Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[pablope]

The inclusion of these books were debated as early as 300s AD. Even Jerome, who was a protege of the pope of the time, doubted the authenticity of these books and went as much and to state that in the prologue of each of the books in question.

Well…yet, why did Jerome include them in the Vulgate (which would be the Bible of the Latin Church once Jerome completed it)?

 

[medwigel]

So, a question for you, medwigel…what is the authority of the Jews (who rejected Christ) have anything to do with what a Christian should follow?

If you reject the authority of the Jews in determining Scripture then you must reject the Old Testament because it is Jewish tradition that gave us those books. You also need to reject the way Christ lived His life because He lived as one of those Jews and made Himself subject to Jewish laws of the same people who rejected Him.
And despite the fact that all Jews did not believe, they are still God’s chosen people, even to the point that He will save 12,000 from each tribe of Israel according to the book of Revelation.

The Old Covenant comes directly from the Jewish sacred texts. The Old Testament is Jewish scripture.
This is what I was talking about in having a colonialist mentality towards Scripture. You want to take ownership over what already existed and take the credit away from the original possessers to put them down and exalt yourselves as the true “founders”.
Well I am saying NO to revisionist history!! The Jews are the authors of the Old Testament!!

 

[medwigel]

From the people of God who were, at the time, the possessors of the covenant in force. Just like we get the NT from the authority of the possessors of Jesus’s New Covenant!

The Old Covenant comes directly from the Jewish sacred texts. The Old Testament is Jewish scripture.
This is what I was talking about in having a colonialist mentality towards Scripture. You want to take ownership over what already existed and take the credit away from the original possessers to put them down and exalt yourselves as the true “founders”.
Well I am saying NO to revisionist history!! The Jews are the authors of the Old Testament!!

 

[medwigel]

[The Reformers] added doctrines that had never been part of the Church’s teaching! That seems to be a more clear example of what Peter had been warning about!

What doctrines are you referring to?

For a start?

imputed righteousness

There are tons of Scripture on righteousness!

Philippians 3:8-9 “8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;”

Romans 10:3-4 "3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

…and, drum roll please…

Romans 4:22-25
"22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be IMPUTED TO US WHO BELIEVE in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

 

[medwigel]

> > [The Reformers] added doctrines that had never been part of the Church’s teaching! That seems to be a more clear example of what Peter had been warning about!
>

> What doctrines are you referring to?

For a start?

• imputed righteousness

And let’s not forget
Romans 10:10 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 " 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him."

 

[medwigel]

This is a wrong understanding of indulgences.

Matt 5:26…26 Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

So, what you think what it is that you have to pay to the last penny for?

Let’s first read the verse above to get the true context of this statement:
Matthew 5: 25-26
25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

So as you can see, Jesus is referring to paying to get out of jail in this parable, and He is encouraging us to settle disputes amongst our selves because once you get the law involve you will be at the mercy of the law, not paying to get rid of your sin.

And this Scripture is talking about dealing with your “adversary” and God is not our adversary, so this scenario can’t be referring to how God deals with His people because God is not our adversary; the devil is our adversary so this is a better example of how the devil would deal with our shortcomings, no God!
The devil wants you to work for redemption but God has forgiven our sins through grace, not through “bribes” or “payments”. Jesus paid for our sins with HIS BLOOD!

Ephesians 1:7 says:
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

My Pastor always says if you take the “text” out of “context” you get "con"ned.

 

[Cathoholic]

There are so many partial truths on your last three posts (because you are misusing them to attempt to get people to think they teach sola fide–they don’t) I don’t know where to begin.

medwigel. On your last post you said. . .

So as you can see, Jesus is referring to paying to get out of jail in this parable, and He is encouraging us to settle disputes amongst our selves because once you get the law involve you will be at the mercy of the law, not paying to get rid of your sin.

.

The reason you likely think this way is you have been taught a false dichotomy to works and grace.

Grace and works CAN be unrelated such as with people working without the grace of God.

Another example is Old Covenant works of law (such as circumcision).

But you CAN have grace works too (and the various sola fide traditions ignore this fact).

.

When you have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you . . . you CAN WORK and it CAN count towards eternal life.

Many sola fide traditions don’t believe this.

I do. Don’t be deceived by the traditions of men medwigel.

Listen to St. Paul . . . .

.

GALATIANS 6:7-8 7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked,
for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption;
but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

.

Notice you CAN sow (work) and then “reap” unto ETERNAL LIFE!

.

How? By sowing to the Spirit that’s how.

Not on your own, but in the Spirit of Christ that you received as a grace and a gift in Baptism.

 

[bobperk]

If you reject the authority of the Jews in determining Scripture then you must reject the Old Testament because it is Jewish tradition that gave us those books.

But why accept the “tradition” of non-Christians? And the Jews do not accept Daniel as a prophetic work, so obviously they are wrong in that regard compared to Christians.

The use of Scripture by Jews at the turn of the first century was wide and varied. There was a huge variety of works found at Qumran. More copies of Tobit were found than Joshua; aside from Psalms and Deuteronomy, more copies of 1 Enoch were discovered than any other book. So obviously it was not as cut and dried as you would make it out to be.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sola fide meaning justification by faith ALONE . . . .

None of the verses that medwigel cited above talk about faith ALONE. Not one of them.

The “alone” has to be ADDED into the text (at least in the mind of the sola fide follower).

There are a lot of verses that talk about a lot of aspects to salvation.

Which verse do you believe?

Well if you are Catholic you affirm them ALL.

But the sola fide follower can’t do this.

The sola fide tradition followers need to ADD the word ALONE to the texts in their interpretations.

Using this kind of method you could come up with all sorts of non-sense.

.

ROMANS 8:24a 24 For in this hope we were saved.

.

Does this mean you are justified by hope ALONE?

Does it mean you don’t need to believe or have charity?

.

If there is a Heaven out there I hope to get there.

.

Is that it?

Sola hope-eea?

No of course not.

St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 13 tells us you can have FAITH to move mountains, but if you do NOT have CHARITY or LOVE (depending on your translation) you GAIN NOTHING.

You don’t GAIN HEAVEN.

You gain NOTHING.

This is WHY charity is “greater” than faith.

 

[medwigel]

But why accept the “tradition” of non-Christians? And the Jews do not accept Daniel as a prophetic work, so obviously they are wrong in that regard compared to Christians.

From good ole Wikipedia in reference to the Book of Daniel:
In the Hebrew Bible it (Daniel) is found in the Ketuvim (writings), while in Christian Bibles it is grouped with the Major Prophets.[4] The book divides into two parts, a set of six court tales in chapters 1–6 followed by four apocalyptic visions in chapters 7–12.

 

[medwigel]

But why accept the “tradition” of non-Christians?

The Old Covenant comes directly from the Jewish sacred texts. The Old Testament is Jewish scripture.
This is what I was talking about in having a colonialist mentality towards Scripture. You want to take ownership over what already existed and take the credit away from the original possessers to put them down and exalt yourselves as the true “founders”.
Well I am saying NO to revisionist history!! The Jews are the authors of the Old Testament!!
If you take issue with this then you have to take it up with God because He came to them first then to the gentiles. The Jews are God’s chosen people (whether they believed or not) and it is through them we get our Savior.

 

[medwigel]

Medwigel it is at least heartening to note that you concede Christ cannot mislead the Church he founded and perpetually leads.

Let’s be clear, I concede nothing because I NEVER made the statement that Christ misleads the Church!

 

[bobperk]

Correct, Daniel is part of their Scripture, but as a “writing” and not as a “prophet.”

So in their “tradition,” the book of Daniel has nothing to do with Jesus as Messiah. So if they are wrong about this tradition - grouping this book as non-prophetic - perhaps they are wrong in other areas of Scripture compared to Christians.

If anything, God will take up the matter with those who did NOT consider Daniel prophetic, seeing that Jesus referred to Daniel so many times during his ministry.

 

[bobperk]

Again, discoveries like the DSS show that a simple 66-book OT in 1st century Judea was not a clear-cut established canon.

You seem so enamored by your claim of revisionist history, next think we know you’ll be kneeling at football games in protest!

 

[Cathoholic]

Partial truths are the modus operandi of the tradition of Bible-only Christianity and I don’t want one Christian here reading this thread to fall for this.

medwigel is obviously ignoring my posts. This is a shame as I think we were having a very good discussion.

This ignoring me is fine with me though, but the problem is lurkers will come here and read these posts and think the partial truths being presented here are full truths.

Since Catholic Answers is an apologetics organization, people frequently come here for apologetics answers (not to mention this is on an apologetics thread too).

In the context of justification by faith ALONE, medwigel posted . . . .

(medwigel appealed to Romans 10 emphasizing belief in bold. medwigel emphasis . . . )

Romans 10:10 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

medwigel forgot to ALSO EMPHASIZE the NEED to do the WORK of confessing Christ too. And this isn’t a mere moment ALONE but as The Book of Revelation reminds us, is a process. The lifelong process of justification that comes AFTER that MOMENT of justification. (“He that is justified, let him be justified further stll”).

Not medwigel emphasis . . .

Romans 10:10 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

.

When I pointed out this earlier to medwigel, the response I got was . . . “confessing with your mouth” wasn’t considered a “work” (see that curious claim here).

I also showed that in the same Romans 10 that the “faith” medwigel is appealing to, comes via (in part) from the WORK of other people’s preaching (faith comes from hearing the word preached to you).

So you CANNOT divorce faith from works in EVERY sense.

That is impossible to completely divorce faith from WORKS (again in all aspects), even if you affirm the need for faith.

.

Medwigel’s response now shifted to “ultimately” essentially ignoring that NEED for that saving faith that one receives, is at least associated with the WORK of preaching.

.

medwigel . . .

the ultimate act of being saved is an individual thing; it’s between you and God alone.

(See this here).

(This of course is another partial truth that ignores how you got to that point with saving faith to begin with.)

 

[Cathoholic]

In post 336 medwigel suggests Catholics Canonizing the Old Testament is “revisionist history”.

(Yet in post 247 which I quoted medwigel,
medwigel says “theologians and historians” vetted the Canon!

For some reason that is NOT “revisionist history” when medwigel says the same thing only tries to divorce it from the Church. I quickly pointed out those "“theologians and historians” were Catholic Bishops).

It only seems to be “revisionist history” in a medwigel-worldview if a Catholic makes the same claim (but fills out the honest context of Bishops).

The same thing was said in post 334 here . . .

Well I am saying NO to revisionist history!! The Jews are the authors of the Old Testament!!
If you take issue with this then you have to take it up with God

There are several problems with this.

One is that different Jewish people have different Canons, even to this day.

Another is that “Jews” didn’t factor in until Judah and his descendents.

This makes sola Scriptura impossible because God was holding people like Cain (who was BEFORE Judah) accountable for his sins . . . sins he could not know from Scripture (because there was no “Scripture” even according to medwigel’s invention of Jewish people Canonizing Scripture, which is a partial truth).

So much for sola Scriptura.

 

[Cathoholic]

In post 120, medwigel says . . .

.

Whether you’re “confessing” or “affirming” you still must be an active participant,
I wouldn’t call in “works”.

.

I am sure medwigel really means is . . .

Whether you’re “confessing” or “affirming” you still must be an active participant,
I wouldn’t call it “works”.

(Just a typo. No big deal. But I wanted to bring out the essence of the idea that medwigel is attempting to posit here).

.

So the argument medwigel uses here is to merely define the WORK of CONFESSING Christ
with your “mouth” or “lips” (depending on your translation)
is to RE-DEFINE these WORKS as "I wouldn’t call it “works”.

Don’t be taken in by this.

Not only is it a work, but you need to CONTINUE to confess Christ throughout your life at times.

MATTHEW 10:32-33 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

And the Greek word for “deny” can also be translated as “disowns” as in the NIV.
You can DIS-own Christ.

Sometimes it can be hard as when Christians are being derided for their faith, hope, and charity.
But we are told to take up our cross DAILY, and follow Jesus.

St. Paul warns people in the context of those who are Baptized into Christ, or “died with Him” (see Romans 6:3-6) not to deny Jesus but this denying Jesus CAN be done. Christians CAN CHOOSE to not “endure” disasterous as this may be.

2nd TIMOTHY 2:11-13 11 The saying is sure: If we have died with him,
we shall also live with him;
12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
for he cannot deny himself.

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel in post 328 . . .

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 " 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ,
as though God were pleading through us:
we implore you on Christ’s behalf,
be reconciled to God. 21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him."

.

Now I want to take that SAME quote to highlight some other information.

.

I was glad to see medwigel post a passage that had to do with implicitly Confessing your sins and therefore, the Confessional.

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 " 20 Now then, WE are ambassadors for Christ,
as though God were pleading through us:
we implore you on Christ’s behalf,
be reconciled to God.
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us,
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

HOW are we reconciled to God?

Not merely “directly” but “through us” we have “reconciliation” via Christ’s “ambassadors”.
This implicitly points to the Confessional. If you take it with other verses, it strongly points to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

.

Even with all this, it is still a “might”. If you do not persevere, you will not “become the righteousness of God”.

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 " 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we MIGHT become the righteousness of God in Him."

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 " 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel says in post 329, you cannot pay for your sins.

Let me be frank about this.

What medwigel is telling us here is another partial truth.

Apart from Christ we “can do nothing” OK? That is explicitly stated in John 15.

But ALSO (as Jimmy Akin has said) . . . . “With Him (Jesus), we can do some stuff.”

That is the part that medwigel is ignoring.

These are the types of WORKS that are necessary too by the way. WORKS IN Christ (not on your own). Which is WHY you can’t save yourself or merit in one sense (apart from Christ), but you CAN MERIT in another sense (with Christ).

St. James just matter-of-factly discusses this with us saying about a person who successfully corrects another person who is in error can “SAVE HIS SOUL”!

.

JAMES 5:19-20 19 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Medwigel . . .

So as you can see, Jesus is referring to paying to get out of jail in this parable, and He is encouraging us to settle disputes amongst our selves because once you get the law involve you will be at the mercy of the law, not paying to get rid of your sin.

NOT JAMES 5:19-20 (but a phantom verse) 19 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will be at the mercy of the law of liberty, not being able to pay in any sense to get rid of your sin or cover a multitude of sins.

.

This “law of liberty” is what we have now in Christ.

Not the Old Covenant “law” such as circumcision and not having Christ IN US and working in and through us with our free will.

.

JAMES 1:25 25 But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.

.

We already saw St. Paul say the same thing warning us not to be deceived by deniers of this teaching.

.

GALATIANS 6:7-8 7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked,
for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption;
but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

.

Notice you CAN sow (work) and then “reap” unto ETERNAL LIFE!

.

How? By sowing to the Spirit that’s how.

Not on your own, but in the Spirit of Christ that you received as a grace and a gift in Baptism.

.

That’s WHY St. James can also talk about people saving their souls and covering a multitude of sins.

How can mere mortals do this?

IN CHRIST that’s how.

In Christ we can WORK.

And if we refuse to “WORK”, “WITH HIM” we “accept the grace of God in vain” St. Paul warns us!

2nd CORINTHIANS 6:1 1WORKING together WITH him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

 

[Cathoholic]

Earlier in the thread medwigel was talking about sin and Romans 3:23 and possibly was implying Catholic doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sinlessness must therefore be wrong.

medwigel . . .

The church can’t be an infallible source because the church is made of people, and as someone pointed out earlier, all men/women who walk the face of this earth have sinned Romans 3:23; the only exception is Jesus.

Bold mine.

.

Notice Romans 3:23 does NOT state “the only exception is Jesus”.

.

medwigel . . . .

all men/women who walk the face of this earth have sinned Romans 3:23

.

Medwigel ADDED that in.

I agree Jesus did not sin. I agree Jesus is an exception.

But not because of Romans 3:23. And if medwigel starts to say openly Romans 3:23 allows for exceptions (which it does), then that harpoons his own point about Romans 3:23.

I asked . . .

.

Have “sinned” how? Are you talking about COMMITTING sins, or Original Sin, or both?

.

Eventually medwigel said “both”.

Well Adam could not have Original Sin (nor could Eve) otherwise you have God MAKING sinful beings.

So Romans 3 could not be talking about Original Sin in an absolute sense.

Also infants and profoundly mentally handicapped people cannot COMMIT sin.

So Romans 3 could not be talking about COMMITTING sins in an absolute sense either.

St. Paul talks in Romans 5, about people who do not COMMIT sin like unto Adam.

Since Adam had NO Original Sin but DID have COMMITTED sin . . . people who did NOT COMMIT sin like unto Adam, must have NOT committed any sins.

Here St. Paul talks about that.

ROMANS 5:14 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

.

Notice there ARE people who exist who did NOT SIN by breaking a command.

These people without sin are almost certainly infants, profoundly mentally retarded people, etc.

medwigel might argue that point. But the fact would still remain there ARE people who never committed a sin! St. Paul says so!

Yet these (committed) sinless people are still are subject to death (because they still have the inherited problem of Original Sin).

.

ROMANS 5:12, 14 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned . . . . 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.