Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

Those are all natural consequences of her actions, they don’t come from God.

Follow the conversation please, I said God has no participation with the consequences that the poster guanophore laid out below comment:

She may have to become a young mother, marry someone she does not want to marry, or be a single mother, or give up the baby. All of these outcomes may be painful and difficult for her.

 

[medwigel]

No, Paul was not talking about eternal consequences, he was talking about man’s condition right here on earth and he is comparing condemnation that is brought on when we sin against the law vs the righteousness we have in Christ Jesus.

You should read Romans 8:1-11

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . . .

You should read Romans 8:1-11

Why not Romans 8:17 too?

ROMANS 8:17 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

.

There’s that Gospel of participation again (this time it’s right in Romans 8).

.

Not ROMANS 8:17 (but a phantom verse) and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, and now we don’t have to suffer with him either. This is because we can now reinterpret the law of grace to exempt ourselves from this suffering from a sola Scriptura vantage point.

.

Many guys like the “participation” in the glory . . . .
. . . . but they flee from the Gospel of participation when the part about the Cross figures into the equation.

They want Easter, but reject Good Friday.

 

[vz71]

Sooo, what other authority do you see me claiming?

As soon as you begin telling people what you believe scripture means, you place your own interpretation above God’s church.

 

[jlhargus]

Where is Trinity found in scripture? Jn1:1 doesn’t teach a Trinity.

So how can the Word “be” God and “be with” God at the same time?

Two does not make a Trinity. By the way I have started another post for the sacrament of reconciliation here is the link. Scriptural evidence for Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession

I will more than likely but not necessarily post very little till after holiday.

 

[medwigel]

As soon as you begin telling people what you believe scripture means, you place your own interpretation above God’s church

I don’t accept the Catholic Church’s interpretations and authority in all things. If you ever choose to read the Bible for yourself and not just follow what you’ve been told you too would get a different revelation of the Word, and you would also see that some of the things you’ve been taught either can’t be found in the Bible or goes against the Bible.

 

[medwigel]

jlhargus:

Where is Trinity found in scripture? Jn1:1 doesn’t teach a Trinity.

So here’s the rest of the puzzle:
John 14:15-18
15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you

So in this passage Jesus is referring the Holy Spirit as Himself. He is telling the disciples that when He is gone He will send the Spirit because He promised that He would not leave them.

So if the Word(i.e. Jesus) was God and the Spirit is also Jesus, then the 3 must all be one.
You don’t need the word “Trinity” to put that together. Jesus is telling us who He is, whether you call it Trinity doesn’t change the facts.

 

[vz71]

If you ever choose to read the Bible for yourself and not just follow what you’ve been told you too would get a different revelation of the Word, and you would also see that some of the things you’ve been taught either can’t be found in the Bible or goes against the Bible.

A lot of anti-catholics say this.
They also choke when asked to actually come up with and defend examples.

 

[medwigel]

If you ever choose to read the Bible for yourself and not just follow what you’ve been told you too would get a different revelation of the Word, and you would also see that some of the things you’ve been taught either can’t be found in the Bible or goes against the Bible.

I dearsay you have choked when asked to back up the things you claim. I have cited multiple Scripture and the best you can come up with is asking by what authority do I get my understanding.

So again I ask you, were is the Biblical basis for christening infants, were is the Biblical basis for confession, were is the Biblical basis for indulgences?

Someone had commented earlier that Catholic traditions and doctrines “compliment” the Bible, well show me how what you have been taught and practice “compliments” what the word of God actually says.

Can you prove me wrong?

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

So again I ask you, were is the Biblical basis for christening infants, were is the Biblical basis for confession, were is the Biblical basis for indulgences?

.

.

Baptizing infants . . .

The promise is to you AND your whole families (In Acts 2).

And make disciples of ALL NATIONS Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And teach them to OBEY ALL that I COMMANDED you.

How do the Apostles make disciples? Baptize and catechize.
.

Confession . . .

Whose sins YOU forgive are forgiven, whose sins you hold bound are held bound.–Jesus to the Apostles in John 20. (How could the Apostles possibly know which sins to bind and loose, if those sins were not confessed to them? Why would St. James say . . . “Confess your sins to one another” in the context of the presbyteroi or priests?)

Why are the Apostles forgiving sins in the person (prosopon) of Christ in 2nd Corinthians 2? And later in 2nd Corinthians 5, the Apostles call themselves Christ’s “ambassadors” of reconciliation.

.

Indulgences . . .

Before anyone can address indulgences, you have to admit that there is temporal conseqences for sin too not just eternal consequences.

Since you can’t admit temporal consequences even exist for sin, WHY go deeper?

You cannot understand release or at least some mitigation from temporal consequences for saved people (which is what an indulgence is) if you cannot understand that temporal consequences for sin even exist.

.

So again I ask you, where is the Biblical basis for sola Scriptura?

 

[vz71]

I dearsay you have choked when asked to back up the things you claim. I have cited multiple Scripture and the best you can come up with is asking by what authority do I get my understanding.

So again I ask you, were is the Biblical basis for christening infants, were is the Biblical basis for confession, were is the Biblical basis for indulgences?

I do not need to answer these. Others are doing a perfectly good job answering, and it appears you have no response for them.

You were warned earlier that you should open a separate thread for the off topic questions, but instead chose to ignore the wisdom of experience in these forums. Now you have a thread with several different topics, none of which you are in control of. Some are responding to some topics, others to other topics. And it appears you cannot keep up.

I am still addressing your original sola scriptura premise. And through the thread you have been unable to defend it.
Perhaps your original goal here was to muddy the thread enough that no one would notice you cannot defend your own claims.

 

[vz71]

So again I ask you, where is the Biblical basis for sola Scriptura?

Care to see how long it takes to get an answer?

 

[po18guy]

“Some” are in serious error. Where did our Lord teach anything written? Where did He write anything? Where did He counsel the Apostles to write?

He did not.

Rebellious men in 1500s Europe invented that idea and twisted scripture - exactly as Saint Peter wrote in his second letter. Our Lord founded a Church, not writing of any sort.

 

[medwigel]

So again I ask you, where is the Biblical basis for sola Scriptura?

I, unlike you, have no problems answering questions.
I have given Scripture to this previously, but for your benefit I will do so again:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

–We are told that Scripture is to be used. Paul never mentions the use of man’s teaching.

Acts 17:11
11 These were more [d]fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so

–It doesn’t say they searched man’s words or teachings to see if what Paul was preaching was true, they searched the Scripture.

Luke 24:26-27
26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He [g]expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

–Even Christ is saying the way to know about Him is through the Scripture because that is were you will find the things concerning Him and by extension if you know Christ then you know His will for the church and His people.

So let’s see, that was less than 24 hours to give you a response.
Now let’s see how long it will take you to answer my questions

 

[medwigel]

I do not need to answer these. Others are doing a perfectly good job answering, and it appears you have no response for them.

You were warned earlier that you should open a separate thread for the off topic questions, but instead chose to ignore the wisdom of experience in these forums. Now you have a thread with several different topics, none of which you are in control of. Some are responding to some topics, others to other topics. And it appears you cannot keep up.

I am still addressing your original sola scriptura premise. And through the thread you have been unable to defend it.
Perhaps your original goal here was to muddy the thread enough that no one would notice you cannot defend your own claims.

Ah, the classic response for someone who doesn’t have any answers, you go on the defensive. SMH
Be honest and admit the reason you won’t answer the questions is because you have no answer. Don’t rely on what other people say, especially since some of them are wrong. I’m asking you a question in a response to your assertions, not theirs.

I see how you are trying to mask your lack as astuteness in the subject matter with rhetoric and warnings, but they are unnecessary. If you don’t have a constructive answer or you don’t like what is being discussed you don’t have to respond.

 

[medwigel]

“Some” are in serious error. Where did our Lord teach anything written? Where did He write anything? Where did He counsel the Apostles to write?

He did not.

Jesus ultimately did put His teachings in writing when in inspired men to write Scripture. Scripture is Jesus’s word’s and the men who wrote them down served as divinely inspired scribes.
These men did not write of their own accord, Jesus directed them to do so.

And anything Jesus taught was in accordance with the written word of God at the time which we know as the Old Testament.

No one is twisting scripture, if anything Martin Luther was stressing a return to Scripture since he saw that there were some many practices and teachings to the day that strayed away from God’s word.

 

[jlhargus]

So here’s the rest of the puzzle:
John 14:15-18 15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you

So in this passage Jesus is referring the Holy Spirit as Himself. He is telling the disciples that when He is gone He will send the Spirit because He promised that He would not leave them.

I see you referring Jesus as the Holy Spirit as Himself but I don’t see in Jn14:15-18 where Jesus is referring the Holy Spirit as Himself. So are you saying the scripture is teaching Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person?

So if the Word(i.e. Jesus) was God and the Spirit is also Jesus, then the 3 must all be one.

How does your post scriptureally teach a Trinity? Where does the scriptures you have posted so far teach all 3 are one. Is it one person acting at different times in three different modes or is it three gods?

You don’t need the word “Trinity” to put that together. Jesus is telling us who He is, whether you call it Trinity doesn’t change the facts.

Then why did it take three hundred years, several Ecumenical Councils and many heresies, such as Arianism which almost took over the Church, to foumulate an orthodox understanding of what God revealed about Himself? Hind sight is 20/20 when one already has the Apostolic Tradition of the Trinity as discerned and formulated by the Catholic Church.

Yet you haven’t demonstrated scripturally that God is a Trinity. One can interpret what you have posted in several ways. That’s why there were so many controversies caused by heresies which took centuries to settle.

I started another link on Confession under apologetics here is the link the third time. When that is finished I will start one on infant baptism.

Scriptural evidence for Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession Link to confession

 

[medwigel]

Hind sight is 20/20 when one already has the Apostolic Tradition of the Trinity as discerned and formulated by the Catholic Church.

So if it’s not from Scripture where did the Apostolic Tradition get there understanding of the Trinity? What is this hind sight you are referring to?

 

[guanophore]

So how can the Word “be” God and “be with” God at the same time?

Non-Trinitarians come up with all kinds of weird ways to interpret this. I agree, the Church has always believed in the Trinity, but the Scriptures are not explicit about it. If they were, 80% of the Bishops would not have fallen into Arianism!

 

[medwigel]

Non-Trinitarians come up with all kinds of weird ways to interpret this. I agree, the Church has always believed in the Trinity, but the Scriptures are not explicit about it. If they were, 80% of the Bishops would not have fallen into Arianism!

Just to clear, I do believe in the Trinity.
The Trinity is most definitely in the Bible, it’s just not neatly laid out, you have to actually read the Bible to find it, but the Trinity is there.