Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

Everything changed with the New Covenant.

If you think the Apostles taught the Old Testament ways then you clearly have not read the New Testament, especially the writings of Paul!

 

[medwigel]

Actually, there has never been a change in the way people are saved. People have always been saved by grace, through faith. Those that understood this principle were not struggling to “be right based on the law” because they knew the grace of God.

Dude, salvation through Christ was not available until Jesus came, died on the cross and rose again.

 

[Cathoholic]

As a mnemonic device remember 2:23 and 23:2.

Specifically Matthew 2:23 and 23:2. (Emphasis mine)

During Old Testament times there was an AUTHORITATIVE prophecy concerning Jesus.

So authoritative the Scriptures in the New Testament talks about it matter-of-factly.

The prophecy said the Jesus shall be called “a Nazarene”. (That was one of the fulfilling prophecies telling us of Jesus sacred Scripture tells us.)

We of course see these prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament concerning Jesus.

The problem is, this phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is NOWHERE in the Old Testament, yet Matthew mentions the prophecy by not “a prophet” but by the “prophets” specifically concerning Jesus!

This is a reference to Old Testament times and these prophecies,
but NOT to the Old Testament itself as this prophecy is NOWHERE to be found in the Old Testament.

This is an explicit example of authoritative Tradition during Old Testament times (but NOT in the Old Testament), which is matter-of-factly mentioned by St. Matthew in regards to Jesus and His fulfillment of these prophecies.

.

MATTHEW 2:23 23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by THE PROPHETS might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

.

.

Also . . . .

.

The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ “cathedra” or “seat”.

.

MATTHEW 23:1-3 1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ SEAT; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

.

This may or may not have been a literal “seat” but the way Jesus uses this, it certainly means they had AUTHORITY from God too.

Now I admit the leaders ABUSED this authority, but they still had it.

But the point is, you will find “Moses’ SEAT” . . . . NOWHERE in the Old Testament.

Yet Jesus just matter-of-factly invokes it.

.

And nobody says to Jesus . . . .

.

Hey Jesus. Where is this “seat” or “cathedra” you are talking about?

.

And the ancient Hebrews—we find out elsewhere from the Scriptures—COULD speak with God’s protection from error . . .
. . . . what we now call an “ex-Cathedra” statement (but at least sometimes, they needed the Urim and the Thummim to do so. Now in the New Testament the Urim and the Thummim are not ever needed).

Does this Cathedra or “SEAT” of Moses illustrate “Oral Tradition ALONE”?

No but it illustrates an authoritative usage example (because of this you MUST DO . . . ) of an oral Tradition from the Old Testament.

Does the phrase “It is written” that we saw earlier in Matthew 4 illustrate WRITTEN Tradition ALONE (sola Scriptura)? No.

Just like the invocation of Oral Tradition,
the invocation of Written Tradition (Scripture)
does NOT mean “ALONE”.

 

[medwigel]

In the Old Covenant the promise was only to those born to the children of Israel, in the New Covenant the promises is for all, Jews and Gentiles, who believe and call on the name of the Lord.

No, I’m coming to see from this and your various posts that you have not read your Bible.
Look up the various covenants that exist in the Old Testament/Covenant of the Bible

• Abrahamic covenant
• Mosaic covenant
• Noahic covenant
• Davidic covenant
• Priestly covenant
  Open your Bible and just read the first 5 books to understand the foundation of God’s Old Covenant with man.
  You will find that these covenants are different from what Paul is teaching in the New Testament/Covenant

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel to guanophore . . . .

.

Open your Bible and just read the first 5 books to understand the foundation of God’s Old Covenant with man.

.

Was this Covenant “foundation” . . . . “foundational” . . . . . BEFORE they were written by Moses too medwigel?

Or did Moses have to write it down many years later for it to BECOME the foundation?

And if not, HOW does THAT fit into a sola Scriptura paradigm?

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel. You used these arguments earlier in the thread (in principle).

And I dealt with these arguments earlier in the thread (in principle).

(Here is the principle)

medwigel. You are conflating impeccability with infallible teaching.

This is un-Biblical.

.

.

If Pope John XII, Pope Urban VI, Pope Benedict IX, and others sin then the finally authority of what is taught can’t come from man, it must come from and infallible source, and that is God.

Can God use Pope John XII, Pope Urban VI, Pope Benedict IX, and others, yes.

You medwigel admitted as much in an earlier post.

As you said medwigel . . . .

David was an adulterer and murderer yet God still referred to him as a man after His own heart. Moses was a murderer and had an anger issues and God still inspired him to write the first 5 books of the Bible and lead his people and help establish a nation.

Pope John XII, Pope Urban VI, Pope Benedict IX, and others likewise.

.

.

People tend to go astray when they rely on their knowledge and not the knowledge and will of God.

(bold mine)

.

Sola Scriptura just might be the epitome of relying on your own knowledge for God’s revelation.

 

[Cathoholic]

In Acts 20, St. Paul informs us he preached in Ephesus (he is talking to the Bishops and others at Ephesus in Acts 20 here) day and night for three years.

.

ACTS 20:31 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.

.

Yet in St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul writes six measly chapters.

Is there anyone here who thinks these six chapters are ALL that St. Paul preached authoritatively to the Ephesians?

 

[Cathoholic]

And speaking of Acts 20, consider Acts 20:35.

.

ACTS 20:35 35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’"

.

WHERE in the Scriptures did Jesus “say” this?

I agree, St. Paul WROTE about it. But St. Paul is not invoking Scripture here to the Ephesians. He is about to part ways with them as he tells the Bishops of Ephesus (and others) this.

WHERE did Jesus SAY these words that St. Paul invokes as his last words to the “overseers” (or Episcopacy or Bishops - Acts 20:38) of Ephesus?

 

[guanophore]

So here are examples of Popes, the “ultimate representation of God and the church” who were involves in various sins, fornication, greed, murder and warmongering.

Ahh, I see the problem clearly. You have confused the gift of infallibility with impeccability.

Peter sinned, and Paul claimed he was the chief of sinners. Personal sin does not prevent people from being protected against error by Christ.

You are confusing individuals who sin with the Church, which is protected against teaching error by the Holy Spirit. There is no amount of personal sins of those claiming to be Christian that can overshadow or negate the promises of Christ.

You are also making an error in claiming the Popes are the “ultimate representation of God and the Church”. This is not Catholic teaching.

Mary would be a much better example! And all the saints, who lived holy lives.

Your listing the personal failings of the Popes will not alter the promises of Christ to the Church, any more than the failings of the Apostles changed His promises.

No, the Bible is written to Believers, not just to Catholics.

It is of benefit to all believers, but those who wrote it were Catholic, and those to whom they wrote were Catholic, and it is about the Catholic faith. Those who have left the Catholic faith interpret the words apart from the faith that produced the writings.

The Bible makes no mention of “Catholics”, but it does address people of faith/believers!

The church founded by Christ was Catholic, and was describes as such by Luke in Acts 9:31. This description became a proper noun by 107 AD. Those who were not in unity with that Church were considered heretics, apostates, and schismatics.

And if we go by your assertion of the NT being written later, then it would be late enough for the word Catholic to be included.

This begs the question, when do you think the contents were written? Have you studied the origin of the NT? The earliest letter is dated around 50 AD.

The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. In fact, the contents of the NT (which is not part of the inspired writings) was not settled until 382 AD. Until that time, there was still dispute about many of the books that some thought should be included but ultimately were not.

Projecting your expectations back into history, and saying that this or that term or concept "should be included’ is not rational. That is like saying the word Trinity should be found in the Scripture, or it is not true!

If you think the Apostles taught the Old Testament ways then you clearly have not read the New Testament, especially the writings of Paul!

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

 

[guanophore]

Paul wrote to Timothy about the Jewish faith in which he was raised by his mother and grandmother:

5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lo′is and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you. 2 Tim. 1

If that faith was no longer valid, why did Paul affirm that it lived in Timothy? Then Paul continues…

“I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands”
2 Tim. 1: 6

Why would Timothy “rekindle” a gift from the New Covenant that was built on a foundation of the a faith that was “no longer taught”?

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim. 3

What Timothy learned from his Jewish mother and grandmother was the Jewish faith, taught from the Septuagint and Sacred Tradition. This reference to “sacred writings” was made before the NT existed. Paul is saying that the Septuagint was “able to instruct you for salvation”. This means that Paul could see salvation in the Septuagint,and that all the OT pointed to Christ.

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, and explained how it applied to the New Covenant.

How could Jesus tell the Pharisees:

Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

If what was written in the Septuagint was no longer applicable?

Why would Jesus explain how the Septuagint pointed to Himself, if it was not relevant?

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

If the contents of the Septuagint were not considered relevant by the Holy Spirit, why did the hearts of the disciples burn within them?

Luke 24:32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Why did Jesus bother to open the hearts of the Apostles to the contents of the Septuagint if it was not relevant?

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures

Why did Paul use the Septuagint to argue with the Jews, if it was not relevant?

Acts 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures…

Why were the Jews of Thessalonica considered “more noble” because they received the Apostolic teaching with joy, and searched the Septuagint in the light of what they heard?

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Why did Paul refer to the Septuagint as a source of hope and instruction?

Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.

You also seem to be unfamiliar with the early fathers of the Church, who also used the Septuagint.

 

[guanophore]

Dude, salvation through Christ was not available until Jesus came, died on the cross and rose again.

You will get no argument from me on this. But that does not change the fact that there is no salvation any other way, and that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

You will find that these covenants are different from what Paul is teaching in the New Testament/Covenant

I have made no claim that the New Covenant is not different from these other covenants. What I am saying is that the Apostles used the OT to teach how the Christian life was to be lived.

 

[Cathoholic]

Considering other Old Testament time period aspects of this tradition of men of sola Scriptura . . .

. . . . . WHY can the “word of the Lord” come to Abram in Genesis 15:1 long before Scripture (Genesis) was even written? (Moses who wrote Genesis and others was not even born yet).

.

GENESIS 15:1a 1 After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision . . . .

.

Because the “word of the Lord” cannot be reduced to the printed page!

And any attempt to do this reduction is UN-Biblical.

.

“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets . . . .”

.

HEBREWS 1:1a In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets . . . .

.

.

Sola Scriptura followers are forced to say . . . . In the Scriptures and the Scriptures ALONE did God speak authoritatively to our fathers . . .

.

“The Protestant Reformation, for example, elevated the authority of Sacred Scripture but at the same time instituted the principle of the individual’s right to interpret that Scripture as he saw fit, thus placing man above the Word.” – Michael D. O’Brien, A Landscape With Dragons (bold mine)

 

[medwigel]

You are confusing individuals who sin with the Church, which is protected against teaching error by the Holy Spirit. There is no amount of personal sins of those claiming to be Christian that can overshadow or negate the promises of Christ.

.Pope Leo X: His emptying of the Vatican’s coffers led to various measures to create more revenue, which included the sale of indulgences — in effect, guarantees of relief from damnation in the afterlife.

The above is a direct example of a false teaching that was put out by the church and people bought into it.
So your above assertion does not hold water.

Pope Boniface VIII: Here is the archetypal power-hungry pope, who in 1302 issued a papal bull decreeing it “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff.” This was perhaps the most aggressive indication yet from a pope that temporal matters — the conquests of lands, the collection of riches — mattered as much as those of the spirit. He waged wars, sacked cities and eventually lost his own game of thrones, defeated by an army of his enemies.

And the above is a directive on what the church’s goal is and you see how he want about to achieve that goal in the name of the church and therefore (falsely) in the name of Christ.

 

[medwigel]

I have made no claim that the New Covenant is not different from these other covenants. What I am saying is that the Apostles used the OT to teach how the Christian life was to be lived.

How can they use the OT to teach Christians how to live when the New and Old Covenants are different?

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . . .

The above is a direct example of a false teaching that was put out by the church and people bought into it.
So your above assertion does not hold water.

Only in “teaching” by example (which is not what we teach).

But not in “teaching” by official proclamation (which IS what we teach).

 

[medwigel]

Dude, salvation through Christ was not available until Jesus came, died on the cross and rose again.

Yet you wrote:

Actually, there has never been a change in the way people are saved. People have always been saved by grace, through faith. Those that understood this principle were not struggling to “be right based on the law” because they knew the grace of God.

…So what point are you trying to make?

 

[guanophore]

The above is a direct example of a false teaching that was put out by the church and people bought into it.

No, the Church does not teach that indulgences can be “sold”. Forgiveness of sin is a free gift.

There were no “false teachings put out by the Church”. This is not possible, because Jesus protects the Church from teaching falsehoods. If the Church were to teach falsehoods, then the faithful would pass through the gates of hell! Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

A practice, however unholy, is not the same as a 'teaching". Instead of showing me examples of persons who sinned, you need to show me where the Church taught these things.

People did “buy into” the idea that indulgences could be sold. The council of Trent corrected this practice, since it is contrary to Church teaching.

You are equating wrong practices with Church Teaching. This is like saying that the Church promoted baptizing of the dead because people did this!

And the above is a directive on what the church’s goal is and you see how he want about to achieve that goal in the name of the church and therefore (falsely) in the name of Christ.

Jesus placed the care and feeding of the flock under the care of Peter. Peter passed this responsibility to his successor, and they to theirs, up to the current time. The successor of Peter is the vicar of Christ, and just as every creature is subject to Christ, so they are also subject to the authority He appointed.

You are also subject to the successor of Peter. You are a rebellious subject, but subject nonetheless. He prays for you every day, because he knows that he is responsible for the care and feeding of the whole flock, including those who deny his authority.

How can they use the OT to teach Christians how to live when the New and Old Covenants are different?

Good question! I suspect it has to do with the fact that salvation is of the Jews.

…So what point are you trying to make?

God’s method of salvation has never changed. All those who are saved are saved by grace, through faith. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but by Jesus.

 

[medwigel]

No, the Church does not teach that indulgences can be “sold”. Forgiveness of sin is a free gift.

Yes it did teach that- perhaps not now but it did in the past.
That was one of the main issues Martin Luther took issue with.
It was ABSOLUTELY taught and enforced by the Catholic church. There were priest put in charge of collecting indulgences.
You need to read about your own history. All you have to do is a Google search.

 

[medwigel]

How can they use the OT to teach Christians how to live when the New and Old Covenants are different?

But Paul did not preach to the Jews, he preached to the Gentiles

 

[medwigel]

…So what point are you trying to make?

No one could be saved by Jesus in the Old Testament because Jesus wasn’t born yet.
Even Abraham could not get into heaven right away because Jesus had not yet paid the price for all sin yet.