Sola Scriptura

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

The written Word of God saves us from the babel of human opinions. And truly Jesus did many other signs, but these are written that you may believe that Jesis is the Christ ( John 20:30, 31). Can you imagine the chaotic result if God’s Word had been handed down merely 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).

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

We must let the Word of God shape our opinions. Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You ( Ps. 119:11). The Christians great ambition should be to think God’s thoughts after Him. As Paul states, we should aim at having the mind of Christ ( 1 Cor. 2:16). Our minds must be renewed by the Word of God ( Rom. 12:2). The more you consistently study the Bible, the more you will share God’s viewpoint on all matters. Of course you will never be infallible in this world, but your judgment will grow increasingly sharper, clearer, and more in line with God’s revealed truth. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free ( John 8:32).

  Peace,   Golfjack

I cannot see support of sola scriptura in your explanation.

I’ve already explained that 2 Timothy 3:16 uses the word “profitable” or “useful”, depending on what version of the Bible you read. Either word falls short of being sufficient, or all that is needed.

2 Peter 1:21 tells us how the prophesy of scripture came to be. It was immediately preceded by telling us that prophesy of scripture is not made by private interpretation. In the same book, 2 Peter 3:16, we see telling us of scriptures that some have wrested, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:17 warns of being led by such people.

The above paragraph aligns with history, in respect to, there are historical accounts of apostolic succession, as well as the existence of the Catholic Church. I realize some Protestants will deny that, but they cannot produce any writings from any other denomination, that they are willing to be affliated with, prior to the 1500s. If there was only one Church, how can they be the ones that wrested scriptures and leading people astray? Christ told us this about His Church, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. He told the Apostles, He would be with them until the consummation of the world, knowing they would die a fleshly death and not be on this earth at the consummation. He was speaking about being with His Church. Now, with the promises of Christ in mind, how could the corrupt actions of men prevailed against His Church?

While you use Acts 17:11 to demonstrate we should search scriptures, you seem to ignore the lesson given in Acts 8, with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. The eunuch read the scriptures, but could not understand them, until Philip preached Jesus unto him. Philip was an authority, that explained another authority to him.

The rest of the scriptures you provide do reference the word. They do not however, tell us if that word is spoken or written.

As you bring up the confusion of “men”, it appears you’re insinuating that confusion is of “men” only from the Catholic faith. What about the confusion associated with multiple denominations, through the Protestant reformation? Are you denying that is confusion?

You mention how the Bible becomes clearer to us. When I was a Protestant, I had a lot of difficulty understanding scriptures. After my conversion, scriptures became very clear to me and I feel I am in line with God’s truth. Even though I feel I’ve been exposed to His truth, I believe there is more that I can learn, much more than be acheived in my lifetime. It is my prayer, that I worship God the way He wants to be worshipped.

The difference between Catholic and Protestant freedom is this. Catholics receive truth and are free, so they match their theology to scriptures. It seems, Protestants receive truth and are free to match scriptures to their theology.

It appears you using one verse, 2 Timothy 3:16, to trump the multiple verses I provided, that I feel support more than a single authority, without responding with your thoughts on those verses. Why?

**2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2Ti 1:13 Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand.
1Co 15:2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.

Mar 16:15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, **

 

[mesl4]

Wild Boar
Banned Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 65
Religion: Protestant

Re: Sola Scriptura

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by CWBetts
You do realize you are trying to use something other than the Bible to say we can only use the Bible. Not every word that came out of the mouths of ECF’s was infallible. And you also have to think, how much was written down at the time? And Paul, in the Scriptures commends the Corinthinas for holding to Traditions taught by the Church. I believe you have set up a straw man that I have just knocked down

No I’m not. Rather I am saying things that believers have recognized for centuries. The Bible alone is enough to point men to the way of salvation through Christ alone. It is the lamp which leads us to the righteousness of God as it is found in Christ

.

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?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I cannot see support of sola scriptura in your explanation.

I’ve already explained that 2 Timothy 3:16 uses the word “profitable” or “useful”, depending on what version of the Bible you read. Either word falls short of being sufficient, or all that is needed.

2 Peter 1:21 tells us how the prophesy of scripture came to be. It was immediately preceded by telling us that prophesy of scripture is not made by private interpretation. In the same book, 2 Peter 3:16, we see telling us of scriptures that some have wrested, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:17 warns of being led by such people.

The above paragraph aligns with history, in respect to, there are historical accounts of apostolic succession, as well as the existence of the Catholic Church. I realize some Protestants will deny that, but they cannot produce any writings from any other denomination, that they are willing to be affliated with, prior to the 1500s. If there was only one Church, how can they be the ones that wrested scriptures and leading people astray? Christ told us this about His Church, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. He told the Apostles, He would be with them until the consummation of the world, knowing they would die a fleshly death and not be on this earth at the consummation. He was speaking about being with His Church. Now, with the promises of Christ in mind, how could the corrupt actions of men prevailed against His Church?

While you use Acts 17:11 to demonstrate we should search scriptures, you seem to ignore the lesson given in Acts 8, with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. The eunuch read the scriptures, but could not understand them, until Philip preached Jesus unto him. Philip was an authority, that explained another authority to him.

The rest of the scriptures you provide do reference the word. They do not however, tell us if that word is spoken or written.

As you bring up the confusion of “men”, it appears you’re insinuating that confusion is of “men” only from the Catholic faith. What about the confusion associated with multiple denominations, through the Protestant reformation? Are you denying that is confusion?

You mention how the Bible becomes clearer to us. When I was a Protestant, I had a lot of difficulty understanding scriptures. After my conversion, scriptures became very clear to me and I feel I am in line with God’s truth. Even though I feel I’ve been exposed to His truth, I believe there is more that I can learn, much more than be acheived in my lifetime. It is my prayer, that I worship God the way He wants to be worshipped.

The difference between Catholic and Protestant freedom is this. Catholics receive truth and are free, so they match their theology to scriptures. It seems, Protestants receive truth and are free to match scriptures to their theology.

It appears you using one verse, 2 Timothy 3:16, to trump the multiple verses I provided, that I feel support more than a single authority, without responding with your thoughts on those verses. Why?

**2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2Ti 1:13 Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand.
1Co 15:2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.

Mar 16:15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, **

Bumped to give golfjack an opportunity to respond…

 

[golfjack]

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 Testaments), 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 ( 2 Peter 1:21) 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 ( original copies

Private interpretation really means that I or anybody cannot write a Bible. The Mormons are a good example of this.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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 Testaments), 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 ( 2 Peter 1:21) 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 ( original copies

Private interpretation really means that I or anybody cannot write a Bible. The Mormons are a good example of this.

   Peace,   Golfjack

My post was not intended as bait. I thought we were in a discussion, in which I have provided scriptures and explanations to support my view, and you have provided writings from yourself. The writing you provided struck me as ironic, because you reject the Magisterium interpretation because it is interpretation of men, yet you provide a writing, you wrote. I think it’s safe to assume, you too are a man.

In reference to 2 Timothy 3:16, I cannot see why you keeping bringing up the same point, to which we agree. Scriptures are the inspired word of God. Where we differ, is in the author’s choice of wording to say scriptures are “profitable”, or “useful” depending on which version of the Bible one uses. As I’ve asserted before, profitable and useful falls short of sufficient, or all that is needed.

In reference to 2 Peter 1:20 and 21, St. Peter tells us, “Understanding this first:…” which is quailfying what he is about to say, which is, “That no prophecy of scriptures is made by private interpretation”. To me, this means what it states, “That no prophecy of scriptures is made by private interpertation.” Why is St. Peter telling us we cannot prophecy of scriptures from private interpretation? Because the scriptures do not come from men, privately, they come through holy men of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture:

**20. It is of prime importance to know that prophecy of Scripture is not subject to private interpretation by every individual, as the false teachers assume it is, because prophecy is from God, and is not like mere human conjectures of future possibilities. Scriptural prophecy is divine revelation, and concerns future events known to God alone. Christ, and those appointed by him to teach in his name, have the authority to interpret God’s revelations. Another interpretation of this passage is: No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation, i.e. prophets do not make up their own prophecies, but receive them from God, cf. §§ 35a, 932i. **

Simply reading the definition of “interpretation”, from any source, does not line up with “writing”.

While I appreciate your response, I have to wonder why you didn’t address all the points I’ve brought up?

 

[golfjack]

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? 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? 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. Probbably one of the best historians around that time was the Jewish historian Josephus.

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(Snipped to fit the character limitations)

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

We are all called to be a part of the royal priesthood, but there has been an apostolic succession, as described in scriptures.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

You realize the printing press was invented in the 1500s? Prior to that, Bibles had to be copied by hand. Now imagine the time and the cost it took to copy one Bible. How many of the population could afford one? Next question, how many could read it, if they had one?

Now for the 1500s, what happened during that time period? The reformation took place. Because of the creation of “sola scriptura” and private interpretation, liberties were being taken with the Bible. Words added, books removed, translations were done to fit a theology.

King James Version

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England.[3] Printed by the King’s Printer, Robert Barker,[4] the first edition included schedules unique to the Church of England; for example, a lectionay for morning and evening prayer.[5] The first “authorized version” was the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[6] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

Actions taken by the Church, were taken to protect the Bible and it’s integrity.

This was written in 106AD, not the 3rd century.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution(55) of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(56) 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; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

That was written by St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of St. John, the beloved disciple. St. Ignatius was appointed by St. Peter. What he learned about the “Church”, he learned directly from the Apostles.

The quote above comes from a Protestant website. The writings are the writings of the early Church fathers.

Not to be nit picky, but Church is mentioned twice in the Gospels. Both times by our Lord. When He said He would build His Church and when He used an example of the authority the Church holds by telling the Apostles that offenses should eventually be brought before the Church, if they could not be resolved beforehand.

I am in the process of reading the writings of Flavius Josephus.

Now, consider your accusations well. All Christians were persecuted, under the penalty of death, until Constantine legalized Christianity, and made it the national religion.

Yes, I believe in the Catholic Church and all it’s teachings. Everything you named, can be supported using scriptures! While you might not agree with Catholic interpretation, there can be no doubt Catholic teachings come from scriptures!

That’s unlike “sola scriptura”, as evident by how this discussion as progressed. I asked you address the points I raised, and you present a “list” of things you object too in the Catholic faith? I’ve seen this before. When one cannot support their view, they strike back with such a “list”, which appears to be an effort to change the subject. I invite you to start a thread on any ONE of the subjects you have questions about, and I will present a Biblical explanation of where that teaching comes from. I’m sure a lot of the Catholics here would be glad to do the same.

Please note, I provide sources to support my view. It’s not a response of solely “what I believe”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What in the world are you talking about when you say there were no I guess Bible Scholars before 1500?

Who are you speaking too? I know I haven’t said there were no Bible scholars before the 1500s, in fact I have not only said the opposite, I have offered writings from the early Church fathers, some of whom had the teaching taught to them orally and in writing from the Apostles. In my opinion, it appears to be the Protestants that reject the idea that there were any Bible scholars prior to the 1500s.

If I start a thread on how the definition of the canon came to be, would you join in? I’d be very interested in seeing your view of how that happened, since I believe history shows it came through the Catholic Church.

 

[golfjack]

PS, How do I know these fathers were correct in their teachings? I really don’t, and that is a big problem for me. I would rather go the Bible itself. Your church became very legalistic starting under Constatine. It remains the same today. I don’t mind talking about cannon because I know God has protected His Word supernaturally. We humans will always have different opinions because noone is perfect.
Peace, Golfjack:thumbsup:

 

[mesl4]

My post was not intended as bait. I thought we were in a discussion, in which I have provided scriptures and explanations to support my view, and you have provided writings from yourself. The writing you provided struck me as ironic, because you reject the Magisterium interpretation because it is interpretation of men, yet you provide a writing, you wrote. I think it’s safe to assume, you too are a man.

In reference to 2 Timothy 3:16, I cannot see why you keeping bringing up the same point, to which we agree. Scriptures are the inspired word of God. Where we differ, is in the author’s choice of wording to say scriptures are “profitable”, or “useful” depending on which version of the Bible one uses. As I’ve asserted before, profitable and useful falls short of sufficient, or all that is needed.

In reference to 2 Peter 1:20 and 21, St. Peter tells us, “Understanding this first:…” which is quailfying what he is about to say, which is, “That no prophecy of scriptures is made by private interpretation”. To me, this means what it states, “That no prophecy of scriptures is made by private interpertation.” Why is St. Peter telling us we cannot prophecy of scriptures from private interpretation? Because the scriptures do not come from men, privately, they come through holy men of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Simply reading the definition of “interpretation”, from any source, does not line up with “writing”.

While I appreciate your response, I have to wonder why you didn’t address all the points I’ve brought up?

I just want to jump in here. Haven’t read the whole thread, and I am on the fence about the whole thing anyway, but it seems that the 2 Pet versers are referring to those who wrote the Old Testament. Peter does refer to Paul’s writings as like “other scripture” though so he must think of the apostolic writings of being on par w/the OT prophets. Now are Catholics saying that the Pope’s teachings are on equal authority to the OT prophets and NT apostles? It seems like RC teach that the bishop/Pope teachings are at least as authoritative, if not more so. RCs teach that the Holy Sprit speaks through the Pope/Magisterium as clearly as he did to the apostles? What about to Moses/Abraham, etc/Patriarchs? It seems like the OT prophets definitly didn’t interpret, they spoke exactly what God’s voice told them to say, but the NT apostles did seem to interpret the Holy Spirit’s lead, except in the few times they directly heard God’s voice (Saul/Paul). I tend to think the Magisterium does not hear God’s voice/Spirit quite so clearly, so they would then need to come up w/their own interpretation right? I understand that you can say, “Yes, but they seek the intercession of the Holy Spirit through prayer so it’s really God’s words, not theirs.” But any Christian can say, and does say the same thing. They may pray about something, have peace about it, so say “God led me to this…” Or “God told me…”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I just want to jump in here. Haven’t read the whole thread, and I am on the fence about the whole thing anyway, but it seems that the 2 Pet versers are referring to those who wrote the Old Testament.

If interpretation could be applied to writing as well as reading, I might would agree with you.

Peter does refer to Paul’s writings as like “other scripture” though so he must think of the apostolic writings of being on par w/the OT prophets. Now are Catholics saying that the Pope’s teachings are on equal authority to the OT prophets and NT apostles?It seems like RC teach that the bishop/Pope teachings are at least as authoritative, if not more so. RCs teach that the Holy Sprit speaks through the Pope/Magisterium as clearly as he did to the apostles? What about to Moses/Abraham, etc/Patriarchs? It seems like the OT prophets definitly didn’t interpret, they spoke exactly what God’s voice told them to say, but the NT apostles did seem to interpret the Holy Spirit’s lead, except in the few times they directly heard God’s voice (Saul/Paul). I tend to think the Magisterium does not hear God’s voice/Spirit quite so clearly, so they would then need to come up w/their own interpretation right? I understand that you can say, “Yes, but they seek the intercession of the Holy Spirit through prayer so it’s really God’s words, not theirs.” But any Christian can say, and does say the same thing. They may pray about something, have peace about it, so say “God led me to this…” Or “God told me…”

That is a misconception. The Pope, alone, does not interpret scriptures for Catholics. That is done through Church doctors, theologians, apostolic teaching, and councils. So it’s the Church, that Christ promised to be with, that makes the interpretation. The interpretations, that the Church has provided an interpretation for, have long been in place.

When Christ told the Apostles, “…give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever”, was He speaking to men who would die a fleshly death, or speaking to the authority of His Church?

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Before His ascension, when He appeared in the upper room to the Apostles, was He telling them, He would be with them even to the consummation of the world, knowing they would die a fleshly death before the consummation of the world, or was He speaking to His Church?

**Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

Why is it, Protestants believe God could inspire and protect His Word through the centuries, yet doubt He could protect His Church, so that even the gates of hell couldn’t prevail against it? Couldn’t God protect His Church, even through fallible men?

**Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not. **

The difference between Church interpretation and Protestant interpretation is, the Church has one interpretation and Protestants have as many interpretations as there are Churches, or readers even. Does God tell mankind multiple truths, that make us of one mind and judgment?

**1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that you be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment.**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

PS, How do I know these fathers were correct in their teachings? I really don’t, and that is a big problem for me. I would rather go the Bible itself. Your church became very legalistic starting under Constatine. It remains the same today. I don’t mind talking about cannon because I know God has protected His Word supernaturally. We humans will always have different opinions because noone is perfect.

      Peace,    Golfjack:thumbsup:

Who should I believe got it correct, the men that learned their theology from the Apostles, or someone from the 1500s or later? If you believe it is someone from the 1500s or later, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask which Protestant Church has it right and how you know they got it right?

Before Constantine, the Church had to operate “underground”, without a New Testament as we know it today. Contantine legalized Christianity and made it the national religion.

Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor; his reign was certainly a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313 Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned confiscated Church property. Though a similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy, Galerius’ edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them. [191]

The canon was defined by the Catholic Church.

**Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397**. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

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.
There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.

 

[golfjack]

PS, Come om now. John 14:16 is speaking about a Helper, which is the Holy Spirit. The word parcelate is unknown to me.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

PS, Come om now. John 14:16 is speaking about a Helper, which is the Holy Spirit. The word parcelate is unknown to me.

     Peace,  Golfjack

καιG2532 AND εγωG1473 I ερωτησωG2065 [G5692] WILL ASK τονG3588 THE πατεραG3962 FATHER, καιG2532 AND αλλονG243 ANOTHER παρακλητονG3875 PARACLETE δωσειG1325 [G5692] HE WILL GIVE υμινG5213 YOU, ιναG2443 THAT μενηG3306 [G5725] HE MAY REMAIN μεθG3326 WITH υμωνG5216 ειςG1519 τονG3588 YOU αιωναG165 FOR EVER,

G3875
παράκλητος
paraklētos
par-ak’-lay-tos
An intercessor, consoler: - advocate, comforter.

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Yes, I know. A “Helper” that would be with them forever, of course we know those in authority at that time would not be here forever…

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:
Joh 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.

Amen, Amen!

 

[mesl4]

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:
Joh 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.

Amen, Amen!

Just out of curiosity, wasn’t Jesus speaking to all the disciples when he said this? he elaborates in 14:23 that he’s not only speaking of sending a paraclete to church leaders, but to anyone who loves him (and those that love him are the ones who obey him). So why does only the Pope have infallibility(and yes, I understand what infallibilty means)? I understand that the it is because he is a successor of Peter, but then again, so were bishops of Antioch right? and if the Holy Spirit were guiding all believers/lovers of Jesus, than anyone of those, regardless of their heirarchy in the church, could equally interpret scripture right? They would equally be led by the Holy Spirit.

These verses even make me question who believers really are because Jesus says that those who believe will do even greater things than he did (in 14:12). I don’t know of anyone that’s raised anyone from the dead…done a few exorcisms, yes, instantaneously healed someone or raised them, no. Walked on water? no. So doesn’t that make you guys leery of who really is a believer? maybe there’s a whole lot more of us heading south than we thought. I knew the road was narrow that led to heaven, but based on this, only a few are getting in!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just out of curiosity, wasn’t Jesus speaking to all the disciples when he said this? he elaborates in 14:23 that he’s not only speaking of sending a paraclete to church leaders, but to anyone who loves him (and those that love him are the ones who obey him). So why does only the Pope have infallibility(and yes, I understand what infallibilty means)? I understand that the it is because he is a successor of Peter, but then again, so were bishops of Antioch right? and if the Holy Spirit were guiding all believers/lovers of Jesus, than anyone of those, regardless of their heirarchy in the church, could equally interpret scripture right? They would equally be led by the Holy Spirit.

If you read all of John 14, you will see Philip, Thomas and Judas (not Iscariot, it’s specified in scriptures) asked questions of the Lord. It does not mention disciples, or multitudes. This seems to indicate He was speaking to those He was giving authority of the Church too. As to verse 23, it was in response to a question from one of the Apostles.

Here’s what the Haydock Bible Commentary and the Catholic Commentary says about that passage…

Joh 14:22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard is not mine; but the Father’s who sent me.
Joh 14:25 These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you.

Joh 14:22-25 Lord, how is it? Literally, what is done, or, what will be done, that thou art about to manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? This apostle imagined, that the Messias would make manifest his glory of a temporal kingdom, not to them only, but to all the world. But Christ, by his answer, lets him know, that he spoke only of a manifestation of his love to those that loved him. If any man love me, my Father will love him, and we will come to him, that is, the three divine persons, will come to his soul, in a special manner, so as to bless him with an infusion of graces, and make our abode in his soul.

1. Judas (more commonly called Jude, not (the Iscariot) expressed his surprise. His surprise was just like the former surprise of the brethren of the Lord to whose number Jude belonged, 7:4, that Jesus should have mentioned no manifestation of himself to the world.

1. Jesus answered by continuing on the same line of thought. Practical love of Jesus calls down the Father’s love and brings a joint visitation of Father and Son, not passing but abiding.

1. The nonobservance of Christ’s word is non-observance of the Father’s word. Hence such conduct excludes from the divine visitation and manifestation, which is really love meeting love.

25-26 The Paraclete as Teacher and Guide —The connexion between 25 and 26 shows that the function of the Paraclete as Teacher and Mentor will be to give full understanding of the teaching of Jesus. 26 is a Trinitarian verse, for the Father sends the Spirit in the name of Christ. The Holy Spirit is always active in the Church furthering the full development of the truth delivered by Christ. 804c

Anyone can interpret scriptures correctly, but we must be of the same mind and judgment, as scriptures state. How can we know when someone has interpreted them correctly, especially when we see so many different interpretations? I’ve read scriptures, interpreted them, and checked to see if the Church offered an interpretation, on that particular passage, in the Catechism. So far, the Church confirms the interpretations I received.

Even though a Pope can speak infallibly, but everything he says is not infallible. Catholics are at liberty to disagree with him on several issues. Here’s a link that might help you understand the infallibilty of a Pope. It’s only one page and an easy read.

These verses even make me question who believers really are because Jesus says that those who believe will do even greater things than he did (in 14:12). I don’t know of anyone that’s raised anyone from the dead…done a few exorcisms, yes, instantaneously healed someone or raised them, no. Walked on water? no. So doesn’t that make you guys leery of who really is a believer? maybe there’s a whole lot more of us heading south than we thought. I knew the road was narrow that led to heaven, but based on this, only a few are getting in!

Peter raised a dead person, healed people and even took a few steps on water. That’s in the Bible.

Who do you see performing “miracles” nowadays? Have you ever researched some of those healers? You might be surprised to see some of the things people have said about those “miracles”. That’s not to say some can’t do miracles, it’s to say one must discern what is going on…

 

[mesl4]

If you read all of John 14, you will see Philip, Thomas and Judas (not Iscariot, it’s specified in scriptures) asked questions of the Lord. It does not mention disciples, or multitudes. This seems to indicate He was speaking to those He was giving authority of the Church too.

I did read 14 and if you read verses 21-24 it shows that he is talking about people in general(although I haven’t looked up how the Greek reads).

Peter raised a dead person, healed people and even took a few steps on water. That’s in the Bible.

I was referring to people after the apostles. I now it’s obvious in the Bible in the time of the apostles. even other non-apostles did miracles. i also know false prophets and anti-christs can do miracles. The point in the verse is that if you are a believer you will do more than Jesus did, not that if you do a miracle you are a believer.

Who do you see performing “miracles” nowadays? Have you ever researched some of those healers? You might be surprised to see some of the things people have said about those “miracles”. That’s not to say some can’t do miracles, it’s to say one must discern what is going on…

You seem to misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying that there really aren’t many or any miracles going on now so if we believe Jesus’ words, there must not be many believers. The Pope certainly isn’t doing these miracles is he? Those “healers” are likely false healers but I’m sure there have been miraculous healings since the apostles, just not Benny Hinn or whoever he his.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I did read 14 and if you read verses 21-24 it shows that he is talking about people in general(although I haven’t looked up how the Greek reads).

I was referring to people after the apostles. I now it’s obvious in the Bible in the time of the apostles. even other non-apostles did miracles. i also know false prophets and anti-christs can do miracles. The point in the verse is that if you are a believer you will do more than Jesus did, not that if you do a miracle you are a believer.

You seem to misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying that there really aren’t many or any miracles going on now so if we believe Jesus’ words, there must not be many believers. The Pope certainly isn’t doing these miracles is he? Those “healers” are likely false healers but I’m sure there have been miraculous healings since the apostles, just not Benny Hinn or whoever he his.

I sent you a private message to try and let you know I had edited my post to offer more information before you posted. I didn’t make it in time.

Miracles happen, but we’re not made aware of all the miracles, I am assuming. Think about a lot of the miracles Christ performed, then told the person not to speak of it. Was there a lesson to His command not to speak of it?

I’ve read some shocking things about some Protestant “healers”. I’d prefer not to name them. I did a search “is _____ ____ really a healer” search with google. On the other hand, if you want to find out if there are Catholic miracles, you have to search to find them, there are miracles you can find out about. One seems to boast of them, and the other doesn’t make it known.

It all boils down to some serious discernment, in my opinon…

 

[mesl4]

OK, Prodigal Son, but if you’re saying that the Pope/Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, and these verses in John say that someone who is guided by the HS would perform miracles and do greater things than Jesus, why don’t all Popes/bishops/priests or Catholics for that matter, do these miracles? ( I acknowledge that some miracles have happened through Catholics, as well as in other religions, or even in athesists).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

OK, Prodigal Son, but if you’re saying that the Pope/Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, and these verses in John say that someone who is guided by the HS would perform miracles and do greater things than Jesus, why don’t all Popes/bishops/priests or Catholics for that matter, do these miracles? ( I acknowledge that some miracles have happened through Catholics, as well as in other religions, or even in athesists).

Not all Popes/bishops/priests or Catholics are perfect, that’s not to say some of them don’t perform miracles. Also consider, the miracles come through Christ and it’s to His glory. It seems to me, a real Christian would not boast of such works because they know who really performed the miracle, in my opinion. Like I said, it takes some serious discernment.

As for being Holy Spirit guided, let’s look at the example of the Catholic Church alone. Isn’t a 2000+ year old Church a miracle in itself, especially when you look at some of the corrupt sinful men in it’s history?

Here’s a little story I heard that may help you understand infallibility a bit more.

In the 50s, there was a push to get the Pope to relax the Church’s stance on the contraceptive pill, because it wasn’t an abortificant. It supposedly worked by preventing the fertilization. The Pope discerned, prayed and decided, no it’s wrong. All kinds of people didn’t understand his reasoning. It wasn’t that long ago, they found out the pill was a bit more than a contraceptive, in that if an egg fertilized, the pill would end the life that had began. Had the Pope gone along with what everyone had told him, the Church would have been in error.

I learned the story above from a dvd by Dr. Ray Guarendi. I wished I could link the exact story, but cannot find it.