Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

They would be covered by grace since the act of baptism does not save one’s soul.

Romans 10: 9-10
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

 

[medwigel]

Ok, so where does Paul, or anyone, teach about the elders or priest providing absolution for sins?

You can’t see it because it is not there!

 

[guanophore]

Romans 10: 9-10
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Yes, the Apostles taught that baptism saves, and those who approached baptism made a profession of faith, “calling upon the Lord”. Baptism was never separated from this profession of faith, from the first preaching of Peter at Pentecost until now.

You can’t see it because it is not there!

We see it, medwigel, because we read it through the faith of the Apostles, who produced it.

I have started to realize that you need to cling to a rigid fundamentalist mindset, so I am going to include this link for others, who really are willing to read and understand how we see these things in scripture.

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel . . .

Romans 10: 9-10
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Not Romans 10: 9-10
9 If you ONLY declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

I am surprised medwigel that you keep using Romans 10 as if it was the ONLY teaching about salvation in Scripture…

You yourself implied earlier that the whole of Scripture needs to be taken into consideration.

You are using Romans 10 as if that is ALL the Bible has to say about salvation.

This reduction and ADDING the word “ALONE” (even if the “alone” is only in your mind) is a tradition of men that nullifies the commandments of God.

As YOU said . . .

As long as people rely on human doctrine and tradition they then take God out of the equation and without God, satan can get a foothold.

Please don’t fall for this partial-teaching which is a human doctrine (that subtly IGNORES or REDEFINES many Scripture verses) that someone has given you medwigel.

Please prayerfully look for the WHOLE of the truth.

 

[Francis]

I agree with you

Romans 10: 9-10

1 Corinthians 12:3:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

so we receive the holy Spirit, by Baptism.

 

[Sean77]

Do you understand Sean77. . . .

. . . That you have no idea what “the Scriptures” comprise without them being ratified by men with God-given authority ? Not mere “opinions” but authority.

Again, you keep putting the cart before the horse. God’s word is God’s word because it was sent by God, not because man declared it as such. It is God’s word by its nature, just as the Logos, is God by his nature. We didn’t need a vote to determine if Christ was God’s word made incarnate. It is a fact, whether you say so or not. Why you continue to feel the need to place man in authority over God, I have no idea, but it doesn’t fly.

 

[Sean77]

Sacred Tradition as the Word of God has been jettisoned.

No, sacred tradition was never viewed as the word of God. Christ routinely rebuked people for viewing tradition on the same level as God’s word. You can keep trying to draw a false distinction between the tradition of men and sacred tradition, but there is nothing to substantiate this distinction. Additionally, we can see many places in history where “sacred tradition” was not the universal view of the church, many times for centuries, and that it was at times an aberration from the teaching of the apostle’s as recorded in the scriptures. A perfect example is intercession of the saints. Prior to the second or third century, prayers to the saints would have been considered blasphemy under the law. There is no recorded place in Hebrew scriptures, other than Saul consulting Samuel (which was a negative example showing Saul’s apostasy) where the dead are consulted. But somewhere along the way, sacred tradition arose, which cannot be linked to the apostles in any verifiable or authoritative way. Other historic examples from the Reformation would be simony, the treasury of merit, and indulgences, which Protestants were correct in saying were innovations and aberrations from the gospel that somehow became “sacred tradition.”

Sacred Tradition as the Word of God has been jettisoned.

Once again, tradition has not been jettisoned, it has been made to submit to the Word of God.

Protestants deny that Jesus is able to protect His Word in the Church, where He placed it.

No we don’t. He gave us his word through the Holy Spirit as delivered by the apostles, and recorded in scripture for all posterity. That written word is the means by which the Church is protected because it provides the objective revelation provided through the Holy Spirit to provide instruction, rebuke, etc. The issue is when you place fallible man as the authority over God’s word.

Protestants believe only that which was committed to writing, which was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

No we don’t. We believe that oral tradition which is in accord with the Word of God as passed down through the scriptures. In other words, the pastoral office is supposed to be held accountable for its teaching, and the objective means by which we do so is by examining scripture. Unfortunately, your ecclesiology removes this protection.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

Again, you keep putting the cart before the horse. God’s word is God’s word because it was sent by God . . .

Some in the early Church argued that the “Shepherd of Hermas” was “God’s word”.

Some in the early Church argued that Hebrews and Revelation, and other Deuterocanonical New Testament books were NOT “God’s word”.

WHO do you think had the authority to say, “No. You guys are wrong!” Sean77?

WHO do you think had the authority to ratify Hebrews and Revelation as authentic Scripture?

WHO do you think had the authority to say the “Shepherd of Hermas” was NOT “God’s word”?

 

[Sean77]

Well, if you actually know the history of the development of canon you could not make the statements you just made with a straight face. While Shepherd of Hermas and some of the other early Christian works often were included in Christian libraries, as were other more secular works, they were usually not considered as inspired on the same level as the Pauline corpus or the gospels, with a few local exceptions. The case you try to make for using Revelation and Hebrews actually negates your point. Though these works were argued about, it was the divine nature of their content that caused them to be widely used long before any kind of episcopal consensus was gained. The same can be said for the OT aprocryphal works. The canon for the most part developed as authoritative long before even early local councils began declaring them as authoritative by virtue of their authorship and divine content. And even then there was not always a consensus. Jerome for example disagreed with the Council of Carthage regarding the apocryphal works. Even up to the Council of Trent the issue was hotly debated. The persons most knowledgeable of Hebrew and the apocryphal texts such as Cardinal Jimenez and Cardinal Cajetan disagreed with the position adopted by Trent as to the inspiration of the apocryphal works. But even then, this wasn’t declared till after the 1540s, and only in response to the Protestant Reformation, and these works were largely included in the Roman canon because there was no other basis for some traditions that had come into broad acceptance such as purgatory. It is anachronistic in the highest degree to try to make the argument that you are making.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

. . . . it was the divine nature of their content that caused them to be widely used long before any kind of episcopal consensus was gained.

But I am not talking about them being “used”.

You can still “use” non-Scriptural writings.

I am talking about the “God-given AUTHORITY” to discern and proclaim such books as among “God’s word” authoritatively.

they were usually not considered as inspired on the same level as the Pauline corpus or the gospels

I am not talking about “usually” or “usually not” standards.

Such standards would be un-Biblical.

it was the divine nature of their content that caused them to be widely used

The “Divine nature of their content” as determined by WHO?

Mormons would talk about the “divine nature” of the book of Maroni and how they KNOW it is “Scripture” not only because of the “divine nature” but because it “burns in the bosom”.

But you and I would know it isn’t so.

And where in the Bible, does the Bible give a standard of “widely used” for canonization?

In the Days of Elijah when only a small remnant remained and NO Scripture was “widely used”, Scripture was still Scripture despite lack of “wide usage” Sean77.

WHO had the God-given authority to ratify what was, and what was NOT Scripture?

 

[Unnamed]

Medwigal

Based upon what you have been writing you have taken it upon yourself to be the final authority on all matters of faith and interpretation of scripture with the same authority of power of the pope in your mind. The problem is that there are millions of people like you who think that God has led just them into all truth from their personal interpretation of scripture. If you are led by the holy spirit along with pastor jimbob and millions of non Catholic Christians, why are all of your conclusions not the same if you all are truly led by God’s Spirit? Why is your moral theology different amoingst yourselves? Jesus intended that we all are one and Paul said we must agree on everything.

 

[Sean77]

WHO had the God-given authority to ratify what was, and what was NOT Scripture?

Again, you keep trying to put the cart before the horse. God spoke and it was accepted as authoritative and demonstrated his power usually through signs of the one who was commissioned to deliver the word or through the fulfillment of prophecy or similar means. Deuteronomy actually covers this quite nicely in a few sections. It also demonstrates that prophets were to be tested by two things: 1) if they spoke a word that did not come true, it wasn’t from God, and 2) if they caused people to follow after other gods. This is the means by which Ireneaus for example refuted the teachings of Valentinus (his works are filled with quotes demonstrating the departure of the gnostics from the faith as provided in scripture), and by which we can also refute the supposed revelation to Joseph Smith, through scripture we can see a significant departure from God’s word. If you like, you can maintain an apologetic stance against a Mormon by insisting on apostolic tradition, but that will not go anywhere. The means by which we refute Mormon apologists is by showing their inconsistency with scripture, which is also the means by which we convert Mormons (by declaring the Word). And again, we see that though this word was originally spoken orally, the words were enscripturated, relatively soon after they were written which became the authoritative means of transmitting that word as we see in further writings and by Christ himself. They didn’t need the Council of Trent in 1546 to tell them that.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 on how we know Scripture is Scripture.

God spoke and it was accepted as authoritative. . .

This is circular reasoning Sean77.

Why not just put up the verses that tell us HOW we know God spoke?

Why not just put up the verses that tell us HOW we are to determine the Canon of Scripture?

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77.

They didn’t need the Council of Trent in 1546 to tell them that.

Do you understand that Trent was not “new” concerning the ratification of books in Scripture?

Do you know that a Council BEFORE Trent re-affirmed what the Church has taught in this regard?

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

we see that though this word was originally spoken orally, the words were enscripturated, relatively soon after they were written which became the authoritative means of transmitting that word as we see in further writings and by Christ himself.

If that is the whole story, then I’d expect to see a Bible verse that tells us the Canon.

WHERE IS that verse Sean77?

WHERE in Scripture is the verse that says . . .

The Canon of Scripture includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, . . . .Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, . . . Jude, and Revelation.

WHERE is that verse Sean77?

 

[Sean77]

Again, you are using a red herring for what Sola Scriptura is, and in the process elevating the authority of the church over and above the authority of Christ. What does Paul say about the church? Christ is the head of the church, not the other way around. Sola Scriptura states that the scriptures, which are the God-breathed record of the transmission of God’s word is the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine. We do not jettison tradition or the authority of the church. The authority of tradition and the church are in submission to the authority of God’s word. We don’t have to vest infallibility to anything other than God. You however fail to make that distinction in your own doctrine. The result is that there is no such control over doctrine if doctrine should prove popular over time, regardless of its validity in scripture. If you are incapable of dealing with Sola Scriptura as it is actually defined, then you admit the failure of your argument.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

What does Paul say about the church? Christ is the head of the church, not the other way around.

This is inappropriate that you would post this Sean77.

I have made it clear, the Church is UNDER Christ.

Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura Sacred Scripture

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum section 10) 10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithf…

That being said, St. Paul never divorces Christ from His Church.

And St. Paul ALSO calls the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The fact is, you would have no idea what “Paul” said, if it was not for the Church recognizing that Scripture is indeed part of God’s word.

 

[Sean77]

I have made it clear, the Church is UNDER Christ.

Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura Sacred Scripture

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum section 10) 10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithf…

The problem is that the shepherds have not always remained steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles. If this were true, why were there so many heretical splinter groups breaking from the Catholic faith, many times led by clergy? How did the abuses which the Protestants who raised valid points creep into the practice of the Church, even to the point of being defended by the Pope, occur? Infallible means infallible. Not some of the time. Not when we decide they were or were not speaking ex cathedra anachronistically years later. All of the time. So far only one of the authorities discussed here have proven historically to be infallible. That is Christ and his word.

 

[guanophore]

medwigel:

Romans 10: 9-10
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Catholics do not develop doctrine by seizing on verses and building a theology around them. We know that all of the Bible must be incorporated, so we don’t have this “either/or” mentality. This verse about declaring faith goes together with the other texts on "baptism …“which now saves you”. Baptism is the rite of initiation into the Body of Christ, so it cannot be separated from the salvation that is described in this verse.

Again, you keep putting the cart before the horse. God’s word is God’s word because it was sent by God, not because man declared it as such.

Of course! This is why we accept the teaching of the Apostles as the Word of the Lord - whether in writing or by word of mouth, it was God’s word when it was manifested, and continues to be to this day. It is immutable, whether in writing or by word of mouth.

We didn’t need a vote to determine if Christ was God’s word made incarnate. It is a fact, whether you say so or not. Why you continue to feel the need to place man in authority over God, I have no idea, but it doesn’t fly.

What we needed, Sean77, is an authorative determination of which books/letters claiminig to be inspired were, in fact, those that needed to belong to the NT. This did not come by the Word of Man, but of God. This is part of what Jesus meant when He said what was bound on earth would be bound in heaven.

No, sacred tradition was never viewed as the word of God.

Perhaps not by you, or by your Reformed forefathers, but the Churches planted by Apostles and their successors have received this from the Apostles. Perhaps you will understand this better when you learn more about your family history?

Christ routinely rebuked people for viewing tradition on the same level as God’s word.

Actually, He did not. He was clear about the difference between human tradition and Sacred Tradition (which cannot contradict God’s intention, since it also comes from God).

You can keep trying to draw a false distinction between the tradition of men and sacred tradition, but there is nothing to substantiate this distinction.

It sounds like you are refusing to accept certain biblical evidence, as well as a two millenia of historical evidence.

Additionally, we can see many places in history where “sacred tradition” was not the universal view of the church, many times for centuries, and that it was at times an aberration from the teaching of the apostle’s as recorded in the scriptures.

I am eager to learn more about this. Which centuries were those?

 

[guanophore]

A perfect example is intercession of the saints. Prior to the second or third century, prayers to the saints would have been considered blasphemy under the law.

What law was that?

There is no recorded place in Hebrew scriptures, other than Saul consulting Samuel (which was a negative example showing Saul’s apostasy) where the dead are consulted.

While it is true that the passage describes Saul violating his own royal edict, it is quite clear that God allowed Samuel to respond to Saul, and to give Saul a prophetic message. Saul is not “dead” but alive and well, and knows about current events on earth.

Jesus had a little chat with Moses and Elijah, who are also clearly not “dead” and they are also aware of upcoming events that are to occur.

The saints in heaven are described as interceding for justice for those who are on earth and being persecuted.

All are alive unto Him, with which we have to do.

But somewhere along the way, sacred tradition arose, which cannot be linked to the apostles in any verifiable or authoritative way.

So, you don’t think the Apostles were really there at the transfiguration, as the Gospel records? How much of Scripture must you ignore to deny the Catholic position?

Other historic examples from the Reformation would be simony, the treasury of merit, and indulgences, which Protestants were correct in saying were innovations and aberrations from the gospel that somehow became “sacred tradition.”

Simony is a sin and an abuse, and was never part of sacred tradition. There is an endless treasury of merit in Christ, as I am sure you know.

As far as indulgences, I will be happy to take that up with you once I am sure you know what they are.

How can anything that is part of the Gospel be an aberration?

Once again, tradition has not been jettisoned, it has been made to submit to the Word of God.

You have made it clear, Sean77, that you do not understand what Sacred tradition IS, so how can you claim it was not jettisoned? Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, living in the Church. It cannot “submit” to that which it IS.

Human traditions must be submitted to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Altar Call, for example (to pray the sinners prayer or get saved). These are human traditions that are not contrary to the Gospel. They did not come from the Word of God, though.