S
Steadfast
Guest
Now you know how I feel.
- Status
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
But do you agree with him that these Scriptures implicitly and explicitly speaks of their own sufficiency?
I don’t think they do to be honest.
First of all, he quoted Timothy 3:14–17.
But that doesn’t cover the Christian Scriptures for one thing-- because Paul is speaking of the Hebrew Scriptures.
In addition to this, the quote also doesn’t actually say that Scriptures are the sole means for knowing God’s will either-- which is what I’ve been asking for from the beginning.
Furthermore, we know that our good works do not save us, so I’m not sure why quoting a passage which talks about the ‘existing’ Scriptures making us “capable and equipped for every good work” points toward the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation.
Christ himself said that whoever hears his word and believes him who sent him has eternal life and will not be condemned. In fact, he has crossed over from death to life. Jesus further went on to say that the time was coming (and has now come) when the dead would hear the voice of the Son of God and those who heard would live.
But in regards to the Scriptures and those who have read them diligently, Jesus says the exact opposite…
In other words, without the living witness of Jesus to bring life to the Scriptures, those who diligently study the Scriptures do not actually have eternal life-- and the reason why they do not have eterntal life is specfically because they refuse to come to Jesus to have the life he is sharing with them through his living Word which lives within those who partake in his Spirit.
One can quote Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose, St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas all they want.
But in doing this, they are, first of all, effectively undermining their own claim that the Scriptures are sufficient because they are relying on extra-biblical sources to verify their doctrine.
In addition to this, they are fairly well ignoring these early church fathers (and later doctors) opinions as to what regards authentic God-breathed Scripture-- there are disagreements between them on this as I’ve already pointed out in this very thread and no one has adressed this yet.
continued…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
…continued
It is essentially claimed that three things are taught in this passage:
And if one is arguing that one’s good works are sufficient for salvation, then they are not actually arguing for the grace of God at all.
So while it is true to say that prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, it also needs to be stressed that nowhere do the Scriptures limit the Holy Spirit’s instruction to tablets of stone or scrolls either.
No. The Scriptures, even according to the Scriptures, are not uniquely God-breathed as in theopnoustos-- because this same theopnoustos is at work within us whenever we properly instruct someone in faith toward Jesus.
In fact, he who rejects the apostle’s instruction does not reject man but God, who gives them his Holy Spirit. It is also clear that the church has been placed here to guard the good deposit that was entrusted to us—guarding it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.
It is essentially claimed that three things are taught in this passage:
- Scriptures are sufficient for salvation.2. Scriptures are sufficient for sanctification.3. Scriptures are uniquely God-breathed (theopnoustos). But none of these points are actually true.
And if one is arguing that one’s good works are sufficient for salvation, then they are not actually arguing for the grace of God at all.
- While the Scriptures do claim that they are sufficient for sanctification in the sense of preparing those who are open to the Holy Spirit, they also clearly indiciate that these Scriptures can be dangerously misunderstood without proper instruction from those who actually carry on the traditional interpretations of the Scriptures as governed by the Holy Spirit.
- Plain and simply, the Scriptures are not uniquely God-breathed, uniquely God-breathed as in theopnoustos. For example, the Scriptures themselves say that no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, as Mark 13:10-12 points out, whenever we are arrested and brought to trial, we do not worry beforehand about what to say. We just say whatever is given us at the time, for it is not us speaking, but the Holy Spirit speaking through us.
So while it is true to say that prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, it also needs to be stressed that nowhere do the Scriptures limit the Holy Spirit’s instruction to tablets of stone or scrolls either.
No. The Scriptures, even according to the Scriptures, are not uniquely God-breathed as in theopnoustos-- because this same theopnoustos is at work within us whenever we properly instruct someone in faith toward Jesus.
In fact, he who rejects the apostle’s instruction does not reject man but God, who gives them his Holy Spirit. It is also clear that the church has been placed here to guard the good deposit that was entrusted to us—guarding it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.
M
MariaG
Guest
Well I certainly do:thumbsup:
I don’t feel I can add much to this discussion, but I am enjoying reading it. I am just posting so I can “find” it again more easily as well as highlight words that express my opinion about this issue.
God Bless,
Maria
M
MariaG
Guest
Again, I wanted to say how much I am enjoying a this thread.
It may take one awhile, but I encourage one to READ and not skim this thread if they wish to jump into the discussion. Much information.
I would also encourage one to use the “multiquote” feature. That way you can mark what you wish to respond to, but continue reading to see if a point you wish to respond to has already been addressed.
May the Holy Spirit shine the light of truth on the hearts of all who READ this thread.
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
It may take one awhile, but I encourage one to READ and not skim this thread if they wish to jump into the discussion. Much information.
I would also encourage one to use the “multiquote” feature. That way you can mark what you wish to respond to, but continue reading to see if a point you wish to respond to has already been addressed.
May the Holy Spirit shine the light of truth on the hearts of all who READ this thread.
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
B
believers
Guest
Hi, I was actually invited to this thread by a link from another discussion. Anyway, I’m going to jump right in
First, Let’s start with how the Word of God is described…
Hbr 4:12
For the Word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Next, where it came from…
2Ti 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Finally, why you need to obey it with emphasis on the last 2 words…
Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] **he that hateth reproof shall die.
First, Let’s start with how the Word of God is described…
Hbr 4:12
For the Word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Next, where it came from…
2Ti 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Finally, why you need to obey it with emphasis on the last 2 words…
Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] **he that hateth reproof shall die.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Have you read through this thread yet?
T
tequilamac
Guest
We can give you an A+ for enthusiasm anyway. Other than that, how does your post relate to the developments in this thread?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
In searching for a fair assesement of Sola Scriptura from a conservative and moderate perspective, I resourced an article by Ron Rhodes called Has God Really Spoken? It was published in the book The Conspiracy to Silence the Son of God– and I found the thoughts contained in the article were very revealing toward the topic of Sola Scriptura.
Rhodes noted that 2 Peter 1:21 provided a key insight regarding the human-divine interchange in the process of inspiration. This verse explains that 'prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.'
Rhodes expains that prophecy within this sense should be understood as Scripture* and explains that the phrase carried along in this verse literally means ‘forcefully borne along’. Therefore, although human beings were used in the process of writing down God’s Word, they were all nonetheless ‘borne along’ by the Holy Spirit as they did so.
In other words, the human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message. And, more to the point, God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record his message.
Rather, as Norman Geisler and William Nix put it…
“God moved and the prophet mouthed these truths; God revealed and man recorded His word.”
Consequently, as a Catholic, I agree with Geisler and Nix on this matter. The human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message-- and God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record his message.
*I will note that prophecy does not necessarilly imply the Scriptures alone within this passage.
In a general sense, the prophets of the old also acted as teachers giving oral instructions to the faithful who heard their words. In this sense, prophecy really and truly is akin to teaching, and attempting to restrict prophecy to ‘future events’ is a somewhat modern and derogatory concept. So to the extent that literal applications of these were being expected to be followed, the prophets of old really were provinding instructions on how to act in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.
On the other hand, we are not always forced to believe that the prophets themselves were always able to distinguish between the literal and the symbolic ramifications of their visions. It was sufficient for them not to give – and to be unable to give – in the name of God any erroneous interpretation. It has likewise been long known that the visions they gave very frequently disregarded distances of time and place. In other words, the Messiah (or the Messianic era) almost always appears on the immediate horizon of contemporary history-- even in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So while it is true to say that the prophets themselves may not have always understood their own oracles in regards to future events, it still most certainly remains true that they did understand the difference between those prophecies **‘which were to come’ **and those prophecies ‘which were to be done’ so to speak. In the later sense, they most certainly were acting as teachers as they quite literally instructed the faithful. In the former sense, their words were acting as signs for later generations to understand when the future conditions were met-- even if they themselves did not fully understand the words God uttered through them.
I will come back to this in more detail later.
Rhodes noted that 2 Peter 1:21 provided a key insight regarding the human-divine interchange in the process of inspiration. This verse explains that 'prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.'
Rhodes expains that prophecy within this sense should be understood as Scripture* and explains that the phrase carried along in this verse literally means ‘forcefully borne along’. Therefore, although human beings were used in the process of writing down God’s Word, they were all nonetheless ‘borne along’ by the Holy Spirit as they did so.
In other words, the human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message. And, more to the point, God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record his message.
Rather, as Norman Geisler and William Nix put it…
“God moved and the prophet mouthed these truths; God revealed and man recorded His word.”
Consequently, as a Catholic, I agree with Geisler and Nix on this matter. The human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message-- and God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record his message.
*I will note that prophecy does not necessarilly imply the Scriptures alone within this passage.
In a general sense, the prophets of the old also acted as teachers giving oral instructions to the faithful who heard their words. In this sense, prophecy really and truly is akin to teaching, and attempting to restrict prophecy to ‘future events’ is a somewhat modern and derogatory concept. So to the extent that literal applications of these were being expected to be followed, the prophets of old really were provinding instructions on how to act in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.
On the other hand, we are not always forced to believe that the prophets themselves were always able to distinguish between the literal and the symbolic ramifications of their visions. It was sufficient for them not to give – and to be unable to give – in the name of God any erroneous interpretation. It has likewise been long known that the visions they gave very frequently disregarded distances of time and place. In other words, the Messiah (or the Messianic era) almost always appears on the immediate horizon of contemporary history-- even in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So while it is true to say that the prophets themselves may not have always understood their own oracles in regards to future events, it still most certainly remains true that they did understand the difference between those prophecies **‘which were to come’ **and those prophecies ‘which were to be done’ so to speak. In the later sense, they most certainly were acting as teachers as they quite literally instructed the faithful. In the former sense, their words were acting as signs for later generations to understand when the future conditions were met-- even if they themselves did not fully understand the words God uttered through them.
I will come back to this in more detail later.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Now speaking of being ‘forcefully borne along’, the Greek word for ‘carried along’ in 2 Peter 1:21 is the same as that found in Acts 27:15-17.
As Rhodes notes in his article, in this passage the experienced sailors could not navigate the ship because the wind was so strong. The ship was quite literally being driven, directed, and carried along by the wind. This is similar to the Spirit’s driving, directing, and carrying the human authors of the Scriptures as he wished.
As Rhodes notes, the Greek word is a strong one, indicating the Spirit’s superintendence of the human authors. Yet, just as the sailors were active on the ship (though the wind, not the sailors, ultimately controlled the ship’s final destiny), so the human authors were active in writing as the Spirit directed.
Rhodes notes theologian John F. Walvoord’s word to explain this as follows…
John F. Walvoord:
Building further on this Scriptural theme, Rhodes notes theologian Charles C. Ryrie words, telling us that God’s work of inspiration meant using the human authors…
…in research - such as found in Luke 1:1-4.
…in permitting them to express intense felling – such as found in Romans 9:1-3.
…in transmitting direct revelation - such as found in Deuteronomy 9:10.
…in giving authoritative commands - such as found in 1 Corinthians 7:10.
…and in expressing opinions - such as found in 1 Corinthians 7:40.
…but always guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit, as noted in 2 Peter 1:21, so that the product can be said to have been breathed by God, as Ryrie states is noted in 2 Timothy 3:16.
And all these things are considered being part of the process of being **‘forcefully borne along’ **by God with the end result of infallibility generating the Scriptures-- it is in this sense that Rhodes concludes that the Holy Spirit is thus the ultimate author of Scripture. In other words, although God used erring humans as penmen, God nonetheless superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error.
As far as I can tell, Rhodes even goes one step further and believes that God also kept the authors from omitting any necessary details, which seems to to depart from what Catholic theology teaches to some degree. I could be misunderstanding his point about omission. But in regards to being free from error, we Catholics do indeed agree with these theologians on this matter-- even if we don’t agree with these theologians regarding their Scriptural teachings.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Hmmm? No responses?
Alright then, let’s keep in mind the idea of being ‘forcefully borne along’ as I continue with Ron Rhodes thoughts on this matter…
Rhodes quoted the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy as follows…
Keep in mind too that Rhodes is essentially teaching that the Scriptures, in the original autographs, possess the quality of freedom from error. Therefore, in all their teaching they are beleived to be in perfect accord with the truth.
However, I think this raises a few questions.
First of all, the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error in the original autographs, then what of subsequent translations over the roughly last 2,000 years since their being penned?
It’s already been demonstrated that using the early fathers one can reconstruct contain an astonishing 99% of the almost 8000 verses in the New Testament. Not only do I agree with the accuracy and reliability of the Scriptures, but I also agree that God must have been at work by the Holy Spirit in those who were preserving the Scriptural record for us our later generations as well-- which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.
In other words, if one is going to claim that the inerrency of the Scriptures are carried along by the Holy Spirit, would this not also indicate that those who transcribed these writings for later generations into new languages not also be carried along by the Holy Spirit?
If not, then why would anyone quote a modern translation of Scripture if they did not beleive the Holy Spirit was at work in those who carried on the translations?
It would seem to indicate that no one could really understand the Scriptures unless they actually understod that original languages they were written in.
Consequently, since it’s very likely that there may have been Aramaic originals that we do not have access to (at least in a few of the Christian Scriptures), then how can we verify that these current translations are trustworthy?
Would this not indicate that we are indeed trusting the later generations to have faithfully carried the Scriptural record by this same Holy Spirit?
If so, then I think people are starting to understand what Catholicism actually teaches when she claims she is inerrant on matters of doctrine. But I’ll come back to this part.
continued…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
If one is going to examine the living witness of the Scriptures, one has to examine how many times the Hebrew Scriptures are said to have the Holy Spirit (God) as their author-- and this despite the fact that a human prophet uttered the words of the Hebrew Scriptures. In all authentic cases, the words spoken by the human prophets thus carried divine authority.
As Rhodes points out, Acts 1:16 is an excellent example of this…
Although God used David and other Scriptural authors in the process of communicating his words, the Holy Spirit was in charge of the process so that no human error entered in the picture.
This can be seen in Acts 4:24-25, Jeremiah 1:9 and Zechariah 7:12 too.
It is clear that all Scripture is “God-breathed” according to 2 Timothy 3:16– and no sound Catholic that I know of should deny this.
According to Rhodes, however, the Greek form of God-breathed for inspired in this verse is passive. In other words, this indicates that the Scriptures are the net result of the “breath of God”. Consequently, if the form were active, the verse would be saying that all the Scriptures breathes or exudes God.
What we are told here is that God breathed out something, namely the Scriptures. Therefore the origin of the Scriptures – both Hebrew and Christian – are understood to be from God himself.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Anybody? 
M
MariaG
Guest
Guess not
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Maybe it’s for the better MariaG. And thank you for the kind words by the way.Guess not
I guess if I could sum up all the words above in few short paragraphs, the idea that only the Scriptures are uniquely God-breathed is either a flat-out lie or else a serious misunderstanding.
No one can say “Jesus is Lord,” and really honestly believe this except by the Holy Spirit. All true Christians believe this.
So there is nothing within the Scriptures which proclaims that the Scriptures alone are uniquely God-breathed. And there is plenty within the Scriptures which proclaims that the words we speak (and the actions we do) are also God-breathed as well.
In fact, the very name Catholic from the Greek katholikos literally means something to effect of kata (down, completely) + holos (whole)-- effectively handed down wholely and completely. It bears a very striking resembalnce to the Protestant idea of Scriptural innerancy as being ‘carried along’ by the Holy Spirit as I’ve detailed above-- and yet I still see many Christians doing theological back-flips in order to avoid calling their teachings a ‘Sacred Tradition’.
Yet if Christians of all types are indeed trusting the later generations to have faithfully carried the Scriptural record/understanding by this same Holy Spirit, then **they are **claiming nothing different from what Catholicism does.
In fact, the only difference between their trusting the Scriptures and our trusting the Scriptures is that they claim to have the proper understanding all the while they claim that we don’t-- which is exactly what we’re saying to them too.
Ultimately, if Christians can believe that God used erring humans as penmen, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error…
then…
Why can’t these same Christians believe as Catholicism does that God also used erring humans as church leaders, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they taught, keeping them from all error too?
I think these questions deserve answers from those who would argue against what Catholicism teaches. But I don’t think I’m going to get any straight answers though.
Bearing the glaring silence of this thread in mind, I think it’s safe to conclude that they don’t have the answers to these questions.
Catholicism does. She always did.
A
AlegreFe
Guest
This is in reply to believers post in another thread;
I know that “book” of which you speak is the bible but did you know that the Bible says that the pillar and foundation of truth is NOT the bible? If you want to “do what the bible says” then I would “breathe in” these words which are in the bible.
Pray to the Holy Spirit and let him guide you as you read the following passages from Sacred Scripture;
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know
how to behave in the household of God, which
is the church of the living God, the pillar
and foundation of truth. 1 Tim 3:15
Jesus never had an actual book he gave to the Apostles and other disciples and he never said, “here’s the book, you’re on your own. You have to figure it out and no one here on earth will help you figure it out.” He never said that or anything remotely close to that. Jesus did not leave us “orphans” without a shephard here on earth to guide us. Peter our first Pope, had the guarantee of the Holy Spirit just as our current Pope has the guarentee of the Holy Spirit when it comes to Faith & Morals.
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you
another Advocate ***** to be with you always,
17 the Spirit of truth, ** which the world cannot accept,
because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it,
because it remains with you, and will be in you.
18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
John 14:16-18
Commentary in NAB
*****[16] - Another Advocate: Jesus is the first advocate (paraclete);
see 1 John 2:1, where Jesus is an advocate in the sense of
intercessor in heaven. The Greek term derives from legal
terminology for an advocate or defense attorney, and can mean
spokesman, mediator, intercessor, comforter, consoler, although
no one of these terms encompasses the meaning in John. The
Paraclete in John is a teacher, a witness to Jesus, and a
prosecutor of the world, who represents the continued presence
on earth of the Jesus who has returned to the Father.
**[17] - The Spirit of truth: this term is also used at Qumran, where
it is a moral force put into a person by God, as opposed to the
spirit of perversity. It is more personal in John; it will teach the
realities of the new order (John 14:26), and testify to the truth
(John 14:6). While it has been customary to use masculine
personal pronouns in English for the Advocate, the Greek word
for “spirit” is neuter, and the Greek text and manuscript variants
fluctuate between masculine and neuter pronouns.
26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will
send in my name–he will teach you everything and
remind you of all that (I) told you. John 14:26
Cont…
Hmmm that’s strange, your authority is a book?believers said:
I know that “book” of which you speak is the bible but did you know that the Bible says that the pillar and foundation of truth is NOT the bible? If you want to “do what the bible says” then I would “breathe in” these words which are in the bible.Pray to the Holy Spirit and let him guide you as you read the following passages from Sacred Scripture;
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know
how to behave in the household of God, which
is the church of the living God, the pillar
and foundation of truth. 1 Tim 3:15
Jesus never had an actual book he gave to the Apostles and other disciples and he never said, “here’s the book, you’re on your own. You have to figure it out and no one here on earth will help you figure it out.” He never said that or anything remotely close to that. Jesus did not leave us “orphans” without a shephard here on earth to guide us. Peter our first Pope, had the guarantee of the Holy Spirit just as our current Pope has the guarentee of the Holy Spirit when it comes to Faith & Morals.
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you
another Advocate ***** to be with you always,
17 the Spirit of truth, ** which the world cannot accept,
because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it,
because it remains with you, and will be in you.
18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
John 14:16-18
Commentary in NAB
*****[16] - Another Advocate: Jesus is the first advocate (paraclete);
see 1 John 2:1, where Jesus is an advocate in the sense of
intercessor in heaven. The Greek term derives from legal
terminology for an advocate or defense attorney, and can mean
spokesman, mediator, intercessor, comforter, consoler, although
no one of these terms encompasses the meaning in John. The
Paraclete in John is a teacher, a witness to Jesus, and a
prosecutor of the world, who represents the continued presence
on earth of the Jesus who has returned to the Father.
**[17] - The Spirit of truth: this term is also used at Qumran, where
it is a moral force put into a person by God, as opposed to the
spirit of perversity. It is more personal in John; it will teach the
realities of the new order (John 14:26), and testify to the truth
(John 14:6). While it has been customary to use masculine
personal pronouns in English for the Advocate, the Greek word
for “spirit” is neuter, and the Greek text and manuscript variants
fluctuate between masculine and neuter pronouns.
26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will
send in my name–he will teach you everything and
remind you of all that (I) told you. John 14:26
Cont…
A
AlegreFe
Guest
…Cont
The Word of God we all know is Jesus. The Word of God, which is The Way, The Truth & The Life can’t be contained in just one book. I am NOT demeaning the Bible here at all. I love the Bible. It is part of the Word of God as it has been revealed to us. The bible is what tells me that the Catholic Church is our One True Church. The Church helps me interpret the bible as it should be.
Please pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you as you read these next passages from Sacred Scripture.
25 There are also many other things that Jesus
did, but if these were to be described individually,
I do not think the whole world would contain the
books that would be written. John 21:25
15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast
to the traditions that you were taught, either by
an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Thess 2:15
6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our)
Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts
himself in a disorderly way and not according to the
tradition they received from us. 2 Thess 3:6
If you love Jesus you should love His Church also. The Church contains the Fullness of Truth and you should make it your mission to find out which Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ.
The Church was here BEFORE the Bible was. When Paul or anyone would talk about “Scripture” in the NT, they were referring to the OT as they knew Scripture. Paul was spreading the WORD of God by letters and oral teachings or Oral Tradition. They did not have a Bible the way that we have one today. Jesus did not tell us “obey the bible” as you want to do. It’s not in the bible and it’s not in Sacred Tradition either. If the bible was not around back then when Jesus was teaching the Apostles and the Apostles were then passing on the Traditon to others, why would you think that Jesus wants you to obey the bible alone? And I know what you mean by obeying the bible, you mean God’s Word. But as we establised above that everything Jesus did could not be contained in all the books in the whole world, then how could you think that Jesus wanted you to obey only what is contained in the Bible. Jesus wants you to obey Apostolic Authority that is in the Church.
Cont…
The Word of God we all know is Jesus. The Word of God, which is The Way, The Truth & The Life can’t be contained in just one book. I am NOT demeaning the Bible here at all. I love the Bible. It is part of the Word of God as it has been revealed to us. The bible is what tells me that the Catholic Church is our One True Church. The Church helps me interpret the bible as it should be.
Please pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you as you read these next passages from Sacred Scripture.
25 There are also many other things that Jesus
did, but if these were to be described individually,
I do not think the whole world would contain the
books that would be written. John 21:25
15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast
to the traditions that you were taught, either by
an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Thess 2:15
6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our)
Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts
himself in a disorderly way and not according to the
tradition they received from us. 2 Thess 3:6
If you love Jesus you should love His Church also. The Church contains the Fullness of Truth and you should make it your mission to find out which Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ.
The Church was here BEFORE the Bible was. When Paul or anyone would talk about “Scripture” in the NT, they were referring to the OT as they knew Scripture. Paul was spreading the WORD of God by letters and oral teachings or Oral Tradition. They did not have a Bible the way that we have one today. Jesus did not tell us “obey the bible” as you want to do. It’s not in the bible and it’s not in Sacred Tradition either. If the bible was not around back then when Jesus was teaching the Apostles and the Apostles were then passing on the Traditon to others, why would you think that Jesus wants you to obey the bible alone? And I know what you mean by obeying the bible, you mean God’s Word. But as we establised above that everything Jesus did could not be contained in all the books in the whole world, then how could you think that Jesus wanted you to obey only what is contained in the Bible. Jesus wants you to obey Apostolic Authority that is in the Church.
Cont…
A
AlegreFe
Guest
…Cont
So maybe you should think twice of who or what you will obey, just the bible alone?.. or The Church as it says in scripture? And if the Church, then which one? There is only ONE Church that Jesus Christ built on Peter the Rock. And that is the Catholic Church. So many Protestant religions/denominations do have some truths, and some others have other truths. But none have ALL of the truths or Fullness of Truth. So which one? Do you think the Holy Spirit is confused? I think not. This Catholic Church is the ONE, HOLY, Catholic & Apostolic Church. Investigate the History of the Church and not by some Protestants who don’t really know the true history of our Catholic Church. Look to the Early Church Fathers of the Church. What do they say? Some of them were taught by the Apostles themselves. And then they passed those teachings on to other Church Fathers and so on. If that is the case, then how could the early Church Fathers be wrong if you believe that the Apostles were right? It’s something to think about.
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah,
the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon
son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church,***** and the gates of the
netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 **I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. ********
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.”
Mat 16:16-19
***** [18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church:
the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into
Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the
Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14)
except in Gal 2:7-8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”)
in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement
would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon
this rock (kepa) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably
means the same, for the difference in gender between the
masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the
feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability
of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although
the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances,
they were also used interchangeably with the same
meaning, “rock.” Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in
the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are
several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus’ church means
the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will
have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists
in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the
living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is
conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon
the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of
death.
Cont…
So maybe you should think twice of who or what you will obey, just the bible alone?.. or The Church as it says in scripture? And if the Church, then which one? There is only ONE Church that Jesus Christ built on Peter the Rock. And that is the Catholic Church. So many Protestant religions/denominations do have some truths, and some others have other truths. But none have ALL of the truths or Fullness of Truth. So which one? Do you think the Holy Spirit is confused? I think not. This Catholic Church is the ONE, HOLY, Catholic & Apostolic Church. Investigate the History of the Church and not by some Protestants who don’t really know the true history of our Catholic Church. Look to the Early Church Fathers of the Church. What do they say? Some of them were taught by the Apostles themselves. And then they passed those teachings on to other Church Fathers and so on. If that is the case, then how could the early Church Fathers be wrong if you believe that the Apostles were right? It’s something to think about.
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah,
the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon
son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church,***** and the gates of the
netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 **I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. ********
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.”
Mat 16:16-19
***** [18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church:
the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into
Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the
Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14)
except in Gal 2:7-8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”)
in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement
would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon
this rock (kepa) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably
means the same, for the difference in gender between the
masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the
feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability
of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although
the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances,
they were also used interchangeably with the same
meaning, “rock.” Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in
the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are
several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus’ church means
the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will
have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists
in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the
living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is
conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon
the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of
death.
Cont…
A
AlegreFe
Guest
…Cont
****** [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys
is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who
succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key
of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens”
and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in
heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the
binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to
the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of
authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of
excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys
and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning
the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to
Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the
power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse
suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is
intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and
that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be
confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but
not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.
****** [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys
is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who
succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key
of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens”
and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in
heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the
binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to
the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of
authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of
excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys
and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning
the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to
Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the
power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse
suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is
intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and
that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be
confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but
not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.
O
onenow1
Guest
HI,
All
Bible only ? God is simplicity and Love itself and the pride in our own understanding original sin ] makes bible only theology untenable.Here’s an analogy. Whether it be written or orally transmitted every one knows changes in transmisson of the message occur such as; he had] the measles, second person, he’s [got ]the measles. The Catholic Church guides the transmisson of truth as was intended by Jesus. He could not have made it simpler then that. Luke 22: 28-30 " You are the men who have stood faithfully by me in my trials; and now I confer the kingdom on you, just as my Father conferred one on me; you will eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones to judge the twleve tribes of Israel. Matthew 16: 17-19 Jesus replied, ’ Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So now I say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Of course if you don’t believe Jesus brought his kingdom to earth , then apostolic succession is a problem. These are my thoughts that trust the words of Jesus through his Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church. With the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
Peace
OneNow1
All
Bible only ? God is simplicity and Love itself and the pride in our own understanding original sin ] makes bible only theology untenable.Here’s an analogy. Whether it be written or orally transmitted every one knows changes in transmisson of the message occur such as; he had] the measles, second person, he’s [got ]the measles. The Catholic Church guides the transmisson of truth as was intended by Jesus. He could not have made it simpler then that. Luke 22: 28-30 " You are the men who have stood faithfully by me in my trials; and now I confer the kingdom on you, just as my Father conferred one on me; you will eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones to judge the twleve tribes of Israel. Matthew 16: 17-19 Jesus replied, ’ Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So now I say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Of course if you don’t believe Jesus brought his kingdom to earth , then apostolic succession is a problem. These are my thoughts that trust the words of Jesus through his Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church. With the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
Peace
OneNow1
- Status