Sola scripture from satan

[chet]

I have my doubts whether what we observe now is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. Jesus did seem to put a lot of priority into all of us being one.

Exactly He prayed to The Father for it! Is that pray what brought you here?

 

[chet]

Sola scriptura is the least of our problems. If people are reading the Bible, they/we are far better off than if they are reading the National Enquirer, Playboy or the New York Times. It is sad that the church has splintered, and sola scriptura is an example of churches founded by men instead of by God. Still, God uses these churches for his own good purpose. Myself, being a baptized Greek Orthodox, raised a Presbyterian, fallen away from all church involvement for over two decades, then becoming a Lutheran, then an Orthodox/Charismatic Catholic, and now, finally, in RCIA and happy to be a Roman Catholic, I have a unique perspective on the pros and cons of various expressions of the Christian faith. One thing I am certain of, the Catholic Church is much stronger for having survived the Protestant Reformation, and has learned much from our Protestant brothers and sisters.

Br. Mike

All things work to the good for those who Love and Serve the Lord!

 

[Hellisreal]

All things work to the good for those who Love and Serve the Lord!

Depends on

What you think is honoring God
What you think love is

 

[Jlcastagna]

The only tradition that I can be sure originated with the apostles is that which they wrote down.

Thats because you refuse to submit to the Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth- 1Tim 3:15

 

[mozart-250]

In order for this argument to hold water one would have to prove the Bible tells us everything necessary for any theological question we may have.

So full sufficiency is key to this argument, and I would again argue the Bible does not tell us we will need nothing else. So, If the Bible does not say we will need nothing else, then I too can argue the position of silence for my reasoning that the Bible alone is not sufficient and there is another authority.

Right?

This would be true if my assertion was that the silence of the Bible proves that there is no infallible authority other than the Bible true. That is not my assertion. My assertion is only that the silence of the Bible is evidence that there is no infallible authority other than the Bible. Certainly I can not see how I could have any reason to believe that there is an authority that is incapable of error if the Bible does not give me any reason to believe there is one.

Remember the logic of this thread. The statement was made that the silence of the Bible concerning Sola Scriptura proved Sola Scriptura false (and that it was satanic). Then I made the statement that there was more evidence in the Bible concerning Sola Scriptura then there is concerning the assumption of Mary (which you believe to be definitely true).

That having been said, in one sense I believe the Bible alone is not sufficient. I believe Jesus did not design the Bible and the church (now I disagree with your definition of the church but that is a separate topic) independent of each other and that the church does have some level of authority (and would probably have more if it were not divided). It is just that the authority level of the church is clearly subordinate to the level of the Bible and that the church is accountable to God to provide the best interpretation of the Bible she is able to give to feed the people of God.

 

[mozart-250]

Thats because you refuse to submit to the Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth- 1Tim 3:15

Umm that is not true. I am in full submission to a local church in my area. I am not in submission to your denomination.

 

[mozart-250]

Take note of the phrase “word of mouth”. In other words, unwritten teachings. Where can we find these teachings handed down through the words of mouth? In the Bible?

Sure we can. At the time Paul penned this letter (I do recall reading this was the first book of the New Testament written) that was all the audience of this letter had. Since that time it makes perfect sense to me that God (knowing how unreliable long term human oral communications are) made sure that the unwritten teachings at the time of Paul were written down for a church 2000 years and counting into the future.

 

[mozart-250]

Maybe the assumption of Mary was so embedded in they’re tradition that they didn’t even contemplate it.Since just like Jesus, there was no grave to visit or bones to venerate.

Maybe, but I have no reason to believe that is the case. The lack of grave or bones is not convincing to me because I immediately ask who else of that time period do we have no graves or bones of and do we then assume that they were assumed because a lack of these items.

 

[mozart-250]

I was attempting to summarize what I perceived as your belief system.Please feel free to correct me on any error I may have made in my brief analysis. Don’t forget my question. Since Jesus was a Jew why are their Christians at all?

Why…because after the resurrection of Christ
(1) The Jewish people rejected the resurrection of Christ
(2) God expanded the church to include the gentiles

I don’t see the relevance of that to the issue at hand though.

By your own admission sounds like your a “cafeteria” Wesleyan Evangelical.But isn’t that the whole driving force of Protestantism.I will say the qualifications you make seem well thought out.

???
I am not actively dissenting from a statement of faith of my church as say pro-aborti (umm sorry…choice) cafeteria Catholics do.

 

[mozart-250]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because I had not read in the Bible that the apostles died, they must have been existing on earth until these days.

Since I do not read in the Bible that God suspended the laws of biology for the apostles, I can assume that the apostles conformed to the biological laws that God established and that they umm…died.
Jesus said:

And on this rock, I will build the Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Which is not the same as “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals is incapable of being wrong”.

…the Holy Spirit will abide by the Church forever.

Again which is not the same as “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals is incapable of being wrong”.

Whatever shall you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, whatever shall you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

Again which is not the same as “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals is incapable of being wrong”.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Again which is not the same as “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals is incapable of being wrong”.

Glaring truths which the sola scripturists prefer not to pay attention to.

Glaring truths that Catholic apologists stretch into saying something that they really do not say.

 

[SyCarl]

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.

Those maybe church fathers (300-400 years after the fact though), but they are not Apostolic Fathers, which I understand is reserved for those early fathers who may have known the Apostles, such a Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement of Rome.

 

[moondweller]

We also have the body of Apostolic Teaching preserved by The Church which guides us in properly interpreting Sacred Scripture.

This is confusing terminology. By “body of Apostolic Teaching” are you saying the Apostles themselves orally interpreted Scripture (Old and New Testaments) and certain men have infallibly passed on and preserved, orally, their interpretation?

But still, you’re back to the Scriptures. So my question remains. What do we know of Christ and salvation other than what has been revealed and preserved for us in Holy Spirit inspired writing?

 

[believers]

I don’t want to upset anyone.
But I was looking for the real inventor of sola scripture.
Correct me if I am wrong but when satan was tempting Jesus did he not use scripture we he tempted Jesus to jump from the high ledge?

Actually, Satan tried to use twisted scripture to tempt Jesus. Jesus corrected him by what was actually the Word of God. Much like what us protestants do with the Roman Catholic Church.

Luk 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luk 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

 

[believers]

Thats because you refuse to submit to the Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth- 1Tim 3:15

Here’s a prime example of twisted scripture.

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.

church in this verse was taken from ekklēsia which means…

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

Explanation of Church

Being that so many people are hung up on thinking that the Catholic Church is God’s church, let’s define Church according to the time of Christ.
The word translated “church” in the English Bible is ekklesia. This word is the Greek words kaleo (to call), with the prefix ek (out). Thus, the word means “the called out ones.” However, the English word “church” does not come from ekklesia but from the word kuriakon, which means “dedicated to the Lord.” This word was commonly used to refer to a holy place or temple. By the time of Jerome’s translation of the New Testament from Greek to Latin, it was customary to use a derivative of kuriakon to translate ekklesia. Therefore, the word church is a poor translation of the word ekklesia since it implies a sacred building, or temple. A more accurate translation would be “assembly” because the term ekklesia was used to refer to a group of people who had been called out to a meeting. It was also used as a synonym for the word synagogue, which also means to “come together,” i.e. a gathering. “Body of Christ” Since believers have been united with Christ through spiritual baptism, they are sometimes corporately referred to as the body of Christ. (Rom. l2:4-5; 1 Cor. l2:11,13,l8,27; Col. l:l8; Eph. 5:30) The idea seems to be that the group of Christians in the world constitute the physical representation of Christ on earth. It is also a metaphor which demonstrates the interdependence of members in the church, while at the same time demonstrating their diversity from one another. (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:14-17)

 

[chet]

That having been said, in one sense I believe the Bible alone is not sufficient. I believe Jesus did not design the Bible and the church (now I disagree with your definition of the church but that is a separate topic) independent of each other and that the church does have some level of authority (and would probably have more if it were not divided). It is just that the authority level of the church is clearly subordinate to the level of the Bible and that the church is accountable to God to provide the best interpretation of the Bible she is able to give to feed the people of God.

Matthew 18:16-18 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”**Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. **

So the fact that the Church is divided is not a good thing? This being said;Wouldn’t stand to reason that the further a particular denomination is from the Apostolic Succession,the less likely their judgments are to be binding or Authoritative?

 

[anthony022071]

The idea that there is no other infallible faith source is rooted in Scripture in that Scripture does not identify any other source that it incapable of being incorrect.

“If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts’ (Mt 5:19)” Maximinus (Arch-Arian Heretic), Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c. A.D. 428).

 

[chet]

Maybe, but I have no reason to believe that is the case. The lack of grave or bones is not convincing to me because I immediately ask who else of that time period do we have no graves or bones of and do we then assume that they were assumed because a lack of these items.

I’m not entirely sure but do we not have relics of all the Apostles, or at least a recorded history of where and how they died and where their bodies were buried? Didn’t Jesus tell the Apostle John while he was hanging on the cross to take care of his mother? Obviously she was important to Jesus:So likewise wouldn’t she have been of great importance to the Apostles and the Early Church?

Revelation 12:1,13,17 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and **on her head a crown of twelve stars. **And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child.So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

By the way this Scripture passage also tells us that The Woman is also our mother.

 

[chet]

=mozart-250;3010971]Why…because after the resurrection of Christ
(1) The Jewish people rejected the resurrection of Christ
(2) God expanded the church to include the gentiles

I don’t see the relevance of that to the issue at hand though.

I’ll let St. Cyprian answer you.

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ [Mathew 16:17-19] And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” St. Cyprian, AD 251 The Unity of the Catholic Church

???
I am not actively dissenting from a statement of faith of my church as say pro-aborti (umm sorry…choice) cafeteria Catholics do.

Yes and by doing so they effectively Excommunicate themselves! Whether they realize it or not.Many call themselves Catholics when in fact they are heretics, I’ve been there my self.

 

[mozart-250]

So the fact that the Church is divided is not a good thing? This being said;Wouldn’t stand to reason that the further a particular denomination is from the Apostolic Succession,the less likely their judgments are to be binding or Authoritative?

I would think the closer a denomination is to following and obeying the Word of God is, the greater the spiritual authority that denomination has. Jesus seems to put a great deal of emphasis on hearing his word and doing it.

 

[mozart-250]

“If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts’ (Mt 5:19)” Maximinus (Arch-Arian Heretic), Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c. A.D. 428).

Your point being