"The Main Things are the Plain Things" Biblical?

[MariaG]

posted by michaelgazin
The ironic thing is, I think the majority of sola Scriptura professing protestants actually *don’t *interpret the Bible for themselves…rather they follow the interpretation of their pastor. There are those like EA_Man who actually study the Scriptures with passion, but I don’t believe this would apply to the majority.

Yeah and the ones that do ask to be led to all truth and study on their own are led right to the Catholic Church! Like me! It is not all written down; This is my Body; hold fast to my words whether by word or by epistle; Go and forgive (not go and teach forgiveness); turned into wine (not grape juice);

Lucky for me the pastors I did study under were fans of John
Wesley so much of what I learned from other “popes” was compatible with Catholic teachings.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jax8686]

hmmm… i had two points, but i can only remember 1…

if God had intended every man to interpret scripture fully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and without an infallible teaching organization above them, why didnt He(God) just reveal the bible and all of its meanings to each person individually? there would be no need for any teaching then, right? and especially not one true holy and apostolic churc? and then the great commision to his apostles would be useless, right?
just a thought

 

[EA_Man]

EA_Man:

Scripture is clear enough to lead the average person to the conclusion that they are sinners in need of salvation. And clear enough to show that Jesus Christ is God and the Way to the Father.

John_Henry:

I submit that is not the case. I submit that those who say that, are relying on tradition to guide their interpretation, though they may not acknowledge it.

Back to the matter at hand.

2 Corinthians 4:2-4
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Paul is not saying that the gospel is veiled, he is making an argument with a hypothetical.

But does that mean that unbelievers are exempt because they “can’t” understand scripture?

No. Paul is clear in Romans that even without scripture men are accountable to God:

Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

From the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus
Luke 16:27-31
"He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
"Abraham replied, **‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ **
" ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
"He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ "

Clearly the Bible (scripture) is sufficient to indicate the need of repentence and of the seeking of God.

Scripture is also clear that Jesus fulfilled scripture. That, in fact, was the MAIN reasoning in the Gospels to justify or prove Jesus’ claims as being the Messiah.

The words “scripture”, “written”, and “law” appear more than 150 times in the four Gospels alone. The primary evidence in scripture given to prove that Jesus was the Christ is SCRIPTURE itself.

Thus the argument that scripture is insufficient to believe in Jesus Christ and be saved is false.

Also, aside from the primary purpose of proving that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Gospels themselves show that the presence of a dedicated teaching “magesterium” was of little use in correctly interpreting scripture in Jesus’ day.

Again, the problem is not perception, it is reception.

Peace

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Thus the argument that scripture is insufficient to believe in Jesus Christ and be saved is false.

Also, aside from the primary purpose of proving that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Gospels themselves show that the presence of a dedicated teaching “magesterium” was of little use in correctly interpreting scripture in Jesus’ day.

Again, the problem is not perception, it is reception.

Peace

I don’t think anyone is saying that scriptrue is insufficient to believe in Jesus. Not me. John says "these things were written so that you might believe. So you are creating a strawman to knock down. But if one simply makes a verbal assent is that enough? The devil believes. This however is for another thread of which there are others you can post on.

No need for a teaching magesterium? Certainly you are not serious. That Eunuch would have just gone down and baptized himself if Phillip hadn’t come by? Oh, I know you have an out. That wasn’t in the 4 Gospels. I do agree that it is reception and Catholicism is very plain from scripture once it is understood in light of scripture.

 

[MariaG]

posted by EA_Man

Also, aside from the primary purpose of proving that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Gospels themselves show that the presence of a dedicated teaching “magesterium” was of little use in correctly interpreting scripture in Jesus’ day.

That is false. Jesus Himself told His followers to do what they tell you. Jesus did not have a problem with the interpretation of the Jewish priests, He had a problem with how they acted. They were hypocrites.

You have taken Scripture that tells us that all are accountable to God because it has been written on our heart to try to justify tearing down an authority structure in the Church that is spelled out in the NT.

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

No need for a teaching magesterium? Certainly you are not serious.

The subject of this thread is that “the main things are the plain things, etc…”.

Scripture makes it plain that Man needs a Savior.
Scripture makes it plain who that Savior is.
And scripture makes it plain what to do to receive salvation (repent and believe).

Therefore, the Main things are the Plain things.

Peace

 

[MariaG]

And scripture makes it plain what to do to receive salvation (repent and believe).

Therefore, the Main things are the Plain things.

Peace

***If ***those two were the only main things that are the plain things, I guess I would agree with you.

However, I consider baptism to be a “main thing”. The different interpretations (somebody said 6 in protestant denoms?) clearly show that interpretation of baptism is not plainly spelled out.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[RyanL]

It would seem that Christ being bodily present on Earth in the form of the Eucharist is both main and plain…

 

[EA_Man]

MariaG:

You have taken Scripture that tells us that all are accountable to God because it has been written on our heart to try to justify tearing down an authority structure in the Church that is spelled out in the NT.

Really?

Where in the NT is it “spelled out” that the “office” given to Peter was a permanent office to be handed down to successors?

Where is it “spelled out in the NT” that Peter was referred to as “pope”, “father”, or even “Holy Father”?

Where is it “spelled out in the NT” that one bishop would have universal jurisdictional authority over all of the other bishops?

Peace

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Really?

Where in the NT is it “spelled out” that the “office” given to Peter was a permanent office to be handed down to successors?

Where is it “spelled out in the NT” that Peter was referred to as “pope”, “father”, or even “Holy Father”?

Where is it “spelled out in the NT” that one bishop would have universal jurisdictional authority over all of the other bishops?

Peace

Right on EA_MAN! and where is sola fide spelled out? Faith alone, you know one of the three pillars of protestantism. 273 times the NT uses the word faith and never pairs it with alone. Oops keep forgetting about James 2:24 . Paul sure could have saved us alot of trouble by “spelling it out in the NT”. Unless of course it’s not true.

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

Right on EA_MAN! and where is sola fide spelled out? Faith alone, you know one of the three pillars of protestantism. 273 times the NT uses the word faith and never pairs it with alone. Oops keep forgetting about James 2:24 . Paul sure could have saved us alot of trouble by “spelling it out in the NT”. Unless of course it’s not true.

Well, you certainly know the script, I’ll say that much for you.

Works follow faith. They are done in response to grace.

If that weren’t true you would have to perform works in order to be saved.

Peace

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Well, you certainly know the script, I’ll say that much for you.

Works follow faith. They are done in response to grace.

If that weren’t true you would have to perform works in order to be saved.

Peace

I agree that works are a response to faith and one cannot be saved without faith. But that is not the same as saying we are saved by faith alone.
I would agree with your last statement if
If that weren’t true you would have to perform works in order to GET saved. There is a difference between being saved and getting saved.

To be saved, i.e. when your entering the pearly’s you better have some works.

Romans 2:
4] Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
6] For he will render to every man according to his works:
7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

By the way, do you think hope and love are neccessary for salvation? And of course you didn’t answer the heart of my post once again. Where in scripture does it say that we are saved by “faith alone”.

Blessings

 

[MariaG]

posted by EA_Man

Really?

Where in the NT is it “spelled out” that the “office” given to Peter was a permanent office to be handed down to successors?

Where is it “spelled out in the NT” that Peter was referred to as “pope”, “father”, or even “Holy Father”?

Where is it “spelled out in the NT” that one bishop would have universal jurisdictional authority over all of the other bishops?

Peace

There are many threads or even a new one where we can discuss this. But to delve further into it would derail this one.

But I think we can both agree that you do not see the office of the Pope in the Bible and I do so we can delete this as a “main and plain”.

The thread question is the main things are the plain things.

As I said, If the only things that were plain are repent and believe, I may be inclined to agree. However, I stated that I am not sure how one dismisses** baptism** as being a basic in Christianity. And in baptism, there are several different stances in the protestant arena. So how can things be “main and plain” when a “main” cannot be agreed upon.

Or is your position that the only main things are repentance and believing? To be a Jew and male, one had to be circumcized. Scripture compares baptism to circumcision (Col 2:11-12). Do you believe one does can be a follower of Christ and choose not to be baptized? Is baptism not a “main” thing of Christianity?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[RyanL]

EA_Man:

Really?

Where in the NT is it “spelled out” that the “office” given to Peter was a permanent office to be handed down to successors?

Isaiah 22:22 and Matt 16:18. DIdn’t we go over this once before?

EA_Man:

Where is it “spelled out in the NT” that Peter was referred to as “pope”, “father”, or even “Holy Father”?

1 Cor 4:14-17.

EA_Man:

Where is it “spelled out in the NT” that one bishop would have universal jurisdictional authority over all of the other bishops?

If you’re going to ignore the answers I give, at least do me the courtesy of not asking the question again…

RyanL

 

[EA_Man]

RyanL:

1 Cor 4:14-17.
RyanL

1 Corithinians was written by Paul. Are you making an argument for Pauline supremacy?

Paul is urging us to imitate him.
So should I be imitating the priest if he is my “father”?

Peace

 

[MariaG]

EA_Man,

Is your position that the only main things are repentance and believing? Do you believe one does can be a follower of Christ and choose not to be baptized? Is baptism not a “main” thing of Christianity?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[RyanL]

1 Corithinians was written by Paul. Are you making an argument for Pauline supremacy?

Paul is urging us to imitate him.
So should I be imitating the priest if he is my “father”?

Peace

Paul shows us that it is right and propper to call bishops ‘father’. Peter was a bishop. Peter was called ‘father’. QED.

Yes, you may imitate the priests as they imitate Christ. Paul tells us as much.

And Peace be with you

 

[EA_Man]

EA_Man,

Is your position that the only main things are repentance and believing?

No

MariaG:

Do you believe one does can be a follower of Christ and choose not to be baptized?

I’m saying that it is not necessary for salvation.
The thief on the cross, for example.

But, baptism is a Christian “sacrament” or “ordinance”.
Whether one views it as conferring grace or as an act of obedience, is that the Main thing or is the Main thing that it denotes entrance into the community of believers?

Does God disqualify someone from salvation because they believed they were acting out of obedience rather than out of a belief that they were receiving grace?

The Bible provides the example of Christians being baptised AFTER they believed. Either they received baptism in repentence of their sins or in acceptance of the the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Is there an example of someone receiving baptism before they believed?

Peace

 

[MariaG]

posted by EA_Man

I’m saying that it is not necessary for salvation.
The thief on the cross, for example.

Catholic would say the theif was baptized. Baptism by Desire. If it were possible, the thief would have chosen to be baptized as Christ commanded.

But, baptism is a Christian “sacrament” or “ordinance”.
Whether one views it as conferring grace or as an act of obedience, is that the Main thing or is the Main thing that it denotes entrance into the community of believers?

Does God disqualify someone from salvation because they believed they were acting out of obedience rather than out of a belief that they were receiving grace?

The Bible provides the example of Christians being baptised AFTER they believed. Either they received baptism in repentence of their sins or in acceptance of the the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

All these questions are exactly my point. Depending on who you ask, you get a different answer. Some Christians, even if given the opportunity, say that baptism is not necessary, even as an act of obedience (I think(?) we would both agree that they are wrong, but they claim this from Scripture.)

So how can the “main things be the plain things” when baptism, what it is, what it does, cannot be agreed upon from Scripture alone?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Fiat]

EA_Man:

The subject of this thread is that “the main things are the plain things, etc…”.

Scripture makes it plain that Man needs a Savior.
Scripture makes it plain who that Savior is.
And scripture makes it plain what to do to receive salvation (repent and believe).

Therefore, the Main things are the Plain things.

Peace

RIGHT ON E-A MAN! Of course, the gaping hole in your positions is that without the Holy Catholic Church, how are we to know what “scriptures” are? What infallible source do YOU use to determine what scriptures are? Yourself? Your particular faith group? (This is a question you can’t really answer without admitting that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition that nullifies the Word of God, so I’m not expecting you to.)

The problem I have with the concept of “the main things are the plain things” is twofold: first, it assumes that in fact everyone agrees on what the “main things” are, and obviously this is not the case (to-wit: listen to a member of the Church of Christ and a Southern Baptist talk about baptism); and second, it posits Christ’s message against Himself, suggesting that there are essential teachings of Christ and there are nonessential teachings of Christ. I guess I believe in a Christ whose entire life and whose entire story is essential, and thank God that entire story is preserved to us in the Holy Catholic Church. If you are content, however, to eliminate His teachings, then that is your business. Go in peace.

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat