that sola scriptura and private interpretation is a man made tradition, or doctrine.

Checking in with another forum, I was reading a thread and found one of the posters had posted a very good example of how interpretations were arrived at, and shared, in the Old Testament.

Neh 8:1 And the seventh month came: and the children of Israel were in their cities. And all the people were gathered together as one man to the street which is before the water gate, and they spoke to Esdras the scribe, to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.
Neh 8:2 Then Esdras the priest brought the law before the multitude of men and women, and all those that could understand, in the first day of the seventh month.
Neh 8:3 And he read it plainly in the street that was before the water gate, from the morning until midday, before the men, and the women, and all those that could understand: and the ears of all the people were attentive to the book.
Neh 8:4 And Esdras the scribe stood upon a step of wood, which he had made to speak upon, and there stood by him Mathathias, and Semeia, and Ania, and Uria, and Helcia, and Maasia, on his right hand: and on the left, Phadaia, Misael, and Melchia, and Hasum, and Hasbadana, Zacharia and Mosollam.
Neh 8:5 And Esdras opened the book before all the people: for he was above all the people: and when he had opened it, all the people stood.
Neh 8:6 And Esdras blessed the Lord the great God: and all the people answered, Amen, amen: lifting up their hands: and they bowed down, and adored God with their faces to the ground.
Neh 8:7 Now Josue, and Bani, and Serebia, Jamin, Accub, Sephtai, Odia, Maasia, Celtia, Azarias, Jozabed, Hanan, Phalaia, the Levites, made silence among the people to hear the law: and the people stood in their place.
Neh 8:8 And they read in the book of the law of God distinctly and plainly to be understood: and they understood when it was read.
Neh 8:9 And Nehemias (he is Athersatha) and Esdras the priest and scribe, and the Levites who interpreted to all the people, said: This is a holy day to the Lord our God: do not mourn, nor weep: for all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.

That appears to be more a “Magisterium” interpreting, as opposed to private interpretations.

This was also prior to the outpouring of the HOly Spirit on ALL who believed in the Messiah.

 

[mesl4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfjack
Has formal religion got that bad? Scripture interprets scripture. I must leave now, as I have to prepare for a sermon tomorrow. God bless.

Peace, Golfjack

Then why do all the different denominations have different messages from those interpretations? And again, no scriptures or sources to support that view.

I can only think of a few examples in the Bible of using sola scriptura, but even they are weak I admit because much more could’ve been used than Scripture for the arguments. I think the general rule is that as long as a teaching does not contradict the Bible, it is ok, but when in question, use the Bible as your guide. Like these:
Acts 18:23-28
Third Missionary Journey

23 And having spent some time there, he left and passed successively through the aGalatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.

24 Now a Jew named aApollos, an bAlexandrian by birth, 1an eloquent man, came to cEphesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures.

25 This man had been instructed in athe way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with bthe baptism of John;

26 and 1he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when aPriscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him bthe way of God more accurately.

27 And when he wanted to go across to aAchaia, bthe brethren encouraged him and wrote to cthe disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly 1helped those who had believed through grace,

28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Though this also shows that he has misinterpreted and mistaught prior and needing correction from Priscilla and Aquila.

There’s another verse I can think of when I think Paul is saying to test everything against scripture, but I can’t recall which book or verse it’s in.

 

[mesl4]

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

+++

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

The problem was not in the Scripture or Tradition but in the faith of the individuals. They were being taught from the Scriptures. That’s the point. Paul wasnt just making things up . He was showing them that these things were fortold in Scripture. Tradition based on Scripture is sola scriptura. Spoken preaching based on Scripture is sola scriptura, Tradition or teaching based on a person’s own idea is not sola scriptura. Using the the two or three witnessess rule seems to apply: Matthew 18:15-20,2 Corinthians 13:1-6.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The thing that’s holding me back from converting to Catholicism is that maybe “The Church” is a much broader definition thatn Catholics claim it to be. As a Prot. I always thought of the Church as being all who love Christ, which really, can incorporate even more than most Protestants would admit (LDS/other cults also “love Christ.”). If Christ’s main purpose is for us to follow the teachings of love in the The thing is, this doesn’t explain those examples above, of laying on of hands for succeeding leaders. Unless those that leave the RC institution (Luther, etc.) are still annointed and pass on their “power” to those that they later choose. It’s so confusing. It would be obvious if the RCs stuck to what was in the Bible , but w/all the extra dogmas that are required to believe to be a part of the Church, and thus, required for salvation, it makes it so questionable.

I will add that there seems to be just as much division among RCs as Prots, they just don’t claim another name for themselves. I know few RCs that really believe everything the Magisterium teaches.

There is only one Christian Church that has documentation back to the first century.

As Protestants say, we all agree on “essentials”. That’s because all Christian Churches have roots back to the Catholic Church. In the 1500s, Martin Luther took what he learned and went off to start a “reformed” Church. Even though he changed some of his beliefs, due to his private interpertation of scriptures, he believed in a lot of Catholic teachings such as the real presence of Christ and the perpetual virginity of Mary. He even recognized the fact that the Bible came from the Catholic Church.

Those who broke away from Martin Luther took what they learned from him, including private interpretation and they dropped some teachings. The splits continued to present day, with each split dropping more and more original beliefs, according to new private interpretations.

That little bit of research caused me to convert to Catholicism in 1985. I was led to, what Catholics refer to as, the “fulness” of truth. That is not meant as a disrepectful term to any denomination. It’s where the teachings of Christianity began and were maintained through the ages. That’s the “essentials” and all the other teachings that were rejected through the all reformations. To me, any less than the Catholic Church is a “diluted” truth.

As for your statement about all the “extra” dogmas, have you ever asked about a specific dogma that you have a problem with and allowed a Catholic to provide a scriptural basis for where that belief came from?

I realize some teachings didn’t become dogma until years later, but it was the Churches way of protecting what was taken for granted and believed by early Christians through the ages. It was only when the Church could see that there was a danger to the teaching that it felt it was necessary to make the teaching dogma. Let me use the definition of the canon of the Bible as an example. The same Bible had been used by Christian for 1500 years.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

I would also like to point out, it has been my experience, that there are many misconceptions from Protestants as to what is dogma and what is not.

Now, with what I’ve stated above, does it exclude anyone from salvation? It is Catholic hope and prayer that through God’s great economy Christians, Catholic and Protestant, will find salvation, through their faith in Christ. As St. Paul said, “…who can know the mind of the Lord?” (Romans 11:34, 1 Corinthians 2:16)

You’ve come to the right place to ask questions about Catholicism and you’ll see most are ready provide answers and you’ll probably notice they will use scriptures to help explain the answer. Even if some do not agree with an interpretation, the Catholic Church is a Bible based Church. What one needs to do is research where the interpretation came from. Did it come from the authority of a Church, or did it come from someone’s private interpretation?

As a convert, I had many questions that I prayed for answers too. It often amazed me how quick an answer was provided, sometimes within an hour, sometimes within a couple of days. I would simply pray for an answer and consider the issue on hold and move on. I wouldn’t continue to research, read or ask questions about the issue. The answers just “popped” up, from mulitple sources and I would always be amazed at how it worked for me. Faith and prayer works.

I was not evangelized into the Catholic faith. If anyone deserves credit for my conversion, it was God’s gift to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This was also prior to the outpouring of the HOly Spirit on ALL who believed in the Messiah.

This is true. The thing that is the same, is the authority given. Those who understood in the Old Testament, received their authority from God. The same as the Apostles received their authority.

When God created man, He breathed into his face the breath of life.

When Christ built His Church, He breathed on the Apostles.

**Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.**

As God breathed life into man, God breathed life into His Church.

When Christ breathed upon the Apostles, what was the first thing He said to them?

Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Isn’t forgiving and retaining sins like, binding and loosing on earth?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can only think of a few examples in the Bible of using sola scriptura, but even they are weak I admit because much more could’ve been used than Scripture for the arguments. I think the general rule is that as long as a teaching does not contradict the Bible, it is ok, but when in question, use the Bible as your guide. Like these:
Acts 18:23-28
Third Missionary Journey

Though this also shows that he has misinterpreted and mistaught prior and needing correction from Priscilla and Aquila.

There’s another verse I can think of when I think Paul is saying to test everything against scripture, but I can’t recall which book or verse it’s in.

Act 18:23 And after he had spent some time there, he departed and went through the country of Galatia and Phrygia, in order, confirming all the disciples.
Act 18:24 Now a certain Jew, named Apollo, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus, one mighty in the scriptures.
Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord: and being fervent in spirit, spoke and taught diligently the things that are of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.
Act 18:26 This man therefore began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Whom when Priscilla and Aquila had heard, they took him to them and expounded to him the way of the Lord more diligently.
Act 18:27 And whereas he was desirous to go to Achaia, the brethren exhorting wrote to the disciples to receive him. Who, when he was come, helped them much who had believed.
Act 18:28 For with much vigour he convinced the Jews openly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

First, look at what Paul was doing in verse 23.

No one is going to dispute that scriptures are useful, or profitable. The point we’ve been trying to make is, the Bible is not the only authority. Apollo still had to teach them and Apollo was eventually confirmed by Paul, and you can believe it was after he had proved himself.

1Co 3:5 The ministers of him whom you have believed: and to every one as the Lord hath given.
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollo watered: but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase.

1Co 3:22 For all things are yours, whether it be Paul or Apollo or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come. For all are yours.

Did Paul teach the written was the sole authority?

2Co 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need (as some do) epistles of commendation to you, or from you?
2Co 3:2 You are our epistle, written in our hearts, which is known and read by all men:
2Co 3:3 Being manifested, that you are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written: not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God: not in tables of stone but in the fleshly tables of the heart.

 

[guanophore]

Brother I have some serious news for you

1. I am Catholic
2. I don’t want anyone to leave the Catholic Church
3. I am a Bible Teacher
4. Pope John Paul II in 1994 signed an agreement with The Lutheran Church saying Martin Luther was right, Salvation is by Faith alone and not of works, Look it up online. We are to listen to the POPE
5. There are millions of Catholics that think just like me
6. The Sacraments, Priest, Tradition are all good, but it’s Jesus that saves you
7. All I do is out of Love; I have dedicated my entire life 16 hours a day to the Lord
8. Our God is a Consuming fire and His Children are passionate about what they do
9. Brother I do Love you, but you are confused, Jesus is the WORD. So of corse the Scriptures are our main authority. Please research all I Have said

No, no, and no again. If you believe what you wrote here, then you are NOT CATHOLIC. You may have been baptized Catholic, but you are not embracing Catholic Teaching.

If you don’t want people falling away from their faith, then you need to stop teaching these errors, because the result of teaching error is to pass through the gates of hell. I recommend you take a sabbatical from “bible teaching”, whatever that means, and enroll in some sound Catholic Catechism.

I am aware that there are millions of catholics that “think just like” you do. They are commonly called "cafeteria catholics’ who believe whatever they want of Catholic Teaching. Personally, I think they are Protestants, and just don’t know it.

The Pope did not sign anything that stated we are saved by faith alone. If you are speaking of the joint declaration on justification, you need to read it again, then read the catechism again, because you have misunderstood.

If you do not believe that the grace of God is operating through the priest and the sacraments, then you are not Catholic.

The Scriptures are not able to wield authority, as this is an activity that requires discernment and volition, neither of which is posessed by Scripture, Holy though it is. Those who believe Scripture is there authority are really making themselves their own authority. If you wish to claim that you are catholic (which I note you DID NOT DO in your profile), then you will also want to read the catechism on Divine Revelation.

I am sure you are passionate about your faith, but that does not keep you from being wrong. What good will it do to gain the whole world with your passion, and lead them down a path of error through ignorance? Both will fall into the pit.

 

[guanophore]

PS, Here is something I wrote in Bible school awhile back:

The written Word of God saves us from the babel of human opinions.

Obviously, if this were true, there would not be 30,000 + denominations, most of which interpret it a little differently.

Can you imagine the chaotic result if God’s Word had been handed down merely by word of mouth?

I think this is, in large part, what is happening now it Protestantism. Everyone does what is right in his own eyes, and we have ecclesial chaos.

God is able to preserve His word. He preserved it for Millenia from Adam to Jesus, even though the whole people of God was displaced. God trained the people to keep sacred tradition to give them practice, and that is one reason that salvation is “of the Jews”.
In fact, the whole NT is composed of Teaching that was delivered “by word of mouth”.

Of course He could have devised some other way to preserve the integrity of His Word. But He simply chose to inspire certain men who then committed His Word to writing ( 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).

This statement suggests that the Word of God present in the Church prior to the writing did not exist afterward. Where did it go?

Since we have God's own verbally inspired record, we don't need to be confused by what others say and write.

This statement may be made out of a serious state of naivete.

We may listen to people, sometimes to our great benefit, but we never need to be confused. Any time we are unsure of God's revealed Word on a subject, it is best that we postpone judgment until we have searched the Scriptures to find out whether these things were so ( Acts 17:11).  This is our daily responsibility and priviledge as Christians.

Well, I agree that it is our responsibility to search the Scripture. However, when we read and listen, we interpret what goes into our brain. It all goes through filters.

It is the filters that are fallen, not the Word.

 

[guanophore]

Private interpretation really means that I or anybody cannot write a Bible. Peace, Golfjack

No, it means that when one reads the Bible, one interprets it apart from what God has already revealed to the Church.

Are we not all Disciples? Do you really think that ordained Bishops, priests, and cardinals have the only one and correct interpretation of Bible versus?

Yes, I believe we all are disciples. Not, I do not think only ordained persons have the correct interpretation. However, to them is given the solemn responsibility and gift to preserve and promulgate that which was committed to the church by the Apostles. When we depart from the Apostolic teaching, preserved in the Magesterium (teaching authority)Jesus gave to the Church, we are in danger of shipwrecking our faith.

 What in the world are you talking about when you say there were no I guess Bible Scholars before 1500? At that time, you guys locked up the Bible to the world. So, what do you expect?

Right now, I expect you to do some research, and find out how bibles were made before the printing press was invented. Let us know what you find out.

I am not disputing that the Catholic didn’t exist during the early centuries, probably starting around the 3rd century. What I am disputing is the Catholic Church started in the Gospel age.

I would like you to support this assertion with some facts.

Actually, church is only mentioned one time in the Gospels. As far as the first and second century goes, I believe they called themselves Christians. I also think there were many forgeries around that time, but I am not a historian. Probbably one of the best historians around that time was the Jewish historian Josephus.

I think it is time for you to start delving into the Early Church Fathers.
To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.

Do I really think Catholic theology is correct and lines up with the Bible? No way. I will give you a few reasons: Mary doctrine, eating the flesh and blood of Jesus at communion, praying for dead people and to your cannonized saints, end times theology, mass, mortal sin sends one to hell, and many other things in Catholic Theology. I really don;t think that those things come by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is why I stick to the Bible as my only source of truth.

   Peace,   Golfjack

Well it does seem that you do have a lot of issues with the Catholic faith, most, if not all of them, grounded in lack of knowlege. However, for the sake of this thread, let’s just focus on the error of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, no, and no again. If you believe what you wrote here, then you are NOT CATHOLIC. You may have been baptized Catholic, but you are not embracing Catholic Teaching.

If you don’t want people falling away from their faith, then you need to stop teaching these errors, because the result of teaching error is to pass through the gates of hell. I recommend you take a sabbatical from “bible teaching”, whatever that means, and enroll in some sound Catholic Catechism.

I am aware that there are millions of catholics that “think just like” you do. They are commonly called "cafeteria catholics’ who believe whatever they want of Catholic Teaching. Personally, I think they are Protestants, and just don’t know it.

The Pope did not sign anything that stated we are saved by faith alone. If you are speaking of the joint declaration on justification, you need to read it again, then read the catechism again, because you have misunderstood.

If you do not believe that the grace of God is operating through the priest and the sacraments, then you are not Catholic.

The Scriptures are not able to wield authority, as this is an activity that requires discernment and volition, neither of which is posessed by Scripture, Holy though it is. Those who believe Scripture is there authority are really making themselves their own authority. If you wish to claim that you are catholic (which I note you DID NOT DO in your profile), then you will also want to read the catechism on Divine Revelation.

I am sure you are passionate about your faith, but that does not keep you from being wrong. What good will it do to gain the whole world with your passion, and lead them down a path of error through ignorance? Both will fall into the pit.

I believe denwiles is using the term “Catholic” in the “universal” sense. I’m sure you’ve seen Protestants use the little “c” to claim to be “catholic” in the past. I don’t think he is a Catholic that believes the Church is led by the Pope. If I’m wrong, I apologize. Maybe denwiles would be willing to clarify for us?