The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[Philthy]

A) i don’t need interpretation to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and neither do you and neither do little children or anyone else for that matter. the gospel message is simple. it takes neither the Catholic church, nor any other person to validate what has already been written. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah. B) The apostles creed sums up very well the Christian faith. It’s not as complicated as people make it out to be. Actually, given the apostles creed itself is sufficient to salvation.

A) You are being a little naive here. Are you saying that you know how to apply the teaching of Christ to all life situations? Or do you simply choose to exclude situations that aren’t specifically addressed by Him? Christian history is full of misunderstandings from the gospels. Yes, Christ is the Messiah - now what do we do?

B) The Apostles Creed is a very limited summary - for example it says that we believe “in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” Does that really say it all - we’re forgiven for all time from our baptism? Don’t some Christians believe baptism is simply a formality with no effect on eternal salvation? And, BTW, it completely ignores the Eucharist.

I understand that you like things simple. And I think that in most situations things are pretty simple. But often enough they are not so simple and it’s good to have the authority of the Church there to guide us.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello,

ahimsaman72:

What is your point?

My point was that I thought Paul was officially authorized by the laying on of hands even though initially called directly by Jesus. I do see that Paul was sent forth by the laying on of hands but this does not seem directly related to his apostleship. However, it would seem that even though Paul was made an apostle by Jesus, he still accepted commission from the Church as a living out of his apostleship.

Acts 13:2-3 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 9:26-27 When he arrived in Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. Then Barnabas took charge of him and brought him to the apostles…

Acts 11:30 …the presbyters in care of Barnabas and Saul.

Paul also mentions his own authority and he also discusses presbyters and bishops.

I think the most important question is whether the faith, authority, and practice of the original community of believers that included Peter, Paul, and the other apostles, is still in existence today. There is no question, that the Church of Peter, Paul, and the apostles is the true Church. The question is whether that same Church exists today. What are your thoughts on this?

Greg

 

[p90]

3. Was it because Jesus called him? If so, how did the Churches know this or why did they believe this?

It was because Jesus called him, although I am unsure how they verified this.

1. Was St. Paul ordained and authorized for his ministry by the Church?

If you’re referring to Paul going to see Peter, then I don’t think so, at least not in the sense of actions that support Papal authority.

~Matt

 

[p90]

fulloftruth:

They did have successors and I think the oneous is on you to prove that succession was not intended and why.

You’re the one trying to prove the Papacy through Scripture. Why are you shifting the burden of proof to me?

~Matt

 

[ahimsaman72]

mayra hart:

it goes against common sense. any written document meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live must have a living,continuing authority to guard,guarantee,and officially interpret it.:bowdown: otherwise ,chaos reings as everyone interprets the document according to his personal whim.

that living, continuing authority is the Holy Spirit. Mormons claim to have priesthood authority and guard, guarantee and officially interpret it also. Does that mean they are right? Chaos reigns everywhere humans are, including the Catholic Church.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

Hello,

My point was that I thought Paul was officially authorized by the laying on of hands even though initially called directly by Jesus. I do see that Paul was sent forth by the laying on of hands but this does not seem directly related to his apostleship. However, it would seem that even though Paul was made an apostle by Jesus, he still accepted commission from the Church as a living out of his apostleship.

Acts 13:2-3 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 9:26-27 When he arrived in Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. Then Barnabas took charge of him and brought him to the apostles…

Acts 11:30 …the presbyters in care of Barnabas and Saul.

Paul also mentions his own authority and he also discusses presbyters and bishops.

I think the most important question is whether the faith, authority, and practice of the original community of believers that included Peter, Paul, and the other apostles, is still in existence today. There is no question, that the Church of Peter, Paul, and the apostles is the true Church. The question is whether that same Church exists today. What are your thoughts on this?

Greg

Paul didn’t even go up to see Peter or any other apostle for years. He had his ministry and it was not offcially commissioned by anybody but God himself.

 

[p90]

fulloftruth:

Papal infallibility comes from the power of binding and loosing in heaven and on earth

You’re begging the question again. What in that relation demonstrates infallibility?

I think the parrallel is in the way it was lived out by the Apostles and there successors. The fact is they had successors…why wouldn’t Peter have a successor.

The question should be, Why would Peter have someone to succeed the Papal office? For the purpose of this thread, I’ve granted that the apostles had successors of their office of apostle. But since your goal is to demonstrate Papal succession from Scripture, you need to show the succession of the Papal position from Scripture.

~Matt

 

[ahimsaman72]

A) i don’t need interpretation to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and neither do you and neither do little children or anyone else for that matter. the gospel message is simple. it takes neither the Catholic church, nor any other person to validate what has already been written. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah. B) The apostles creed sums up very well the Christian faith. It’s not as complicated as people make it out to be. Actually, given the apostles creed itself is sufficient to salvation.

A) You are being a little naive here. Are you saying that you know how to apply the teaching of Christ to all life situations? Or do you simply choose to exclude situations that aren’t specifically addressed by Him? Christian history is full of misunderstandings from the gospels. Yes, Christ is the Messiah - now what do we do?

B) The Apostles Creed is a very limited summary - for example it says that we believe “in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” Does that really say it all - we’re forgiven for all time from our baptism? Don’t some Christians believe baptism is simply a formality with no effect on eternal salvation? And, BTW, it completely ignores the Eucharist.

I understand that you like things simple. And I think that in most situations things are pretty simple. But often enough they are not so simple and it’s good to have the authority of the Church there to guide us.

A. Naivity is in the eye of the beholder. this goes into the salvation question which is not meant for this thread. What we do now is obey what Christ taught as the most important. He said the two greatest commandments were: 1) love the Lord thy God (paraphrased) 2)love your neighbor as yourself. EVERYTHING in life can be summed in those two commandments. Yes, it really is very simple. If simple is naive, then I guess I’m naive.
B. No apostles creed I ever saw said anything about baptism. You are referring to the Nicene Creed. The apostles creed is a limited summary but one that was accepted by Christians way before the Nicene Creed and indeed is sufficient for its purpose of summarizing the Christian faith.
C. It’s also good to have the Bible to guide us, something often placed as secondary with Catholics

 

[oat_soda]

He said the two greatest commandments were: 1) love the Lord thy God (paraphrased) 2)love your neighbor as yourself. EVERYTHING in life can be summed in those two commandments.

if you truly followed these two commandments to fullfillment, you would have to be catholic. to love God with all you heart means to obey God and his Word. He died for his bride the church which speaks through the chair of Peter and contains the fullness of truth. who is truth? -God is.

if loving you neighbor as yourself is one of the greatest commandments, then why do protestants believe that one is saved by faith alone apart from works? Loving your neighbor is not faith but a work. according to many protestants, all i need to do is accept Jesus as my lord and savior and i’m saved. as they say, once saved always saved.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

if you truly followed these two commandments to fullfillment, you would have to be catholic. to love God with all you heart means to obey God and his Word. He died for his bride the church which speaks through the chair of Peter and contains the fullness of truth. who is truth? -God is.

if loving you neighbor as yourself is one of the greatest commandments, then why do protestants believe that one is saved by faith alone apart from works? Loving your neighbor is not faith but a work. according to many protestants, all i need to do is accept Jesus as my lord and savior and i’m saved. as they say, once saved always saved.

Correction: if I followed these two commandments to fulfillment I would be a Christian (follower of Christ). I agree he died for his bride the church (all who believe and trust in Christ).

He speaks more than through the “chair of Peter”. He speaks in many ways, and as Hebrews 1:1, 2 states, "God who at sundry times and diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things…"

God is truth - absolutely. Not Pope, magisterium, you or me.

Love is not only a feeling, it is feelings in action. Read in I Cor. 13:4-8. Love is not a “work”. It is both the feeling and the action lumped together.

I am glad to know that I myself don’t have to rely on my own “good things” and “good works” to obtain salvation. I can instead rely on God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ who loved me and gave himself a ransom for all.

 

[mercygate]

fulloftruth:

But I do see the difference, infallible is some what of a protection in the future of acting, where Scripture is already complete and without error, So I do see the difference. I bet Jimmy Akin came up with it, It sounds like his particular style of thought

R. C. Sproul, a card-carrying Sola Scriptura Protestant has a wonderful summary of canonicity in which he concludes that for Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books but that for Protestants the Bible is a **fallible **collection of infallible books.

I get it about inerrant vs. infallible but the principle is the same and it amazes me that Sproul actually concedes the point.

 

[oat_soda]

Again, I challenge any protestant to find “scripture alone” or “scripture is sufficent” in the bible.

protestants force their man-made traditions into the bible. they are blatantly are adding words to scripture. dosen’t the bible say not to go beyond what is written? it is protestants who mangle scripture not catholics.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Again, I challenge any protestant to find “scripture alone” or “scripture is sufficent” in the bible.

protestants force their man-made traditions into the bible. they are blatantly are adding words to scripture. dosen’t the bible say not to go beyond what is written? it is protestants who mangle scripture not catholics.

this sounds familiar.

 

[oat_soda]

I am glad to know that I myself don’t have to rely on my own “good things” and “good works” to obtain salvation. I can instead rely on God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ who loved me and gave himself a ransom for all.

your religion is one that you made up. the difference between christianity and paganism is christianity is a religion of revelation. paganism is a religion of the imagination. since you define your belifes on what you think is truth and not what was handed down to you, you are like a pagan. i’ll demonstrate below.

i don’t need interpretation to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and neither do you and neither do little children or anyone else for that matter. the gospel message is simple.

if the gospel message is so simple, why are their 30,000 protestant splinters? why did it take 400 years to define the Trinity?

look at the conflicting doctrines as a result of “sola scriptura”

**Anabaptists: **baptism to be administered to believers only (believer’s baptism); mass is not a sacrifice, but a memorial of the death of Christ (symbolism); the bread and wine should be broken with baptized believers only (restricted communion); Christians should be separated from the world (religious separation).
**Anglicanism: **Anglicanism has always been characterised by diversity in theology and liturgy. Different individuals and groups may identify more with Roman Catholic tradition or with the principles of the Reformation. Anglicans follow Roman Catholics and Orthodox in regarding the Deuterocanonical (or Apocryphal) books of the Bible as having some authority, while others reject them as not belonging in the Bible.
**Baptist: **Believer’s baptism is viewed as a public symbolic representation of the spiritual transformation that has taken place. Baptist churches are not under the direct administrative control of any other body. Priesthood of all believers removes the heirarchial layers of priests, traditions and authority. Each person is responsible before God for his/her own understanding of the bible.
**Calvinism: “**Preservation of the Saints”. Those whom God has called into communion with Himself through Christ, will continue in faith and will increase in faith and other gifts, until the end. Those who apparently fall away, either never had true faith to begin with, or else will return. The saving grace of God is not resistible. Those who obtain salvation do so because of the relentlessness of God’s mercy

contued…

 

[oat_soda]

**Lutheranism: ** The Ten Commandments, The Apostles’ Creed, The Lord’s Prayer, Holy Baptism, and The Sacrament of the Altar. It and related documents was published in The Book of Concord in 1580 and can be found at Project Wittenberg.

**Methodists: **Methodism has believed in the Arminian view of free will as opposed to predestination. Christian belief in the triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In devotional terms, this confession is said to embrace the biblical witness to God’s activity in creation, encompass God’s gracious self-involvement in the dramas of history, and anticipate the consummation of God’s reign. For them, there are two Sacraments ordained of Christ: Baptism and Communion (Supper of the Lord).

**Pentacostal: **emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues, also known as glossolalia, is seen as evidence that a person has received one of many blessings or spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit. Most major Pentecostal churches also accept the corollary that those who don’t speak in tongues have not received the blessing that they call “The Baptism of the Holy Spirit” (this claim is uniquely Pentecostal and is one of the few consistent differences from Charismatic theology). Some churches claiming the Pentecostal label hold to “Oneness theology”, which denies the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.

**Unitarian: **as a system of Christian thought and religious observance has its basis, as opposed to that of orthodox Trinitarianism, in the unipersonality of the Christian Godhead, i.e. in the idea that the Godhead exists in the person of the Father alone.

Who’s right, they all can’t be? if the bible is all you need then why so many conflicting doctrines? This proves the bible isn’t simple to understand and can be misinterpreted. Sola scriptura is a joke.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

your religion is one that you made up. the difference between christianity and paganism is christianity is a religion of revelation. paganism is a religion of the imagination. since you define your belifes on what you think is truth and not what was handed down to you, you are like a pagan. i’ll demonstrate below.

if the gospel message is so simple, why are their 30,000 protestant splinters? why did it take 400 years to define the Trinity?

You do understand there are different kinds of revelation? There is general revelation which all men can see, i.e. nature and design. There is also divine revelation, i.e. God spoke to men and at times (like with the Ten Commandments) He actually wrote some things down. Pagans deny general revelation of God. Read Romans 1.

I believe what has been handed down to me - namely, the Old and New Testaments. Weren’t they “handed down”? Hmmmm…

what is your definition of the gospel message?

the many denoms are for different reasons. This is one of the most used arguments against protestantism and has been debated time and time again and serves no real purpose. This has nothing to do with the gospel message which is universal in scope and not limited to any one church or denomination.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

edited for length!
Who’s right, they all can’t be? if the bible is all you need then why so many conflicting doctrines? This proves the bible isn’t simple to understand and can be misinterpreted. Sola scriptura is a joke.

I never said the Bible is simple to understand. I said the gospel message (which is contained in the Bible). And yes, the Bible can be misinterpreted.

In order to justify catholic teaching you attempt to divert attention away from it by attacking protestant teaching and churches. For your information, not all the above groups believe in sola scriptura, much less know what it means.

 

[oat_soda]

I never said the Bible is simple to understand. I said the gospel message (which is contained in the Bible). And yes, the Bible can be misinterpreted.
For your information, not all the above groups believe in sola scriptura, much less know what it means.

gospel:The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation. One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching. A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher.

are saying is that the bible is hard to understand but the first four books of the new testament aren’t? or are you saying that the good news preached by Jesus and the Apostles which according to sola scriptura is totally contained in the bible is easy to understand? either way how do you avoid interpreting scripture?

each one of those major protestants groups believe in sola scriptura. sola scriptura defines protestanism. are you that ignorant? if not, which ones don’t? you probably will not give an answer because you can’t. just like you can’t give a reasonable answer for your beliefs.

 

[ahimsaman72]

gospel:The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation. One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching. A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher.

are saying is that the bible is hard to understand but the first four books of the new testament aren’t? or are you saying that the good news preached by Jesus and the Apostles which according to sola scriptura is totally contained in the bible is easy to understand? either way how do you avoid interpreting scripture?

each one of those major protestants groups believe in sola scriptura. sola scriptura defines protestanism. are you that ignorant? if not, which ones don’t? you probably will not give an answer because you can’t. just like you can’t give a reasonable answer for your beliefs.

I’m assuming you took the “gospel” definition from a dictionary. It looks like there are three definitions there. I would say my definition of “gospel message” is contained in the first one listed.

I can tell you that Mormons and Universalists do not adhere to “scripture alone”. Mormons have a restored priesthood built on (you guessed it - papal succesion from Peter). Universalists (in general) believe most if not all religions will eventually lead to God. Therefore, I could definitively say that they are not sola scripturists. Again, as we have discussed before, my definition of sola sciptura is different (obviously) from yours.

There are many others in the protestant faith who do a better job with answering their beliefs I freely admit, so if that makes me ignorant, I guess by your definition, then, I am ignorant. Protestants are not protestant solely based on sola scriptura. There is also sola fide. So I don’t agree that sola scriptura “defines” protestantism, but then that is my “interpretation”, it’s not an infallible statement.

 

[ahimsaman72]

gospel:The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation. One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching. A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher.

are saying is that the bible is hard to understand but the first four books of the new testament aren’t? or are you saying that the good news preached by Jesus and the Apostles which according to sola scriptura is totally contained in the bible is easy to understand? either way how do you avoid interpreting scripture?

each one of those major protestants groups believe in sola scriptura. sola scriptura defines protestanism. are you that ignorant? if not, which ones don’t? you probably will not give an answer because you can’t. just like you can’t give a reasonable answer for your beliefs.

You didn’t comment on the rest of my post. I was kind of anxious to hear what you had to say about general and divine revelation.