Solas of the Protestant Reformation

[TriuneUnity]

Hello TriuneUnity. In regard to sola fide, how is 1 Peter 1:17 reconciled to the concept?

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: (KJV)

Thanks

The passage is certainly true. Mankind will be judged according to works. We have to take all of Scripture in context here. For those who are still in their sins and do not believe the message of reconciliation in the gospel will be judged according to their works. (Hint, not good news.) Those who are in Christ will be judged according to Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed unto us who have been grafted into Him. We will be judged according to His works.

 

[TriuneUnity]

We have a difference of opinion on whether Luther’s words advocated or condoned killing Jews. I am willing to discuss it further if that’s your choice. I have held back posting what history has to say about the influence of his antisemitic writings had on the 20th century.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and mostly used Hebrew to reference Old Testament scriptures. Greek was the common language in those times and that leaves me to assume Jesus also spoke Greek. Latin was also quite common as the area was under the control of the Romans. The Greek translation was primarily used for over 1000 years. What reason did Luther have in choosing differently?

I’d prefer to discuss the solas since it is the topic of this thread, if we can get past our differences of opinion on this subject or at the very least, leave it behind us.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

I am willing to leave behind differences of historical record as long as we debate the solas involved in the thread and not the personal morality of Martin Luther, but rather the theology he advocated (and other Reformers, of course). Anytime you question another’s morality, your own must be greater or you’ve condemned yourself.

 

[sola_scriptura]

It is believed that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. Until that time, the word was passed down through oral tradition.

This is true (in fact the earliest scholars think the Tanakh could have been put to paper as a complete book was probably around 450 B.C.). According to Rabbinal sources the Tanakh remained intact since this period. So, for example, relying on the Mosaic text (rather than the Septuagint) would seem to be more authentic, which is what Protestant versions do.

However, your argument is really a red herring because we have very early writings from both early Christians and the NT authors. The earliest Biblical books (John & Matthew) date back to early to mid second century. However, writings by Polycarp were authored earlier and the Didache was written as early as 70 AD.

The epistles of Paul date back to as early as 45 AD. The Gospels were originally written around 60 AD. The manuscripts we have of these writings were obviously not originals – but were compiled from the originals and were written only about 65 years after the originals.

Ignatius and Clement also authored important early work toward the end of the Apostolic era.

So in sum we have quite a bit of pretty solid documentation describing the early church, the words of Christ and the Apostles. In fact from a historicity standpoint the writings we have are considered excellent. For example, the earliest recorded writings regarding Alexander the great was authored over 400 years after his death.

So there’s really no gap between the Apostolic age and the writings we have. Moreover, it’s important to note that many elements of Catholic doctrine evolved over time. For example the dogma concerning the assumption was made doctrine in 1950. The immaculate conception in 1854; and Papal infallibility in 1870.

Therefore, the tradition argument is quite tenuous regarding these doctrines. If they were so well settled by testimony handed down through the ages, why wait nearly 2,000 years to make them doctrine?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I am willing to leave behind differences of historical record as long as we debate the solas involved in the thread and not the personal morality of Martin Luther, but rather the theology he advocated (and other Reformers, of course). Anytime you question another’s morality, your own must be greater or you’ve condemned yourself.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Sorry, I wasn’t attributing them to you. Didn’t mean for it to come across that way. I did not name the poster involved. He responded on his own.

No worries – just wanted to clear it up.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is true (in fact the earliest scholars think the Tanakh could have been put to paper as a complete book was probably around 450 B.C.). According to Rabbinal sources the Tanakh remained intact since this period. So, for example, relying on the Mosaic text (rather than the Septuagint) would seem to be more authentic, which is what Protestant versions do.

However, your argument is really a red herring because we have very early writings from both early Christians and the NT authors. The earliest Biblical books (John & Matthew) date back to early to mid second century. However, writings by Polycarp were authored earlier and the Didache was written as early as 70 AD.

The epistles of Paul date back to as early as 45 AD. The Gospels were originally written around 60 AD. The manuscripts we have of these writings were obviously not originals – but were compiled from the originals and were written only about 65 years after the originals.

Ignatius and Clement also authored important early work toward the end of the Apostolic era.

So in sum we have quite a bit of pretty solid documentation describing the early church, the words of Christ and the Apostles. In fact from a historicity standpoint the writings we have are considered excellent. For example, the earliest recorded writings regarding Alexander the great was authored over 400 years after his death.

So there’s really no gap between the Apostolic age and the writings we have. Moreover, it’s important to note that many elements of Catholic doctrine evolved over time. For example the dogma concerning the assumption was made doctrine in 1950. The immaculate conception in 1854; and Papal infallibility in 1870.

Therefore, the tradition argument is quite tenuous regarding these doctrines. If they were so well settled by testimony handed down through the ages, why wait nearly 2,000 years to make them doctrine?

I disagree with the timeline on Matthew and John, based on the information in the Ignatius study Bible. According to them Matthew was authored between 50AD to 100AD, and most probably prior to 70AD. John on the other hand seems to be dated slightly later. A fragment of John’s Gospel was discovered in Eygpt in 1935 and has been dated as early as 120AD. Ignatius of Antioch seems to allude to the teaching of the Gospel of John in a collection of letters written about 107AD. This makes the probability of John’s Gospel being composed before 100AD. (I normally provide links, but that information is in a collection I have at home.)

The exact dates are not that important as the point I was making in the post you responded too, is that oral tradition was used to spread the faith until the scriptures were written. That’s why I made the assertion that the Church and the faith existed prior to the Bible. In my opinion, this is why no one can produce scriptures supporting sola scriptura. It wasn’t used. Even prior to Christ, the Jews used oral tradition to recite scriptures and it was forbidden to write the interpretations because the written word could be misinterpreted.

The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).

After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved; see Timeline of Jewish history.

It was the Apostles that wrote the Bible in the form of letters or epistles, or people who learned directly under the Apostles. The individual Churches across Asia that held those individual letters and epistles released those writings to the authority of the one Church they were a part of, thus allowing a canonical definition of the Bible.

The canonical books of the Bible were chosen as early as 382AD. The infallible decision on that canon was made 1556. I point that out so you understand that the time between infallible decisions and actual faith structures are different.

A good example might be to bring up the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is it a part of your faith today to recognize that? I am earnest in asking as I know different Protestant denominations differ on this subject.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[sola_scriptura]

I disagree with the timeline on Matthew and John, based on the information in the Ignatius study Bible. According to them Matthew was authored between 50AD to 100AD, and most probably prior to 70AD. John on the other hand seems to be dated slightly later. A fragment of John’s Gospel was discovered in Eygpt in 1935 and has been dated as early as 120AD. Ignatius of Antioch seems to allude to the teaching of the Gospel of John in a collection of letters written about 107AD. This makes the probability of John’s Gospel being composed before 100AD. (I normally provide links, but that information is in a collection I have at home.)

You’re talking about a manuscript of John not the original I assume? Obviously John didn’t live until 120 AD? No need to provide links, I don’t see as much variance between what your assertions are and my own as I guess you do? With regard to John, it seems his work spanned many decades (for example Revelation was written toward the end of his life while perhaps exiled on Patmos). That is if it was the same John (there’s some level of dispute over this).

I think Ireneaus believed that Matthew and Mark were composed in the 60’s (while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome). However, obviously we can’t verify this. However, the date seems acceptable since they were likely composed before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

The exact dates are not that important as the point I was making in the post you responded too, is that oral tradition was used to spread the faith until the scriptures were written. That’s why I made the assertion that the Church and the faith existed prior to the Bible. In my opinion, this is why no one can produce scriptures supporting sola scriptura. It wasn’t used. Even prior to Christ, the Jews used oral tradition to recite scriptures and it was forbidden to write the interpretations because the written word could be misinterpreted.

I agree the dates are less important. We have very good approximate dates (we just don’t have exact dates). However, Paul eluded to Scripture and asserted it is useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training (see 2 Tim. 3:16).

However, again sola scriptura does not mean we ignore history or tradition. It means just what Paul said it means.

What does “correction” and “reproof” imply? If I have a math book and my math teacher who was one of the men who founded the mathematical system I was studying told me that a particular book was to be used to reproof or correct other assertions regarding that mathematical system, it would mean that book is the best source document we have. Unless someone higher on the food chain (perhaps there was a more preeminent mathematician on the team) said something to the contrary, I would assume my professors statement is authoritative? Do you think I’m off base here?

It was the Apostles that wrote the Bible in the form of letters or epistles, or people who learned directly under the Apostles. The individual Churches across Asia that held those individual letters and epistles released those writings to the authority of the one Church they were a part of, thus allowing a canonical definition of the Bible.

The canonical books of the Bible were chosen as early as 382AD. The infallible decision on that canon was made 1556. I point that out so you understand that the time between infallible decisions and actual faith structures are different.

A good example might be to bring up the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is it a part of your faith today to recognize that? I am earnest in asking as I know different Protestant denominations differ on this subject.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

Actually I don’t necessarily recognize the perpetual virginity of Mary (to spite what Calvin had to say, later reformers disagreed). Overall, I do not think the evidence supports it. Mariology wasn’t even a doctrine in existence until Ireneaus uttered the words Mary the New Eve over 200 years after Christ. There’s no evidence for the assumption before the 4th or 5th century.

I don’t want to change the topic to one of Mariology, but I have studied this issue to some degree & you have to show me I’m wrong. I do know there’s plenty of misinformation out there, but this came from pretty good sources as I remember???

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree the dates are less important. We have very good approximate dates (we just don’t have exact dates). However, Paul eluded to Scripture and asserted it is useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training (see 2 Tim. 3:16).

However, again sola scriptura does not mean we ignore history or tradition. It means just what Paul said it means.

What does “correction” and “reproof” imply? If I have a math book and my math teacher who was one of the men who founded the mathematical system I was studying told me that a particular book was to be used to reproof or correct other assertions regarding that mathematical system, it would mean that book is the best source document we have. Unless someone higher on the food chain (perhaps there was a more preeminent mathematician on the team) said something to the contrary, I would assume my professors statement is authoritative? Do you think I’m off base here?

Paul was speaking of the Old Testament scriptures. The Old Testament prefigured the New and the New fulfilled the Old(Psalms 22 is an excellent example, it gives me chill bumps to read it). How many times do the Apostles refer to Old Testament scriptures? Not once in the New Testament do author refer directly to other New Testament scriptures like the Old.

He did not consider his letters to be a part of scriptures. Look at what else St. Paul said:

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.

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.

Actually I don’t necessarily recognize the perpetual virginity of Mary (to spite what Calvin had to say, later reformers disagreed). Overall, I do not think the evidence supports it. Mariology wasn’t even a doctrine in existence until Ireneaus uttered the words Mary the New Eve over 200 years after Christ. There’s no evidence for the assumption before the 4th or 5th century.

I don’t want to change the topic to one of Mariology, but I have studied this issue to some degree & you have to show me I’m wrong. I do know there’s plenty of misinformation out there, but this came from pretty good sources as I remember???

My purpose for asking the perpetual virginity question was not to sway the discussion to Mariology. It was to show you that teachings change:

Martin Luther declared that the doctrine was not of vital importance, but “we should simply hold that (Mary) remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity”.[23] He taught that “Christ, our Saviour, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that”; and that " Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers".[24] In fact Luther held throughout his career that, “in childbirth and after childbirth, as she was a virgin before childbirth, so she remained”.[25]

My point is to show what I said in my other post. Teachings can be a certain way for long periods of time. Infallible decisions only lock in what has been researched through the early Church Father’s writings and we are protected by the protection of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ.

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Luk 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

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.

1Jn 2:27 And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you: but as his unction teacheth you of all things and is truth and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him.

Act 15:28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:

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.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[TriuneUnity]

Paul was speaking of the Old Testament scriptures. The Old Testament prefigured the New and the New fulfilled the Old(Psalms 22 is an excellent example, it gives me chill bumps to read it). How many times do the Apostles refer to Old Testament scriptures? Not once in the New Testament do author refer directly to other New Testament scriptures like the Old.

And this would be largely due to the fact that in many instances the letters were written to Jewish audiences and show the messiaship of Christ must be proven from the Old Testament Scriptures. In addition to other areas of Christian theology.

However, there are a number of instances where New Testament epistles refer to other NT writings as Scripture.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Paul was speaking of the Old Testament scriptures. The Old Testament prefigured the New and the New fulfilled the Old(Psalms 22 is an excellent example, it gives me chill bumps to read it). How many times do the Apostles refer to Old Testament scriptures? Not once in the New Testament do author refer directly to other New Testament scriptures like the Old.

He did not consider his letters to be a part of scriptures. Look at what else St. Paul said:

So you’re saying that I should take the RCC’s word over Paul’s? The Apostles were witness to Christ, Paul was converted by Christ Himself. What they wrote became scripture. All the disputes mediated by Peter became what we know today as the Gospel and epistles. Had there been no Peter and only Paul we might be split with regards to core doctrine. For example some might think the idea that good works should flow from faith has no place in the economy of salvation. If were up to James we would essentially have adopted Judaism with the caveat that we believe in Christ.

Jesus tasked Peter to ensure right doctrine was established and made eternal through scripture.

I’m not sure how you can contextualize in such a way? Frankly I think it’s abusive. In other words – do you take a humanistic approach, or don’t you think the Holy Spirit guided everything Paul wrote? Do you think all the revelations made by Paul were manifestations of his imagination or his own personal interpretation of the Old Testament – or do you think He was divinely inspired? Do you think he had no clue that his words would become eternal, or do you think God was actually guiding this man and Paul knew full well that he was creating what would become part of scripture?

Paul uses the word Gospel dozens of times (as do the other Apostles). Sure, we can create a context argument that attempts to destroy any idea that these men knew what they were writing would become Holy Scripture, or we can accept the New Testament as divinely inspired (and everything that implies); and just as worthy of inclusion in Scripture as any Old Testament book? I take the latter view.

My purpose for asking the perpetual virginity question was not to sway the discussion to Mariology. It was to show you that teachings change:

My point is to show what I said in my other post. Teachings can be a certain way for long periods of time. Infallible decisions only lock in what has been researched through the early Church Father’s writings and we are protected by the protection of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ.

That’s your view, but one I do not share. The fact that something as elemental as infallibility could pop up after nearly 2,000 years is a red flag, logically speaking. The same with Marian dogma. In fact the issue is even more pronounced with Marian theology because because there was nothing knew the RCC learned in 1950 for example that would have logically led them to adopt the assumption into doctrine. It was popular opinion and one man who made a decision.

I wouldn’t really have a problem with Marian theology if it weren’t for idea’s like perpetual sinlessness, which seems to be rebuked by Jesus, who tells us only God is perfect. We learn all people are sinners, and only Jesus did not sin.

I’ve never heard the Pope say the Holy Spirit, God, Christ, or any angel came to him in a dream or in some other way and revealed the assumption to him? Why would the revelations made to a Pope be relayed in a different way than all the prior prophets and Apostles? Paul had Christ who actually appeared to him, the other Apostles walked with Jesus Himself and were witness to His entire ministry, death, and resurrection. God spoke directly to Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. We are told to test the spirits, look for false doctrine, and that’s what I’m doing. I just don’t believe the Pope represents Peter. It’s not that I think the Pope is a bad guy, to the contrary most have been great men. However, what I see in Mariology, for instance, is a response to public pressure to change doctrine.

I do not think that Jesus required a sinless mother to be sinless Himself. Moreover, I think it detracts from His humanity and destroys the reason behind His becoming flesh in the first place. He represented both Israel of the flesh and the promise. He took our sin inherent in our flesh and put it to death, in order to tell us our sins will not be counted against us if we have faith. In essence He destroyed the barrier of sin between man and God. No longer do we need to hide from God out of shame for sin and an expectation of wrath – we’re forgiven. More than that we have an advocate before the Father.

The idea of intercession seems to destroy the idea of one mediator. So yes I disagree with RCC doctrine in these areas?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And this would be largely due to the fact that in many instances the letters were written to Jewish audiences and show the messiaship of Christ must be proven from the Old Testament Scriptures. In addition to other areas of Christian theology.

However, there are a number of instances where New Testament epistles refer to other NT writings as Scripture.

Could you please provide a ‘couple’ of the scriptures from the New Testament that refer to other New Testament scriptures?

I’ve found instances where the Apostles referred to writings, but did not call them scriptures:

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Note above, St. Peter refers to St. Paul’s writings as “epistles” and how hard they are to understand, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures.

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

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

Act 15:30 They therefore, being dismissed, went down to Antioch and, gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle.

1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators.

2Co 7:8 For although I made you sorrowful by my epistle, I do not repent. And if I did repent, seeing that the same epistle (although but for a time) did make you sorrowful,

Col 4:16 And when this epistle shall have been read with you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that you read that which is of the Laodiceans.

1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.

2Th 2:2 That you be not easily moved from your sense nor be terrified, neither by spirit nor by word nor by epistle. as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand.

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.

2Th 3:17 The salutation of Paul with my own hand: which is the sign in every epistle. So I write.

2Pe 3:1 Behold this second epistle I write to you, my dearly beloved, in which, I stir up by way of admonition your sincere mind:

Rom 16:22 I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

Gal 6:11 See what a letter I have written to you with my own hand.

11-18 Autograph Epilogue—It was St Paul’s custom to dictate his epistles to an amanuensis and only to write the last paragraph in his own handwriting as a proof of genuineness; cf.Rom_16:22; 1Co_16:21, etc. 11. ‘See with what large letters . . .’, i.e. in a large hand.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
e·pis·tle
–noun 1. a letter, esp. a formal or didactic one; written communication.
2. (usually initial capital letter) one of the apostolic letters in the New Testament.
3. (often initial capital letter) an extract, usually from one of the Epistles of the New Testament, forming part of the Eucharistic service in certain churches.​

[Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE epistol < L epistula, epistola < Gk epistol message, letter, equiv. to epi- epi- + stol- (var. s. of stéllein to send) + -é n. suffix]

If the Apostles had known they were writing “scriptures”, why didn’t they refer to them as such? I believe it’s because they did not know they were authoring writings that would one day become a part of the Bible.

John referred to the many things which Jesus did and the world itself would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[raumzeitmc2]

So you’re saying that I should take the RCC’s word over Paul’s?

But aren’t you just offering your opinion of what Father Paul taught over the one Church’s teaching?

That’s your view, but one I do not share. The fact that something as elemental as infallibility could pop up after nearly 2,000 years is a red flag, logically speaking.

Well, speaking of infallibility, I asked elsewhere whether the Two Witnesses of Revelation (spelled it right this time ) will be infallible and whether their authority will supersede all *private interpretation? *

I’d like to hear your response.

The idea of intercession seems to destroy the idea of one mediator.

Was Christ the “one mediator” as God, or as man?

---

Now when the gift of miracles has ceased, the figure ought no longer to be employed.

• John Calvin, to the Protector Somerset, October 22, 1548.

Letters of John Calvin, Compiled from the Original Manuscripts and Edited with Historical Notes, Jules Bonnet, (1858), Philadelphia, Presbyterian Board of Publication, Vol. 2, p. 194. ISBN 1428650431
archive.org/details/lettersofjohncal02calv

books.google.com/books?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Now+when+the+gift+of+miracles+has+ceased&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%22Now%20when%20the%20gift%20of%20miracles%20has%20ceased%22

On the other hand…

At Hippo a Syrian called Bassus was praying at the relics of the same martyr for his daughter, who was dangerously ill. He too had brought her dress with him to the shrine. But as he prayed, behold, his servants ran from the house to tell him she was dead. His friends however intercepted them and forbade them to tell him lest he should bewail her in public. And when he had returned to his house, which was already ringing with the lamentations of his family, and had thrown on his daughter’s body the dress he was carrying, *she was restored to life. *

There, too, the son of a man Irenaeus, one of our tar gatherers, took ill and died. And while his body was lying lifeless, and the last rites were being prepared, amidst the weeping and mourning of all, one of the friends who were consoling the father suggested that the body should be anointed with the oil of the same martyr. *It was done and he revived. *

Likewise Eleusinus, a man of tribunitian rank among us, laid his infant son, who had died, on the shrine of the martyr, which is in the suburb where he lived, and after prayer, which he poured out there with many tears, he took up his child alive….

For were I to be silent of all others, and to record exclusively the *miracles of healing *which were wrought in the district of Calama and of Hippo by means of this martyr - I mean the most glorious Stephen - they would fill many volumes…

Augustine, City of God, Bk. XXII, ch. 8.

en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_XXII/Chapter_8

The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, A New Translation, Marcus Dodds, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1871.
books.google.com/books?id=OykMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA494&dq=%22praying+at+the+relics+of+the+same+martyr+for+his+daughter%22&lr=

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you’re saying that I should take the RCC’s word over Paul’s? The Apostles were witness to Christ, Paul was converted by Christ Himself. What they wrote became scripture. All the disputes mediated by Peter became what we know today as the Gospel and epistles. Had there been no Peter and only Paul we might be split with regards to core doctrine. For example some might think the idea that good works should flow from faith has no place in the economy of salvation. If were up to James we would essentially have adopted Judaism with the caveat that we believe in Christ.

Taking Catholic word and St. Paul’s word is one and the same as St. Paul was a very important part of the early Church. Your statements are actually a good example of how they were all a part of the same Church.

The differences between them were because of the different people they “evangelized”. For example, St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, therefore his writings addressed Jews. St. Paul dealt mostly with Gentiles.

Even though St. Paul was “knocked off his high horse” by the Lord, he approached the other Apostles and eventually became one himself, through their acceptance, guided by the Holy Spirit.

As you state in your comments above, St. Peter was the mediator, which in a way confirms his authority as head of the Church.

Jesus tasked Peter to ensure right doctrine was established and made eternal through scripture.

As you know, Catholics believe Jesus gave the authority of the Church to Peter and told him the Holy Spirit would reveal all things to him and that He would be with them until the consummation of the world but, I, myself, cannot find any references of Jesus telling Peter, or anyone else, to scribe or write anything. Can you please provide those instances?

Below are scriptures of Jesus’ instructions.

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Mar 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee. There you shall see him, as he told you.

Luk 24:34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared to Simon.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
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.

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

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
**

I’m not sure how you can contextualize in such a way? Frankly I think it’s abusive. In other words – do you take a humanistic approach, or don’t you think the Holy Spirit guided everything Paul wrote? Do you think all the revelations made by Paul were manifestations of his imagination or his own personal interpretation of the Old Testament – or do you think He was divinely inspired? Do you think he had no clue that his words would become eternal, or do you think God was actually guiding this man and Paul knew full well that he was creating what would become part of scripture?

I think I might be grasping the idea of a straw man argument. As you say the way I put things into context is abusive, I say the same for “private” interpretations. Just stating a point and not trying to argue.

I assume you know that Catholic, like Protestants, believe scriptures to be God breathed, or inspired. How God did it, well God works in mysterious ways.

Paul uses the word Gospel dozens of times (as do the other Apostles). Sure, we can create a context argument that attempts to destroy any idea that these men knew what they were writing would become Holy Scripture, or we can accept the New Testament as divinely inspired (and everything that implies); and just as worthy of inclusion in Scripture as any Old Testament book? I take the latter view.

The New Testament has lots of instances referring to the Gospel. Those that I looked up refer to preaching the Gospel.

That’s your view, but one I do not share. The fact that something as elemental as infallibility could pop up after nearly 2,000 years is a red flag, logically speaking. The same with Marian dogma. In fact the issue is even more pronounced with Marian theology because because there was nothing knew the RCC learned in 1950 for example that would have logically led them to adopt the assumption into doctrine. It was popular opinion and one man who made a decision.

Infallibility is used when teachings are in danger of being changed. An example of what I’m trying to say is evident by the infallible decision on the canon of the Bible as it was evident that reformers were making changes.

I wouldn’t really have a problem with Marian theology if it weren’t for idea’s like perpetual sinlessness, which seems to be rebuked by Jesus, who tells us only God is perfect. We learn all people are sinners, and only Jesus did not sin.

I’ve never heard the Pope say the Holy Spirit, God, Christ, or any angel came to him in a dream or in some other way and revealed the assumption to him? Why would the revelations made to a Pope be relayed in a different way than all the prior prophets and Apostles? Paul had Christ who actually appeared to him, the other Apostles walked with Jesus Himself and were witness to His entire ministry, death, and resurrection. God spoke directly to Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. We are told to test the spirits, look for false doctrine, and that’s what I’m doing. I just don’t believe the Pope represents Peter. It’s not that I think the Pope is a bad guy, to the contrary most have been great men. However, what I see in Mariology, for instance, is a response to public pressure to change doctrine.

I do not think that Jesus required a sinless mother to be sinless Himself. Moreover, I think it detracts from His humanity and destroys the reason behind His becoming flesh in the first place. He represented both Israel of the flesh and the promise. He took our sin inherent in our flesh and put it to death, in order to tell us our sins will not be counted against us if we have faith. In essence He destroyed the barrier of sin between man and God. No longer do we need to hide from God out of shame for sin and an expectation of wrath – we’re forgiven. More than that we have an advocate before the Father.

The idea of intercession seems to destroy the idea of one mediator. So yes I disagree with RCC doctrine in these areas?

I’ll save the Mary and intercession discussions for another thread or as this thread develops that way. I used the perpetual virginity as an example of how teachings can change.

As for how the Holy Spirit works, through the Pope or anyone else, how does the Holy Spirit let you know that you are right? Does He appear to you in a dream or vision? We believe the Pope’s infallible decisions, like the Church, are protected by the promises of Christ to be with us until the consummation of the world. As I said before, God works in mysterious ways.

Christ was the fulfillment of all prophesies. The Pope is not a prophet. I believe with Christ being the fulfillment of all prophesies, we have no need for prophets now.

Why didn’t Jesus write anything or have anything scribed? I believe the answer is in John 1:1

**Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
**

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[PerryJ]

Jesus tasked Peter to ensure right doctrine was established and made eternal through scripture.

I do not think that Jesus required a sinless mother to be sinless Himself. Moreover, I think it detracts from His humanity and destroys the reason behind His becoming flesh in the first place. He represented both Israel of the flesh and the promise. He took our sin inherent in our flesh and put it to death, in order to tell us our sins will not be counted against us if we have faith. In essence He destroyed the barrier of sin between man and God. No longer do we need to hide from God out of shame for sin and an expectation of wrath – we’re forgiven. More than that we have an advocate before the Father.

The idea of intercession seems to destroy the idea of one mediator. So yes I disagree with RCC doctrine in these areas?

How can Peter have been tasked by Christ to ensure right doctrine via scripture when he is to have died prior too many estimated dates that books in the Bible were written? Also the gospels certainly had not been defined in anyway prior to his death. Over 50 Gospels existed with various dates ascribed to them. The Bible did not exist in any location in anyway at his death?

Paul’s writing were sent to Churches to deal with specific issues and are not address to man in total.

Gospels mean “good news” and is not in way to be interpreted as intent of writing scripture.

 

[sola_scriptura]

How can Peter have been tasked by Christ to ensure right doctrine via scripture when he is to have died prior too many estimated dates that books in the Bible were written? Also the gospels certainly had not been defined in anyway prior to his death. Over 50 Gospels existed with various dates ascribed to them. The Bible did not exist in any location in anyway at his death?

Paul’s writing were sent to Churches to deal with specific issues and are not address to man in total.

Gospels mean “good news” and is not in way to be interpreted as intent of writing scripture.

Peter made sure that doctrine was correct. As I said this work manifested in the Counsel at Jerusalem, his leadership over the Apostles, etc. The Bible as a whole did not exist prior to Peter’s death but prior to his death the first manuscripts for many of the works that became the Bible were written; moreover, that was not the point I was making. Through his leadership of the Apostles Peter ensured that sound doctrine was created. During the lifetime of Christ there were no actual churches built. Real physical churches require administrative rules. Were we to follow the Levitical code, would it be faith alone, how would works play into the economy of salvation, etc. These were questions and disputes that Peter mediated or decided.

 

[PerryJ]

As a note I have found that most scholars do not believe that the Tanakh was completed without change at 450BC. Many scholars do not believe it was finalized until the CE.

 

[sola_scriptura]

As a note I have found that most scholars do not believe that the Tanakh was completed without change at 450BC. Many scholars do not believe it was finalized until the CE.

Official Jewish Rabbinical sources disagree, as far as I can tell. However, I understand there is disagreement over this issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Were we to follow the Levitical code, would it be faith alone, how would works play into the economy of salvation, etc. These were questions and disputes that Peter mediated or decided.

I don’t want to change the subject but, part of your quote reminded me of something I heard a priest say in a discussion with a Protestant preacher (Common Ground DVD).

It was something to this affect:

Not everyone understands works. Works is the response God expects from us receiving His graces. Sunday or Sunday and Wednesday night is not enough. God expects us to live our Christianity 24/7.

It’s really a good dvd, I highly recommend for anyone. You can read some about it here.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[MagicKirk]

The passage is certainly true. Mankind will be judged according to works. We have to take all of Scripture in context here. For those who are still in their sins and do not believe the message of reconciliation in the gospel will be judged according to their works. (Hint, not good news.) Those who are in Christ will be judged according to Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed unto us who have been grafted into Him. We will be judged according to His works.

Hello Triune Unity. Thank you for your response. I had thought that Sola Fide meant one is saved and judged only by faith. Is my understanding of the belief incorrect?

Is your statement above typical for Protestants (most-some-all)?

Finally, does your adherence to the concept create any disagreements with the following from the CCC?

Perseverance in faith

162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."44 To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;45 it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Could you please provide a ‘couple’ of the scriptures from the New Testament that refer to other New Testament scriptures?

Luke 10:7: And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

1 Tim. 5:18: For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

I’ve found instances where the Apostles referred to writings, but did not call them scriptures:
Note above, St. Peter refers to St. Paul’s writings as “epistles” and how hard they are to understand, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures.

By the fact that Peter is saying “the other scriptures” he is calling Paul’s writing scripture. If I said, “You really do not know how to fly that airplane, just like the people who can’t drive the other cars” wouldn’t make much sense, would it?