Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

As you conceded the oral traditions at the time that Paul was writing to the church in Thesonica (his earliest letters) was later enscripturated in such doctrinal theses such as the epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews, and captured in the later writing of the four gospels.

This is an assumption that is made in the modern doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but cannot be found anywhere in the Scripture itself, and contradicts certain other scriptures that show the oral teachings are on the same level.

There was never any attempt to make the NT a full compendium of the faith.

I do not deny that there was additional material. John’s gospel tells us as much. However, what we do know is that scripture provides us with what we need to be fully equipped to know the word of god, and these scriptures which are god-breathed are certain.

Scripture is God breathed, but Scripture says the opposite. The Scriptures are not the source that provides us with all we need to be fully equipped. They are profitable in the hands of those to whom God has given this charge - ministers of the Church. Jesus never intended for people to equip themselves for the work of the ministry by reading the bible by themselves. If this were the case, He would not have established a church!

The oral traditions you speak of, not captured by the scriptures are of uncertain origin and have numerous witnesses arguing for and against and often conflict with scripture which we know is certain.

Their origins are uncertain for those who have been separated from them by the Reformation.

As far as arguments for and against, of course there have always been heretics, and those who reject the Truth. This does not make the Truth any less certain.

To tell me I am departing scripture for traditions of men

Scripture does not have it’s own table of contents, and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot be supported from the content of the books. That is why it seems to us like a tradition of men.

 

[guanophore]

We do not have any formal process where people confess their sins to one another; it is up to the person to decide when and who they confess to and it is not done in a public setting.

Then how can anyone know that the Apostolic commandment is being followed?

Again, their confession is not in search of absolution but is part of their repentance and necessary before they can be restored to their leadership position.

It sounds like a fine human tradition.

 

[jlhargus]

deleted will repost

 

[jlhargus]

As you conceded the oral traditions at the time that Paul was writing to the church in Thesonica (his earliest letters) was later enscripturated in such doctrinal theses such as the epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews, and captured in the later writing of the four gospels.

If you are replying to my post #601 you are incorrect. I have never conceded any such thing.

 

[jlhargus]

Acts2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

Again, the end of verse 39 says once again the need to call on the name of the Lord. Is is also saying that the promise of salvation is also for their children as well if their children call on the name of the Lord.

Verse 39 doesn’t even imply “call on the name of the Lord”.

 

[jlhargus]

Wrong line

 

[medwigel]

In other words no one in your faith group has the authority to remit or retain sins. Why then did Christ send them as He was sent to remit or retain sins? Didn’t you post this authority was given to all Christ’s people not just the apostles? If that were so shouldn’t someone have remitted their sins?

[Jn20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.]

We are all called to forgive each other, not just designated leaders of the church.
We are all called to forgive each other, and you don’t need a priest for that and someone does not have to confess, admit guilt or remorse in order for you to forgive them.

Ephesians 4:32 Be kind and helpful to one another, tender-hearted [compassionate, understanding], forgiving one another [readily and freely], just as God in Christ also forgave [c]you.

So if we are all called to forgive each other then verse 23 can’t be referring to all sin, it is referring to the sin of unbelief.

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of anyone they are forgiven [because of their faith]; if you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained [and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief].”

Whenever the apostles speak if forgiving sins they always refer to Jesus making the forgiveness of sins possible. They never advocate the institution of a policy were they server as intermediaries to this forgiveness, they merely serve as messengers as to what people must do in order to be forgiven.

So you are Calvary Chapel? I am familiar with “testimonials” as my Protestant faith group did them. They were in no way considered confession of sins ever. A person might testify about their former sinful life and conversion but never ever confessed their present sins

I’m not Calvary Chapel, and the services I’ve gone to where people testify to their sins have confessed to present day sins, no just what they’ve done in the distant past, and when they do this they often request prayer from the congregation to help them through the situation as the Bible calls us to do

James 5:16a Therefore, confess your sins to one another [your false steps, your offenses], and pray for one another, that you may be healed and restored.

 

[Cathoholic]

Beware.

medwigel added to Scripture reasons that do violence to the text.

For example medwigel talks about sins being retained “because of their unbelief”.

This is inconsistent with the passage that suggests . . .sins that YOU GUYS retain are retianed.

There is no evidence that the “you” is universal. (There is no universal call to retain sins. But there is specifically such authority given here.)

And if it were universal, you have medwigel contradicting medwigel.

Here is medwigel’s rendition of the passages . . .

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of anyone they are forgiven [because of their faith]; if you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained [and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief].”

Here is what the passage REALLY says in context.

JOHN 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.
As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this,
he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven;
if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

.

Medwigel’s issues are not with the Catholic Church’s teachings here so much as these are
medwigel’s issues with Jesus
and St. John, who’s Gospel this is via the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cathoholic]

As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

How was Jesus “sent” from the Father?

With AUTHORITY as St. Matthew reminds us.

MATTHEW 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and said to them,
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

.

How was Jesus sent from the Father?

With authority!

How were His Disciples sent from Jesus?

With authority! (As the Father sent me, so now I send YOU).

.

And this authority is given in the context of binding and loosing SINS.
.

JOHN 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.
AS THE FATNER HAS SENT ME, EVEN SO I SEND YOU."
22 And when he had said this,
he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the SINS of any, they are forgiven;
if you retain the SINS of any, they are retained.”

.

We were called to forgiveness already in the Old Testament (Joseph forgave his brothers who sent him into slavery for example).

There is something drastically NEW, in the New Covenant, and it is this authority to bind and loose in the context of sins (among other things).

.

The Catholic church get that.

Bible Christianity has no authority. There “authority” is always the same.

It always boils down to “me and my Bible, and MY interpretation.”

So this sola Scriptura issue acts to blind them in this sphere if binding and loosing sins too.

(Hey! Nobody has been given special power in the area of binding and loosing sins or anything else authoritative.

We’re ALL the same here!"

This is an example of Korah’s Rebellion that St. Jude warns occurs even in the New Covenant era.)

Bible-only Christians cannot (for the most part) see this.

 

[guanophore]

We are all called to forgive each other, not just designated leaders of the church.

Of course, but only those to whom authority is given can retain or remit them.

We are all called to forgive each other, and you don’t need a priest for that and someone does not have to confess, admit guilt or remorse in order for you to forgive them.

Certainly. In fact, Jesus was quite clear that if we did not forgive, neither would our heavenly father forgive us. I wish more Christians did realize that we cannot wait until the other person repents! Does that mean you have forgiven me for asking what brings you here to CAF?

But a priest forgives sin in the person of Christ - representing both Him, and the Church. Through the sacrament, one is reconciled with the Church as well.

So if we are all called to forgive each other then verse 23 can’t be referring to all sin, it is referring to the sin of unbelief.

This is an assumption. It is one that became popular after the Reformation, so that it would be more convenient for priests to be jettisoned.

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of anyone they are forgiven [because of their faith] ; if you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained [and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief] .”

Thank you for posting this. It is such an excellent example of adding to Scripture! It demonstrates why it is necessary to do this to change the doctrines of the Church.

the apostles …never advocate the institution of a policy were they server as intermediaries to this forgiveness, they merely serve as messengers as to what people must do in order to be forgiven.

You are right, they are not “intermediaries”. Standing in the person of Christ is much more direct. “He who hears you hears me” is much more than “messenger”.

 

[medwigel]

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of anyone they are forgiven [because of their faith] ; if you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained [and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief] .”

This comment just demonstrates your ignorance. This was taken from the Amplified translation, I did not add anything. You should look into the Amplified translation of the Bible, you may learn something.

 

[Theo2]

Oops! I don’t think the statement that Paul received his teaching from Christ is accurate. Paul was taken to the house of Ananias.
It was there that he learned the faith. With the help of the Holy Spirit using people in the church.

 

[medwigel]

So if we are all called to forgive each other then verse 23 can’t be referring to all sin, it is referring to the sin of unbelief.

It is not an assumption, is pointing out the inconsistency with what the Catholic church is doing and what the Word of God actually says. Of course you’ll come up with a conspiracy theory about it, but the fact is the fact- if we are all called to forgive one another then verse 23 can’t be referring to all sin. It is referencing a specific sin, and that is the sin of unbelief.

the apostles …never advocate the institution of a policy were they server as intermediaries to this forgiveness, they merely serve as messengers as to what people must do in order to be forgiven.

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh (worldliness, manner of life), God made you alive together with Christ, having [freely] forgiven us all our sins, 14 having canceled out the [g]certificate of debt consisting of [h]legal demands [which were in force] against us and which were hostile to us. And this certificate He has set aside and completely removed by nailing it to the cross.

Notice how it says that we have been freely forgiven of ALL of our sins. Freely means we don’t have to do anything to obtain this forgiveness if we are believers. Then it says that the penalty of our sins were then cancelled out.
So if we are freely given forgiveness and the penalty for sin has been cancelled out by God, how can man come along and retain our sin against us?
If God honors that supposed ability to retain sins then God would be a liar because He says in Colossians we were freely forgiven, meaning that is something no one can take away.
So again, this belief that priest can remit or retain sin would contradict Colossians 2:13-14, along with other verses in the Bible, which would lead you to go back and say, “what sin is John 20:23 referring to if all of our sins are forgiven”, and that would be sin of unbelief and an unbeliever is not covered by the blood of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

This comment just demonstrates your ignorance. This was taken from the Amplified translation, I did not add anything. You should look into the Amplified translation of the Bible, you may learn something.

I love the amplified bible, and have learned a lot from it, but it was not made by those who received the apostolic teaching through the paradosis, so sometimes it misses the mark. in this case, Reformation theology has been inserted to change the meaning of the passage.

I don’t think the statement that Paul received his teaching from Christ is accurate. Paul was taken to the house of Ananias.

It is not really clear how much Paul received directly from Christ, and what he was taught through the Church.

Galatians 1:12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

It was there that he learned the faith. With the help of the Holy Spirit using people in the church.

Paul clearly learned through the Church, as he writes about what he received, but he also received things through direct revelation.

Galatians 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

He never specifies where he was in Arabia, and whether he was alone some of that time. What is clear is that Jesus revealed things to him directly, along with that which he learned through the Church.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

Paul refers to himself having extaordinary visions.

 

[guanophore]

It is not an assumption, is pointing out the inconsistency with what the Catholic church is doing and what the Word of God actually says.

I understand how it would seem inconsistent, since you are separated from the Paradosis.

Of course you’ll come up with a conspiracy theory about it

This seems rather cynical. The Reformers wanted to separate themselves from Catholicism, the authority of the Church, the heirarchy, and other things. I don’t know if one can call it a conspiracy. It certainly was no secret!

the fact is the fact- if we are all called to forgive one another then verse 23 can’t be referring to all sin. It is referencing a specific sin, and that is the sin of unbelief.

We are all called to forgive one another, but some offenses are against God more than they are against anyone personally. Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to retain and remit sins in His person, on His behalf, and on behalf of the Church.

There is no need to give this authority to the apostles with regard to faith. Faith in itself restores one to right relationship with God, so that it is automatically a repentance from unbelief to belief. What purpose would there be to retain or remit such a thing?

>

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh (worldliness, manner of life), God made you alive together with Christ, having [freely] forgiven us all our sins, 14 having canceled out the [g]certificate of debt consisting of [h]legal demands [which were in force] against us and which were hostile to us. And this certificate He has set aside and completely removed by nailing it to the cross.

Exactly! So giving the Apostles authority to retain and remit the sin of unbelief is not necessary. One accepts the payment of Christ for sins.

Notice how it says that we have been freely forgiven of ALL of our sins. Freely means we don’t have to do anything to obtain this forgiveness if we are believers. Then it says that the penalty of our sins were then cancelled out.

No, it does not say we don’t have to do anything. This is a modern American Evangelical myth.

On the contrary, scripture is full of examples of what we need to do to remain “in Christ”. Freely means that there is nothing we can do to earn this forgiveness, it was paid for by His blood, and we can receive it. We can’t purchase it, nor do we need to do so, as it was purchased for us. The penalty is eternal damnation was cancelled.

So if we are freely given forgiveness and the penalty for sin has been cancelled out by God, how can man come along and retain our sin against us?

God gave the Apostles the authority to retain and remit sins. The sins themselves separate us from God. In order to acquire the free gift, we must confess our sins, and receive His grace. People who don’t repent cannot obtain the free gift.

 

[guanophore]

If God honors that supposed ability to retain sins then God would be a liar because He says in Colossians we were freely forgiven, meaning that is something no one can take away.

True. Sin is what separates us from God, not other people. The nature of sin has not changed. Sin has always separated us from God.

So again, this belief that priest can remit or retain sin would contradict Colossians 2:13-14, along with other verses in the Bible

I am sure it seems that way to you.

which would lead you to go back and say, “what sin is John 20:23 referring to if all of our sins are forgiven”, and that would be sin of unbelief and an unbeliever is not covered by the blood of Christ.

It would not lead me here, because such a concept is contrary to the faith we received from the Apostles.

If all our sins are forgiven, and there is nothing we need to do, then why does scripture indicate otherwise?

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Matt. 7

Why do so few find the narrow gate, being that it is free?

11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment;[a] 12 and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ Matt 22.

One has to put on the wedding garment.

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel . . .

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of anyone they are forgiven [because of their faith] ; if you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained [and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief] .”

.

guanophore . . .

Thank you for posting this. It is such an excellent example of adding to Scripture! It demonstrates why it is necessary to do this to change the doctrines of the Church.

Medwigel . . .

This was taken from the Amplified translation, I did not add anything. You should look into the Amplified translation of the Bible . . .

Medwigel. It is irrelevant if the
“Amplified” translation people made this up and added it to Scripture, or
if you made it up and added it to Scripture, or
If the “Amplified” translation people made this up and added it to Scripture and you repeated it.

The point remains.

It is ADDED to Scripture.

There is no “[because of their faith]” or "[and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief] .”

These are manufactured man-made inventions.

They are ADDITIONS to the Scriptural texts and do not belong there (or should have a caveat concerning it being ADDED).

Here is the REAL Bible passage by the way (with verses 19-22 also included for context). . .

.

JOHN 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.
AS THE FATNER HAS SENT ME, EVEN SO I SEND YOU."
22 And when he had said this,
he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If YOU forgive the SINS of any, they ARE forgiven;
if YOU retain the SINS of any, they ARE retained.”

(Emphasis on some of the ORIGINAL mine)

.

NOT John 20:23 (but rather a phantom verse) If you forgive the sins of anyone they are forgiven [because of their faith] ; if you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained [and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief] .”

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus:

In other words no one in your faith group has the authority to remit or retain sins. Why then did Christ send them as He was sent to remit or retain sins? Didn’t you post this authority was given to all Christ’s people not just the apostles? If that were so shouldn’t someone have remitted their sins?

[Jn20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.]

We are all called to forgive each other, not just designated leaders of the church.
We are all called to forgive each other, and you don’t need a priest for that and someone does not have to confess, admit guilt or remorse in order for you to forgive them.

Ephesians 4:32 Be kind and helpful to one another, tender-hearted [compassionate, understanding], forgiving one another [readily and freely], just as God in Christ also forgave [c]you.

So if we are all called to forgive each other then verse 23 can’t be referring to all sin, it is referring to the sin of unbelief.

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of anyone they are forgiven [because of their faith]; if you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained [and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief].”

Whenever the apostles speak if forgiving sins they always refer to Jesus making the forgiveness of sins possible. They never advocate the institution of a policy were they server as intermediaries to this forgiveness, they merely serve as messengers as to what people must do in order to be forgiven.

So you are Calvary Chapel? I am familiar with “testimonials” as my Protestant faith group did them. They were in no way considered confession of sins ever. A person might testify about their former sinful life and conversion but never ever confessed their present sins

I’m not Calvary Chapel, and the services I’ve gone to where people testify to their sins have confessed to present day sins, no just what they’ve done in the distant past, and when they do this they often request prayer from the congregation to help them through the situation as the Bible calls us to do

James 5:16a Therefore, confess your sins to one another [your false steps, your offenses], and pray for one another, that you may be healed and restored.

Yet no one remitted their sins leaving their sins retained.

 

[medwigel]

Yet no one remitted their sins leaving their sins retained.

Jesus has already forgiven them of their sins, they don’t need a man to validate their forgiveness. Jesus already forgave them freely, so they don’t need anyone to remit their sins.
Jesus never said He would only remit your sins if you confess it to a priest; the forgiveness of sins is given freely without any conditions except that you be saved.

 

[BoyGenius]

‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

I was anti-Catholic at one time. Though baptized. My belief on sola scriptura was for originality and faithfulness to the Gospel. And in fact, the true identity of faith. However, looking back, I also carelessly acted in many a sinful manner. Though, at least from a broken system (i.e. Protestantism) teaching the Gospel, did at least point to Christ’s mercy and Salvation. And when you get to the summit of the Gospel, so-to-speak, you then argue against Christ’s True and Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, the perpetual Virginity of Mary. And even the Holy Trinity. Just three caveats to look out for.

What turned me away from Sola Scriptura? Well, there’s a certain defense I have for it. Though in complimentary to everything else, and not independent thereof. I think any person who has a real sense, certitude, and desire of the Gospel will lead to Christ in His Church. Because, without Scripture we are therefore ignorant. And Scripture without Christ, is ignorance (i.e. Saint Jerome’s sentiments.) Thus, in order to read scripture, you have to have both faith and intellect (i.e. ratio et fides.) And in the Protestant definition: sola fides, solo ratio, and sola scriptura. You would have three independent proses of Protestant declarations. And yet they are all complimentary to each other.

Having stuck to Scripture, I was on an honest inquiry whether the Catechism could hold weight. And so reading the Catechism I began to wonder. I needed to get to the root of it. Which I was then led to read Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. I realized the Catechism was a defense for Scripture but with reason (hence, to explain and defend the faith/hope.) Thus, was able to see the integrated whole of Scripture tied to Salvation, to Faith, and to Reason. The Church is defendant of Scripture. Her model/view in the Catechism is precisely that. The argument for the Real Presence of Christ is to the testimony and fact that Christ existed, and still does, but albeit, through the Sacrament. And the perpetual Virginity of Mary is the source, sign, grace, and hope that God’s Son, was His Word Who rested in the Father’ bosom. When you read Isaiah’s description of Christ: Prince of Peace, Father forever, and Wonder Counselor. You have the depiction of the Holy Trinity. You can even see the Precursor of that revelation when we say the God of Abraham (the Father), Isaac (the Son), and Jacob (the shared love and unison in Covenant relation carried throughout - the Holy Spirit.) This all ties to the revelation from Christ Himself, and the words described by Saint Paul, in the Gospel.

When Mary says, God my Savior (Jesus - God Who Saves.) She was saved before Christ was born. She believed in God way before Christ came into being/flesh.

Thus, Scripture is defensible with Faith and Reason, because everything from Christ’s Real Presence, the Holy Trinity, and the Perpetual Virginity are there, and defensible as well. All this shields Scripture for the Salvation of Souls.