Sola Scripture (yes, again)

[CentralFLJames]

I for one am not trying to shake your faith.

I was taught my faith by true believers, certainly not by anti-Catholics. Your saying that Protestantism is false doesn’t in any way make it so. Through many years of study in many disciplines I have been afforded the ability to discern logic from illogic. I can perceive something of truth. Your displays of Catholic logic want, a great deal. But more power to you. It’s good that you believe what you believe. It doesn’t satisfy rational examination.

That’s no great matter because religion does not require rationality. It requires faith, and only faith.

OK I’ll accept that you are not of the shaker varietal and are a disciple of what you consider to be the “True Believers” (I don’t recall this denomination) and a cult seperate from The Catholic Church.

You say you are trained in logic. I have graduate level degrees disciplines highly dependent on logic. Lets compare some fundamental logic shall we?

First of all do you want to sign up for being champion for all Protestants knowing that there are some 30,000 different sects? My experience is that the only time protestants come together under one banner is when they stand united against the Catholic Church - all other times they point the finger at each other. But let’s forget all that for a moment. Do all Protestant sects have it right or do the all just have it fractionally right? Does any single one of them have it all right? If so which?

Do you personally think that if one accepts scripture then one must accept all scripture since the truth can not be divided against itself to assault truth?

If so, do you accept the verse : “And I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 ?

If so, can you point to which Protestant sect that was founded post 1500’s derives its apostolic succession directly from Peter for over 2,000 years? If not why don’t you accept the Catholic Church as the only authority to interpret scripture and why do you embrace a fractionalized truth?

Now let’s survey a few of the more popular Protestant salvation buzz phrases:
Solus Christus: Christ alone. (ed: tradition of man)
Sola scriptura: Scripture alone. (ed: Tradition of man)
Sola fide: Faith alone. (ed: Tradition of man)
Sola gratia: Grace alone. (ed: Tradition of man)
Soli Deo gloria: Glory to God alone (ed: Tradition of man)
“You must be born again” (ed: Tradition of man)
“You must accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” (ed: Tradition of man)
“You must truly, truly, truly… truly believe” (ed: Tradition of man)
“Anything opposite to what the Catholics say” [kidding] (ed: more true than not)

You claim by faith alone - yet this is a tradition of man and its not biblical and it calls 10’s of thousands of other Protestants heretics.

What makes your tradition logically superior to any other? How did you choose?

James

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3325367]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Is it possible for the community of faith to misinterpret the Scriptures?

guanophore
I am surprised you would ask a question like this here, ja4. You have been saying since you got here that the Catholic Church has done this from the early centuries!

What do you think? Do you believe your community has ever misinterpreted the Scriptures?

 

[Namesake]

What makes your tradition logically superior to any other? How did you choose?

Mine is better than yours because I like mine better than yours. You get to have your delusions all to yourself.

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3325382]

OK I’ll accept that you are not of the shaker varietal and are a disciple of what you consider to be the “True Believers” (I don’t recall this denomination) and a cult seperate from The Catholic Church.

You say you are trained in logic. I have graduate level degrees disciplines highly dependent on logic. Lets compare some fundamental logic shall we?

First of all do you want to sign up for being champion for all Protestants knowing that there are some 30,000 different sects?

The number you are using for the 30,000 different sects, do you have the source for it? I’d be curious how this number came about.

My experience is that the only time protestants come together under one banner is when they stand united against the Catholic Church - all other times they point the finger at each other.

Your sample then is way to small. Many different protestant churches come together for more important things than be against the catholic church.
Where did you see protestant churches standing against the catholic church? What was the issue?

But let’s forget all that for a moment. Do all Protestant sects have it right or do the all just have it fractionally right? Does any single one of them have it all right? If so which?

I suspect within their own denominations they do think they have it all right. Its when you go outside to discuss other things that there may be differences of opinion. All protestant churches would agree that Christ is God, rose from the dead and died for our sins.

Do you personally think that if one accepts scripture then one must accept all scripture since the truth can not be divided against itself to assault truth?

I would think that they would accept Scripture for the most part Scripture as being inspired but would have different understandings on particular things.

If so, do you accept the verse : “And I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 ?

If by it you mean that the church is built on Peter himself then no. If you mean his profession of Who Christ is and on that the church is built, then yes.

If so, can you point to which Protestant sect that was founded post 1500’s derives its apostolic succession directly from Peter for over 2,000 years?

Protestants would have to accept that they owe some of their origin from the catholic church.

If not why don’t you accept the Catholic Church as the only authority to interpret scripture and why do you embrace a fractionalized truth?

Because men can err. The catholic church has erred at times.

Now let’s survey a few of the more popular Protestant salvation buzz phrases:
Solus Christus: Christ alone. (ed: tradition of man)
Sola scriptura: Scripture alone. (ed: Tradition of man)
Sola fide: Faith alone. (ed: Tradition of man)
Sola gratia: Grace alone. (ed: Tradition of man)
Soli Deo gloria: Glory to God alone (ed: Tradition of man)
“You must be born again” (ed: Tradition of man)
“You must accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” (ed: Tradition of man)
“You must truly, truly, truly… truly believe” (ed: Tradition of man)
“Anything opposite to what the Catholics say” [kidding] (ed: more true than not)

You claim by faith alone - yet this is a tradition of man and its not biblical and it calls 10’s of thousands of other Protestants heretics.

What else is needed for a man to be saved?

What makes your tradition logically superior to any other? How did you choose?

To answer this get a statement of faith from the church you are looking at. Does it line up with the scriptures. Do they profess Christ and believe that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant would be just a couple of things to look at. These 2 would certainly some of the most important.

James

 

[guanophore]

What do you think? Do you believe your community has ever misinterpreted the Scriptures?

That all depends upon how you define “faith community”. I just read a horribly misinterpreted scriptural post by a Catholic on here yesterday. I have known whole bible studies and prayer groups that either misinterpreted or misapplied scripture.

The Church, however, is much larger than all the members and “faith communities” that make comprise Her. Since she has the mind of Christ, and is the avenue through which the Scriptures were written, canonized, and preserved, she cannot misinterpret them. The HS is the Soul of the Church, and Christ is her Head, and that is why she cannot err. It is not dependent upon human limitations, but the infallibility of God.

 

[guanophore]

Mine is better than yours because I like mine better than yours. You get to have your delusions all to yourself.

I am pleased that you like your faith community. This is a very important aspect of spriitual growth. There is a billboard near here that says “Believers Center - a place for you”. It contains pictures of all sorts of various people. I think it is reaching out to people that want a sense of belonging, which is a basic human need.

What do you mean about “delusions”? Do you think that the Catholic faith is delusional, or are you referring to a specific “delusion” expressed by another forum member?

 

[guanophore]

I do believe solely in Scripture. I believe it the path to having a relationship with God, it makes us wise to salvation if we are honest and sincere in seeking it. For me personally at least, I consider anything not explicit in Scripture as unnecessary. Beneficial perhaps, but not necessary.

There some problems with this. “Getting saved” is not all of God’s purpose for our lives, but to be Christ in the world. One may become “wise unto salvation” by reading the book, but Jesus did not teach His disciples how to live as Christians in the world by limiting Himself to the scrolls.

the other thing is that the Sacred Writings were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition from whence they came.

 

[guanophore]

Many different protestant churches come together for more important things than be against the catholic church.
Where did you see protestant churches standing against the catholic church? What was the issue?

The main issue is authority. By definition, all Protestants reject the Authority Jesus appointed over His Church, found in the successor of Peter.

All the other anit-Catholic issues spring from that one, starting with Sola Scriptura and culminating in wanton licentiousness.

I would think that they would accept Scripture for the most part Scripture as being inspired but would have different understandings on particular things.

I agree with you on this point. I think this is why an infallible guide is necessary.

If by it you mean that the church is built on Peter himself then no. If you mean his profession of Who Christ is and on that the church is built, then yes.

No, the Church is built upon Peter because of rockiness. Jesus is the Cornerstone. God revealed solid rock truth to Peter, and Jesus grafted Peter into His own rockness.

Protestants would have to accept that they owe some of their origin from the catholic church.

Well, as anti-Catholic as you are, even you do that!

Because men can err. The catholic church has erred at times.

No, ja4, people err. God does not err. The church is Headed by Christ, and ensouled by the HS, and cannot err.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3326289]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Many different protestant churches come together for more important things than be against the catholic church.
Where did you see protestant churches standing against the catholic church? What was the issue?

guanophore
The main issue is authority. By definition, all Protestants reject the Authority Jesus appointed over His Church, found in the successor of Peter.

This is true in part. The idea of apostolic succession is not taught in Scripture though.

All the other anit-Catholic issues spring from that one, starting with Sola Scriptura and culminating in wanton licentiousness.

The Roman Catholic church forfeited this centuries ago by its abuses. The reformation was the result of these abuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I would think that they would accept Scripture for the most part Scripture as being inspired but would have different understandings on particular things.

guanophore
I agree with you on this point. I think this is why an infallible guide is necessary.

the only infallible guide would be the HS and not a church nor the men who make up a church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If by it you mean that the church is built on Peter himself then no. If you mean his profession of Who Christ is and on that the church is built, then yes.

guanophore
No, the Church is built upon Peter because of rockiness. Jesus is the Cornerstone. God revealed solid rock truth to Peter, and Jesus grafted Peter into His own rockness.

If what you say is true then what of this passage in I Corinthians 3:11 which says – For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ?
Secondly where do the other apostles concur with you? Where do they say that it is Peter himself who is the foundation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Protestants would have to accept that they owe some of their origin from the catholic church.

guanophore
Well, as anti-Catholic as you are, even you do that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Because men can err. The catholic church has erred at times.

guanophore
No, ja4, people err. God does not err. The church is Headed by Christ, and ensouled by the HS, and cannot err.

You can say this as do many cults but it cannot be proven from scripture. Jesus never promised the church could never err. Look at the first 3 chapters of Revelations. Already error is already in the church. Paul and Peter both warned about it not as a possibility but as a prediction that has come true. The Roman Catholic church has not been immune to this through the centuries.

 

[Namesake]

What do you mean about “delusions”? Do you think that the Catholic faith is delusional, or are you referring to a specific “delusion” expressed by another forum member?

I would say that Catholics are delusional about the RCC. I suppose the RCC is delusional too. The entire premise is wrong. The RCC is not the one true church. IMO

 

[larrybrantley]

You see, in the beginning of the church, it was all about Peter, and not particularly about the scripture. Protestants changed this without any authority from God.

And here I thought that it was all about Jesus and salvation.

Reading the entire section of scripture from Matt 16:13 - 20, it is clear that the rock upon which Jesus says he will build his church is not Peter, but the faith expressed by Peter.

 

[larrybrantley]

Sola scriptura is a doctrine that is not, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 “expressly set down in scripture”. However, it is claimed that it passes the second test of being part of “the whole counsel of God” because it is “deduced from scripture” “by good and necessary consequence”, citing passages such as Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”. Jesus is also typically understood by Protestants as expressly nullifying unscriptural traditions in the (Jewish) church, when he says, for example in Mark 7:13: “thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath.

 

[guanophore]

This is true in part. The idea of apostolic succession is not taught in Scripture though.

I am not sure if this will get us too far off topic, but Apostolic Succession is one of the Catholic doctrines that is explicity taught in scripture. I would think even you could “see” this one!

“…what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim 2:2-3

This is four generations of succession in one small verse. Written by Paul, called to be an Apostle by God, to Timothy, a young bishop, that he should choose faithful men, who would then go and** teach others**.

The Roman Catholic church forfeited this centuries ago by its abuses. The reformation was the result of these abuses.

ja4, the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. When Jesus built His church, He founded it upon a rock, and it cannot be “forfeited” by anyone". The Church is the Holy Bride of Christ. This sins of individual members notwithstanding:

"Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."Eph 5:25-27

When you make comments like this, you show that you don’t percieve that the Holy Church exists by God’s grace, apart from the sinful behavior of those disobedient members of her. You also say that Christ’s love was insufficient, that He was not able to sanctify and cleanse her, and that His sacrifice is worthless, or of so little worth to be ineffective. This is why, when you insult the Catholic Church, you insult Christ Himself, just as Paul did on the road to Damascus.

the only infallible guide would be the HS and not a church nor the men who make up a church.

I agree that the men that make up the church are not infallible, but since the Soul of the Church is the HS, and her head is Christ, then the Church is infallible.

If what you say is true then what of this passage in I Corinthians 3:11 which says – For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ?
Secondly where do the other apostles concur with you? Where do they say that it is Peter himself who is the foundation?

I hope this is not taking us too far off topic. “… but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Eph 2:19-22

Jesus is the foundation, and He grafted the Apostles and Prophets into Himself, so that they became foundation stones with Him. It is only because they were fully in union with Him that this could work. You see, the Church is bigger than the fallible people who are part of her here on earth. She is composed of Jesus as the foundation and the Head, the HS as the Soul, and all the saints of God who have gone on to their heavenly reward. The only fallible parts are those that have not yet completed the process of sanctification.

You can say this as do many cults but it cannot be proven from scripture. Jesus never promised the church could never err. Look at the first 3 chapters of Revelations. Already error is already in the church. Paul and Peter both warned about it not as a possibility but as a prediction that has come true. The Roman Catholic church has not been immune to this through the centuries.

No, ja4, people in the church erred. Men fall short of the glory of God, and those members of the Church here on earth are constantly able to go astray from the truth. That is the nature of free will. But as you see in each of the letters in Revelation, Jesus and the truth of HIs church remain. Even if the fallen have their lampstand removed, it does not remove the spotless bride, just the spots. Error being present does not nullify the truth. Jesus taught the truth to th ePharisees, and they chose to continue in their erroneous ways. His Truth remains. He is still the Head of the spotless bride.

 

[guanophore]

The RCC is not the one true church. IMO

Nor mine, as a non-Roman Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

This post was taken from a Mary thread, where it was off topic.

Simply from reading the Scriptures, I can’t believe that the Bible is just a bunch of stories. It approaches itself as absolute truth that will never fail, which is how Jesus approaches it too. In Psalms 12 I see that God completely preserves His Word from all generations and purifies them like silver in a furnace! Peter and others claim the Scripture is given by God’s inspiration and man has no power over it. Jesus says that heaven and earth will pass away before God’s Word does. Jesus and the apostles frequently state that the Scripture must come to pass, it must be fulfilled. The Bible approaches itself as irrevocably true and to believe it I can not believe differently. It says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness; it makes us wise to salvation, records the testimony of Jesus, and is enough to equip Christians to do God’s will. As Peter says, the Scripture was not by private interpretation but the very leading of God. Paul thanks his readers that they accepted those very words as from God, not men. I see men like Paul and Peter and Jesus all quoting from the Scripture to focus even on just one little subtlety of the wording to make a statement on absolute truth! They consider it as Jesus said, that it’s easier for Heaven and earth to pass away then for so much as a grammar mark to fail from God’s Word! To believe God could inspire it is to believe He could preserve it. To what else should I trust in? The godliest men I’ve ever known have told me not to trust in them for they will let me down, but to trust only in God’s Word and the God who gives it to me. From my own experience I’ve found people to let me down, and I can’t put my full trust in them - only God will never let me down.

I believe I can use God’s Word like literal armor and weaponry against Satan’s attacks. Resting on God’s promises from His Word is how I gain strength. It’s one thing to just know doctrine, it’s another thing to actually believe God’s promises.

I can understand and appreciate your beliefs and sentiments about Holy Scripture. However, I think you have this experience because of the HS at work in you. When I was in college, I took a course in Bible as Literature. It became clear to me that some people can read the Scripture and experience none of these things. It is only when such reading is mixed with faith, and annointed by the HS, that it comes alive.

Jesus is the Word of God. Some of what He wants us to know is reflected in Scripture,but not all. If it were, Jesus would never have had to come to earth! And He did not write a book, but taught people, and empowered them to carry His message. The Holy Writings are not meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition from which they emerged.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

And here I thought that it was all about Jesus and salvation.

Reading the entire section of scripture from Matt 16:13 - 20, it is clear that the rock upon which Jesus says he will build his church is not Peter, but the faith expressed by Peter.

Hi Larry,

Obviously, it is not “clear” that the rock is the confession.

Anyway, what does Peter’s confession have to do with Sola Scripture?

 

[Jzyehoshua]

This post was taken from a Mary thread, where it was off topic.

I can understand and appreciate your beliefs and sentiments about Holy Scripture. However, I think you have this experience because of the HS at work in you. When I was in college, I took a course in Bible as Literature. It became clear to me that some people can read the Scripture and experience none of these things. It is only when such reading is mixed with faith, and annointed by the HS, that it comes alive.

Jesus is the Word of God. Some of what He wants us to know is reflected in Scripture,but not all. If it were, Jesus would never have had to come to earth! And He did not write a book, but taught people, and empowered them to carry His message. The Holy Writings are not meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition from which they emerged.

God reveals to those who ask. Those who seek, those who knock, those who draw near to Him. I really don’t think it’s more complicated than just seeking God with honesty and sincerity… and just asking Him. Being willing to admit we’re wrong, to examine ourselves and truth even when it hurts, to think for ourselves on issues rather than accepting what other people tell us. I think truth needs to come from conviction, not brainwashing.

I just don’t think I can emphasize enough that what God’s given me is simply a matter of seeking and asking Him, not because I’m anything special. I firmly believe this is available to anyone who’ll admit their faults and seek after truth more than to be right.

If anything, I think God gets a kick out of using the people who look the most incapable to reveal His truths He likes using kids like Isaiah or stutterers like Moses. Cripples and sinners like Paul. God wants people to see it’s Him who gives freely, not because the people are anything of themselves.

The Pharisees noted that the apostles were a bunch of hick fisherman who didn’t even know how to read It was their God who made them special, not any learning they had.

 

[guanophore]

God reveals to those who ask. Those who seek, those who knock, those who draw near to Him. I really don’t think it’s more complicated than just seeking God with honesty and sincerity… and just asking Him. Being willing to admit we’re wrong, to examine ourselves and truth even when it hurts, to think for ourselves on issues rather than accepting what other people tell us. I think truth needs to come from conviction, not brainwashing.

I just don’t think I can emphasize enough that what God’s given me is simply a matter of seeking and asking Him, not because I’m anything special. I firmly believe this is available to anyone who’ll admit their faults and seek after truth more than to be right.

If anything, I think God gets a kick out of using the people who look the most incapable to reveal His truths He likes using kids like Isaiah or stutterers like Moses. Cripples and sinners like Paul. God wants people to see it’s Him who gives freely, not because the people are anything of themselves.

The Pharisees noted that the apostles were a bunch of hick fisherman who didn’t even know how to read It was their God who made them special, not any learning they had.

Thank you for illustrating my point so well. one can read the Bible without this attitude, and find none of what you have found. Their lives will be unchanged. It is the Spirit that brings the words to Power.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

There some problems with this. “Getting saved” is not all of God’s purpose for our lives, but to be Christ in the world. One may become “wise unto salvation” by reading the book, but Jesus did not teach His disciples how to live as Christians in the world by limiting Himself to the scrolls.

the other thing is that the Sacred Writings were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition from whence they came.

True, but he quoted from them as evidence of his authority. It was His personal knowledge of the Scriptures and their authority that continually amazed the teachers of the Law.

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is true in part. The idea of apostolic succession is not taught in Scripture though.

The Roman Catholic church forfeited this centuries ago by its abuses. The reformation was the result of these abuses.

the only infallible guide would be the HS and not a church nor the men who make up a church.

If what you say is true then what of this passage in I Corinthians 3:11 which says – For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ?
Secondly where do the other apostles concur with you? Where do they say that it is Peter himself who is the foundation?



You can say this as do many cults but it cannot be proven from scripture. Jesus never promised the church could never err. Look at the first 3 chapters of Revelations. Already error is already in the church. Paul and Peter both warned about it not as a possibility but as a prediction that has come true. The Roman Catholic church has not been immune to this through the centuries.

Yet you say scripture is infallible at the same time you call The Catholic Church fallable. Do you not see a logical absurdity in holding the original author of the Bible (The Holy spirit working through the Catholic Church) as fallible while saying it produced an infallible work in the Bible? How can something fallable beget infallibility? Your logic appears fallable as best.

James