Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
medwigel said:
40.png
jlhargus:
[Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I shouldrun, or had run, in vain.]
Click to expand...
Maybe you need this verse in a different version: NIV:

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul says that he went to Jerusalem to preach the same Gospel to the Jews that he was preaching to the Gentiles, and because he’s a man of order he went to the leaders of the Jerusalem church first to present what he wants to preach.
Click to expand...
Post from the NIV or any version where “Paul says that he went to Jerusalem to preach the same Gospel to the Jews that he was preaching to the Gentiles,”. The NIV doesn’t say or even imply such a thing at all.

Paul went up to Jerusalem by revelation as the NIV says, [I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.]

As I posted before and the NIV is in full accord. Paul checked his teaching with the Magisterium, teaching authority, to be sure he was not running in vain.
medwigel said:
It doesn’t say he spoke with them and gave them overriding authority over the Scripture. It doesn’t say that any overriding authority over Scripture was given to the leaders.
Click to expand...
Those are your words, I nor anyone I know have even implied such a thing.
 
Last edited:
medwigel said:
John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Click to expand...
Well, sure, there are three uses of “Word” in this sentence, but it does not explain or name the Trinity. Matthew 28:19 is even closer, but the concept of the Trinity as we now understand it as Christians is not explicitly spelled out in either passage.
 
jlhargus said:
As I posted before and the NIV is in full accord. Paul checked his teaching with the Magisterium, teaching authority, to be sure he was not running in vain.
Click to expand...
It does not say that he is checking his teaching with anyone, Paul is sharing his ministry with them. Did you bother to read the rest of the Scripture? Let me help you out:

Galatians 2:6-8
6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul believes that he was called just as Peter and the others were called, and he has just as much authority as they do. He did not go to them to seek approval; Paul only needed God’s approval.

Before you reply read the whole chapter first.
 
Last edited:
bobperk said:
Well, sure, there are three uses of “Word” in this sentence, but it does not explain or name the Trinity. Matthew 28:19 is even closer, but the concept of the Trinity as we now understand it as Christians is not explicitly spelled out in either passage.
Click to expand...
The Trinity is present throughout the Scripture, the Church is just pointing it out but it is there.
The Trinity is evident in Genesis:

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So here we see Holy Spirit being referenced.

Genesis 1: 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Who is this “us” God is speaking of? That would be Him and Jesus, and this would confirm what John says in 1:1 in that Jesus was with God in the beginning.

The Church did not come up with the concept of the Trinity, it’s in the Word. The Church felt a need to put the word “Trinity” as a way to help people understand or categorize it, but it absolutely comes from the Bible!!
 
Last edited:
jlhargus said:
As a former so called Bible only Protestant, I can tell you there is none more scripturally faithful than the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Really? So where is the Scripture for confession or the christening of infants?
Last I checked that Bible only references Christ as the only absolver of sins under the new covenant not man, and all examples of baptism in the Bible have been of adults who where immersed in water not children being sprinkled with water.
So how are these doctrines faithful to the Scripture?
That seems like taking some pretty hung non-spiritual liberties to me.

And I’m looking for Scripture, not just what you’ve be taught since you say the Catholic church is “scripturally faithful”.
 
Last edited:
medwigel said:
Who is this “us” God is speaking of? That would be Him and Jesus, and this would confirm what John says in 1:1 in that Jesus was with God in the beginning.
Click to expand...
I agree with you here. But the word “Trinity” itself is not in there anywhere. So is referring to the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as the Trinity just a “man-made” tradition?
 
Last edited:
medwigel said:
Really? So where is the Scripture for confession or the christening of infants?
Click to expand...
You seem to view the Bible as an instruction manual for Christianity rather than the Word of God assembled by the Church established by Christ. And hasn’t this thread been through this before, with “where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?” The basis for confession and infant baptism is more bountiful than Sola Scriptura. What would appease those who hold to SS? Explicit references in the Gospels or New Testament that read, “and then Jesus explained to them about confession,” or “then the Lord commanded them to baptize infants…” Did Jesus even tell anyone to write the Gospels or NT?

Infant baptism - does the NT say NOT to baptize infants and children? Were not “households” baptized in Acts? Weren’t Jewish boys circumcised in their infancy? Why would Christians, born of Judaism, make such a fracture as to circumcise infants but then allow only adult baptism?

And you seem to have a misunderstanding of confession, as God forgives sins through the priest. None of us enter the confessional seeking a man’s forgiveness of sins, for one thing. For another, the OT priests forgave sins on behalf of the people.
Confession (CCC) Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 4
Confession (Catholic Answers) Is Confession in Scripture? | Catholic Answers
Infant Baptism https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/infant-baptism
 
Last edited:
bobperk said:
I agree with you here. But the word “Trinity” itself is not in there anywhere. So is referring to the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as the Trinity just a “man-made” tradition?
Click to expand...
OMG, no it is not! Man did not make up the concept of the Trinity, they just put a name to it so that they could understand, but even without the word “Trinity”, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit still exist.

I would liken this to gravity. The force that we know as gravity didn’t exist because we learned how to quantify it, it exists independently. We use formulas to understand it but we have no effect on the existence of gravity.
 
bobperk said:
You seem to view the Bible as an instruction manual for Christianity rather than the Word of God assembled by the Church established by Christ.
Click to expand...
Um, the Bible is an instruction manual to Christians
Have you read the Bible? It’s filled with instructions in various forms- it is most definitely an instruction book!

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Church is suppose to serve as a guide for believers on how they can achieve God’s will as set forth in the Bible.
 
bobperk said:
And you seem to have a misunderstanding of confession, as God forgives sins through the priest. None of us enter the confessional seeking a man’s forgiveness of sins, for one thing. For another, the OT priests forgave sins on behalf of the people.
Click to expand...
Jesus does not need a priest to forgive you, you are already forgiven

Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

See, we already have it, we don’t need a man to “facilitate” something that we already have.
And we are not living under the Old Testament, we are living under the New Testament. In the Old Testament men served as high priest, in the New Testament JESUS is our high priest

Hebrews 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest.
 
jlhargus said:
As I posted before and the NIV is in full accord. Paul checked his teaching with the Magisterium, teaching authority, to be sure he was not running in vain.
Click to expand...
medwigel said:
It does not say that he is checking his teaching with anyone, Paul is sharing his ministry with them. Did you bother to read the rest of the Scripture? Let me help you out:
Galatians 2:6-8

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul believes that he was called just as Peter and the others were called, and he has just as much authority as they do. He did not go to them to seek approval; Paul only needed God’s approval.

Before you reply read the whole chapter first.
Maybe you need this verse in a different version: NIV:

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
Click to expand...

Why did Paul present, the gospel he preached to them? Answer to be sure he was not running in vain.
 
Last edited:
jlhargus said:
So it’s not Bible alone, you have at least two authorities the Bible and your pastor.
Click to expand...
This is symptomatic of the misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura presented by most Catholic apologists and by extension Catholic lay persons. First of all, the doctrine of sola scriptura came in response to something. Luther was responding to teaching and practice within the church that contradicted the Word of God. When Luther challenged these teachings even before such learned men as Prierias and Cajetan, neither attacked Luther on the basis of whether his understanding of justification was correct. They admittedly could not do so. They attacked him on the basis that he was not obedient to the command of the pontiff of Rome. When faced with being obedient to Pope Leo and accepting what he knew to be wrong doctrine and practice, or holding to the gospel, Luther chose the gospel. He did just as Saint Paul urged the church at Galatia. The issue was not that Luther did not believe in authority or only believed in one authority. Luther simply said that there is only one infallible authority, and that is the word of God as provided in scripture. Sola scriptura does not say its just me and my Bible off under a tree. Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the SOLE INFALLIBLE authority in matters of faith and doctrine. That doesn’t mean that the authority of the church or one’s pastor is ignored. It means they are supposed to be subject to the teaching of scripture. It is scripture that does and has always provided the means by which doctrinal error is corrected. In fact, Luther held onto as many of the Roman Catholic traditions as he felt did not detract from the teaching of pure doctrine. Luther’s was the conservative reformation, not the radical one. This simplified understanding of sola scriptura that is most often presented by Catholic apologists is simply a red herring.
 
Sean77 said:
Sola scriptura does not say its just me and my Bible off under a tree. Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the SOLE INFALLIBLE authority in matters of faith and doctrine. That doesn’t mean that the authority of the church or one’s pastor is ignored. It means they are supposed to be subject to the teaching of scripture.
Click to expand...
Well said!!
Thank you.
 
medwigel said:
Well said!!
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this thread is tending more toward argument at this point, which I suppose is expected with this topic. My last posts I provided links to Catholic Answers and CCC pages instead of re-typing everything because this issue has been debated on both sides before endlessly and honestly I don’t feel like expending the time to re-type things that are already written better than I can state from scratch.

In any case, in this day and age we need to look upon each other as allies more than anything, since the enemies of Christ continue to push the Gospel away from people’s lives. medwigel and Sean77 are passionate defenders of their views but most importantly Brothers in Christ. I might observe the thread but most likely will not post anymore and will focus on other threads and sites.

I have enjoyed reading everybody’s comments and especially give credit to medwigel for the contributions, even though ultimately we do not agree. Perhaps we will run across each other in other threads in the future. May we labor together as soldiers for Christ.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top