You can't have it both ways.

[Jimmy_B]

LOL!!! Too funny. I was so shocked when I read your question, that I misread it. Does that make sense? LOL! -What part of the Holy Trinity is the Bible?

That is really a very silly question!! LOL!!

It is simply GOD’s Word why would man’s tradition have higher authority then GOD’s Word?

If you say a tradition was passed down by GOD- show me your concrete proof, the paper chain,etc. anything to prove that it was a tradition from GOD.

As far as I know the only concrete requirements for our salvation are in GOD’s Word.

Hello again schaick,

So, apparently you do believe that the “Word”, described in John 1, God, is in fact the Bible…If not, then please tell me what you mean by “the Word”? Go back and read your own comments here regarding the Bible and the “Word”.

You are implying that the Bible is somehow God and claiming that it is the only thing that we need. The Bible is not God, is not part of the Holy Trinity and the Bible came out of Catholic tradition and from the Catholic Church. It was because of “man’s traditions”, ecumenical councils and so on, and the “higher authority” of the Catholic Church and Catholic Popes that we have the Bible today.

The Bible did not magically appear.

How do you think the Bible came to be?

The Bible is a collection of writings, which God’s Catholic Church and Catholic Popes have solemnly and infallibly recognized and approved as being inspired by God.

From the very beginning, Christianity involved the Holy Church, Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.

You appear to have a more modern, more Evangelical, “Born-again” type of view of Sola scriptura that is a relatively new development in Christianity and one that differs from even the early Protestant Churches, who have liturgical calendars, Sacraments, misters, deacons, priests and bishops, church buildings and a hierarchy and so on.

I call this kind of “Bible Alone” Christianity, “The Christianity of one’s own intellect”… or “Having God on your own terms and not on His terms”.

Do you have any idea how many Christian truths you are rejecting with this sort of belief? For example, if you believe that the Bible is all that we need, does that mean that you totally reject all seven Christian Sacraments?

Thank you for your post.

Your thoughts?

 

[Jimmy_B]

LOL!!! Too funny. I was so shocked when I read your question, that I misread it. Does that make sense? LOL! -What part of the Holy Trinity is the Bible?

That is really a very silly question!! LOL!!

It is simply GOD’s Word why would man’s tradition have higher authority then GOD’s Word?

If you say a tradition was passed down by GOD- show me your concrete proof, the paper chain,etc. anything to prove that it was a tradition from GOD.

As far as I know the only concrete requirements for our salvation are in GOD’s Word.

Do you believe that we should worship the Bible… Do you worship the Bible?

 

[joe370]

Hey UniversalGuy…

If sola Scriptura was the only way to ascertain truth I guess there’d be some indication of that idea in the Old Testament. But there ain’t. At least I can’t see any. As to which is the true reformed church I’ve no idea. It’s extremely confusing.

If Jesus’ church was reformed, it should still be the one church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33, as opposed to another church founded by a mere man - right? What about the catholic reformation eg, the removal of abuses - that took place alongside the protestant reformation?

So when your interpretation of the Bible didn’t fit with your FORMER

Lutheran boss man’s interpretation of the Bible you got pushed out. I’ll think about that for a while. I wonder what Martin Luther would have made of that? He knew what it felt like to get thrown out of his church for following his conscience didn’t he?

ML rejected the authority of the CC, (which is OK with me if you can prove that the CC is not the church founded by God; I couldn’t ) - the ministerial priesthood, free will, 4 books of the NT, seeing them as as non-canonical, (yet his successores kept them in there) - 7 of the OT, and the teaching that faith without works is dead, just to name a few.

ML, speaking concerning the authority. Bishops would have among the reformers, if any of them should adopt reformed principles:

*“We would acknowledge them as our fathers, and willingly obey their authority, which we find supported by the Word of God.”
*

I’m still thinking about how relevant/important some of the doctrines are.

OK, but is it really your call or my call to make? God did not send me or you the HS to guide me or you into all truth until the end of time?

I don’t think the Orthodox have a problem with papal primacy. It’s papal supremacy they object to. And I think I do as well.

Hey, the EOC was almost my choice until I read the writings of the early church in the east.

Also, Jesus’ church is built on Kepha and the EOC rejects that biblical fact, so that was it for me.

My objection to indulgences isn’t to do with any supposed “abuse” in the Middle Ages. Indulgences are linked to purgatory and as I object to purgatory I object to indulgences as well.

Well, if you reject purgatory then I can certainly see why you reject indulgences. By the way, the EOC believes in a purgative process they just don’t call it purgatory. After all, they pray for the dead, and those in heaven don’t need their prayers and those in hell, sadly, cannot take advantage of their prayers.

UG, in Matthew’s Gospel there is a tremendous confrontation between Christ and the Pharisees, in which they accuse Him of exercising authority over demons by the power of Beelzebul, the “prince of demons.” (Mt. 12:24) - Jesus then warns them of the sin against the Holy Spirit and states:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit* will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. ***(Mt. 12:31-32)

Some sins cannot be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come, some sins can be forgiven in the age to come. Without using the word “purgatory,” Jesus is presenting teachings that are in perfect harmony with the Catholic teaching on purgatory and are difficult to interpret from an protestant perspective.

What about the reference in scripture to a prison in which we would not be released until we hve “paid the last cent” — this is certainly not heaven or hell. We never get out of hell, and heaven is no prison.

Paul writes:

For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble — each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:11-15)

The passage is quite clear: Gold and silver, when placed into a furnace, would be purified; wood and hay would be burned away. As this is done, scripture says we will suffer loss, but be saved “as through fire.” Isn’t the image of purgatory becoming more vivid to you - maybe? To what else could Paul be referring? He can’t be referring to hell, because it’s clear that the people who undergo this “purifying fire” will be saved, while those who are in hell are lost forever, and yet he can’t be referring to heaven, because he mentions the suffering of loss, while in heaven every tear will be wiped away. (Rev. 21:4)

Your thoughts my friend?

 

[schaick]

Shaick you said:

Ok, then give me a silly, but correct answer! What part of the Trinity regarding the following, is in the bible: the HS and the Father are one; the HS and Jesus are one? Please don’t cite 1 John 5:7 for obvious reasons, or Matthew 28:20 for one is an interpolation, depending on which NT you use and the other does not state that they are one.

John 10
30I and the Father are one."

The following might be of help to you:

gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

Also some on this forum hve questioned that the Nicene creed is not from the Holy Bible:
prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm

QUOTE]What happen to God’s word via the spoken word or letter:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Sola scriptura (the bible alone as the Christians only authority) - is man’s tradition found nowhere in God’s word. Why should anyone subscribe to SS?

All the traditions important to our salvation have been recorded in the New Testamment.

You want the paper chain of God’s word **passed down to us orally, through the generations? Now that is a silly question. Prove to me that the bible (written tradition) - is from God? **Why would you believe such a thing considering the fact that the bible is a product of the CC? Please don’t tell me that the CC had nothing to do with the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of the books from the bible; that would be a silly statement.

I unlike most Catholics believe that almost immediately the events of Jesus live were written down.

bible-researcher.com/isbetext02.html

Until very recent times it has not been customary to take up with any degree of confidence, if at all, the subject of New Testament autographs, but since the researches in particular of Dalman, Deissmann, Moulton (W. F.) and Milligan (George), the task is not only appropriate but incumbent upon the careful student. The whole tendency of recent investigation is to give less place to the oral tradition of Christ’s life and teaching and to press back the date of the writing of the Synoptic Gospels into the period falling between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem. Sir William M. Ramsay goes so far as to claim that “antecedent probability founded on the general character of personal and contemporary Greek of Greek-Asiatic society” would indicate “that the first Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus died” (Letters to the Seven Churches, 7). W. M. Flinders Petrie argues to the same end and says: “Some generally accepted Gospels must have been in circulation before 60 AD. The mass of briefer records and Logia which the habits and culture of that age would produce must have been welded together within 10 or 20 years by the external necessities” (The Growth of the Gospels, 7).

We have the paper chain for GOD’s Word- we have Paul references to the Gospel Scripture in his writtings before he died in 67 AD and we have the writings of the early Church Fathers. Since we have all the writtings everything has been sorted out for us.

There is only one thing that can prove a writing is from GOD and that is prophecies fufilled.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one:
The Holy Bible is not a product of the Catholic Church but GOD. The Catholic Church simply canonized what GOD put forth. The Early Church Fathers recognized the true Books of the Holy Bible and referenced the different Books in their writtings. This was done before the Catholic Church evolved into the Catholic Church.

What the Catholic Church is solely respomsible for and I am greatly thankful for is safeguarding all the Sacred writtings.

Actually on another thread we discussed and it was shown to me that:
The Sacred Traditions that a non-Catholic Christian doesn’t have access to according to the Catholic Church all revolve around the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[schaick]

Hello again schaick,

So, apparently you do believe that the “Word”, described in John 1, God, is in fact the Bible…If not, then please tell me what you mean by “the Word”? Go back and read your own comments here regarding the Bible and the “Word”.

Sorry I have confused you. GOD’s Word is HIS spoken word, message to mankind. GOD’s WORD is Jesus

From the very beginning, Christianity involved the Holy Church, Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.

You appear to have a more modern, more Evangelical, “Born-again” type of view of Sola scriptura that is a relatively new development in Christianity and one that differs from even the early Protestant Churches, who have liturgical calendars, Sacraments, misters, deacons, priests and bishops, church buildings and a hierarchy and so on.

Labeling me? My church follows:
From Paul about qualifications of Deacons:
1 Timothy 3
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

We see Paul, James and Timothy all interacting with the Elders:
**Titus 1 **
5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Acts 20
17From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.

Philippians 1
1Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
The leader and sustainer of the Church:

Colossians 1
17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Giving pre-eminence to man=
Matthew 23
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’
8"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ

Group decisions made by the Disciples and Deacons chosen:
Acts 6
2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

Which goes along with:
Matthew 18
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

How are they appointed?:
Acts 20
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.

{QUOTE]I call this kind of “Bible Alone” Christianity, “The Christianity of one’s own intellect”… or “Having God on your own terms and not on His terms”.

Funny using GOD’s Word as guide is considered having GOD on my terms and not HIS terms- the Holy Bible contains HIS terms.

Do you have any idea how many Christian truths you are rejecting with this sort of belief? For example, if you believe that the Bible is all that we need, does that mean that you totally reject all seven Christian Sacraments?

No, sorry you are not understanding, maybe I’m not being clear. The requirements we need for our salvation are in GOD’s Word, what we need to do and that does involve- the sacraments that are mentioned in GOD’s Word.

 

[schaick]

Do you believe that we should worship the Bible… Do you worship the Bible?

Oh My Goodness, LOL! How have I confused you so?!?

No, we must follow it. It contains all the information we need to know for our salvation.

This makes me wonder do you worship the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church?

 

[nickybr38]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one:
The Holy Bible is not a product of the Catholic Church but GOD. The Catholic Church simply canonized what GOD put forth. The Early Church Fathers recognized the true Books of the Holy Bible and referenced the different Books in their writtings. This was done before the Catholic Church evolved into the Catholic Church.

---

Canonizing the Scripture was not a ‘simply’ event. There were MANY Gospels and writings, most of which were gnostic or simply falsely inspired. Sitting down and deciding what was Canon and what was not couldn’t have been an easy thing.

Take, for example, Revelation. Originally it wasn’t even going to be included in what we call the Bible today, whereas another book (which one was it? Errr… I can’t remember. Sorry guys) was considered more reliable. In the end they decided to include Revelation and oust the other book.

Now, the question becomes, if we do not trust the Catholic Church how can we trust their judgment in this event? How do we know they tossed the right books and kept the right ones? And of course I’m only referencing the New Testament here.

I’ve read some of the books that they chose not to include (you can find some of them translated into English even today ). Honestly, at cursory glance I couldn’t understand why they WEREN’T included.

And just as an aside, Catholics say Catholics wrote the Bible because they believe the Apostles were Catholic, their students were Catholic, etc. etc… I have to say the more I study, the more I learn, the more I have to agree with them. (Disclaimer: I don’t actually intend to speak for all Catholics here. That is just my understanding of the issue after speaking to several Catholics)

 

[schaick]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one:
The Holy Bible is not a product of the Catholic Church but GOD. The Catholic Church simply canonized what GOD put forth. The Early Church Fathers recognized the true Books of the Holy Bible and referenced the different Books in their writtings. This was done before the Catholic Church evolved into the Catholic Church.

---

Canonizing the Scripture was not a ‘simply’ event. There were MANY Gospels and writings, most of which were gnostic or simply falsely inspired. Sitting down and deciding what was Canon and what was not couldn’t have been an easy thing.

Yes and Paul obviously had the right ones. The Early Church Fathers knew the difference too.

Take, for example, Revelation. Originally it wasn’t even going to be included in what we call the Bible today, whereas another book (which one was it? Errr… I can’t remember. Sorry guys) was considered more reliable. In the end they decided to include Revelation and oust the other book.

Not a part of Gospel but New Testament and yes I understand your point.

Now, the question becomes, if we do not trust the Catholic Church how can we trust their judgment in this event? How do we know they tossed the right books and kept the right ones? And of course I’m only referencing the New Testament here.

The Catholic Church that we have today has evolved away from what it was back in 200 AD.

I’ve read some of the books that they chose not to include (you can find some of them translated into English even today ). Honestly, at cursory glance I couldn’t understand why they WEREN’T included.

Yes I understand what you mean. The main reason- they were not referenced by the early Church Fathers so just not enough proof that the books were scripture.

The others are obvious - just too fanciful or appear way too late in time after the life of Jesus.

And just as an aside, Catholics say Catholics wrote the Bible because they believe the Apostles were Catholic, their students were Catholic, etc. etc… I have to say the more I study, the more I learn, the more I have to agree with them. (Disclaimer: I don’t actually intend to speak for all Catholics here. That is just my understanding of the issue after speaking to several Catholics)

Yes that would be where we disagree- “the Apostles were Catholic”. Interesting the more I study about the early church the more I see that the Catholic Church has changed away from what the early church appeared and how it functioned.

Not that change is bad. That is the only thing we can be assured of- there will be change.

The only constant- the Truths contained in the Holy Bible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Man-flesh? Sounds like Urukais from Lord of the Rings? I’d just pick one or the other and not combine the terms next time

Jesus is at least 100% man-flesh and 100% GOD-Spirit.

We know Spirit is life and fesh is not. We do not know what the makeup of the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.

Different Trinitarian denominations all hold the very same basic tenents of faith and simply use different applications to celebrate that same faith. All are members of Christ’s universal Church which are does not consist of just the few different Catholic denominations.

Haven’t you ever read or studied verses one time than later after some time approached those verses again to find a fuller wider menaning? Nothing contradictory but extra information that you didn’t have that light bulb click on for you?

Again. There is one interpretation. WHY do I have to apply it exactly as you say? WHY does anyone as long as the application is appropriate for example grape juice as “fruit of the vine” instead of wine and real presence of the Christ?

For example - At one point Catholics were not recieving the fuller Eucharist-WHY would I have to conform to that? When Jesus instituted the celebrationof the Eucharist using both Bread and Fruit of the vine.

Expecially if the application does not effect if I am saved, for example believing Mary was perpetually Virgin?

Different Trinitarian denominations all hold the very same basic tenents of faith and simply use different applications to celebrate that same faith. All are members of Christ’s universal Church which are does not consist of just the few different Catholic denominations.

 

[joe370]

Shaick…

Ok, then give me a silly, but correct answer! What part of the Trinity regarding the following, is in the bible: the HS and the Father are one; the HS and Jesus are one? Please don’t cite 1 John 5:7 for obvious reasons, or Matthew 28:20 for one is an interpolation, depending on which NT you use and the other does not state that they are one.
John 10
30I and the Father are one."

I didn’t say the father and the son. Will you please answer the preceding question. Thanks…gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html, which is my old stomping grounds as a former protestant, was not helpful.

Also some on this forum hve questioned that the Nicene creed is not from the Holy Bible:
prayerfoundation.org/nice…ture_basis.htm

OK, but irrelevant to the question.

Wh

at happen to God’s word via the spoken word or letter:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

All the traditions important to our salvation have been recorded in the New Testamment.

OK, then prove it? Show me in the bible alone where the bible says: All the traditions important to our salvation have been recorded in the New Testament, otherwise it’s not to be believed, according to your premise that it must be in the bible to be believed?

Again, Sola scriptura (the bible alone as the Christians sole rule of faith and only authority) - is man’s tradition found nowhere in God’s word. Why should anyone subscribe to SS?

You want the paper chain of God’s word passed down to us orally, through the generations? Now that is a silly question. Prove to me that the bible (written tradition) - is from God? Why would you believe such a thing considering the fact that the bible is a product of the CC? Please don’t tell me that the CC had nothing to do with the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of the books from the bible; that would be a silly statement.

I unlike most Catholics believe that almost immediately the events of Jesus live were written down.

Catholics too believe that all of the books of the bible were recorded by the close of the 1st century. Did the CC determine the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of the books from the bible? This will help understand your unique perspective, or is it your contention that none of the 27 books of the NT were ever questioned as canon from the 1st century to the 4th century?

This was done before the Catholic Church evolved into the Catholic Church.

What???

What the Catholic Church is solely respomsible for and I am greatly thankful for is safeguarding all the Sacred writtings.

How do you know they didn’t add something to the NT, that shouldn’t have been there (like the 7 OT books that the CC supposedly added) - or exclude something from the bible, that should have been there?

Why trust that the CC safeguarded the sacred writings, but distrust the CC regarding other things? Please be specific, unlike your last response to my last post. Much appreciated.

 

[joe370]

Schaick, Nicky said to you:

*Take, for example, Revelation. Originally it wasn’t even going to be included in what we call the Bible today, whereas another book (which one was it? Errr… (NT Testament Books which are now accepted by Christians, but which were for a time rejected, are Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation) - I can’t remember. Sorry guys) was considered more reliable. In the end they decided to include Revelation and oust the other book.
*
To which you said:

Not a part of Gospel but New Testament and yes I understand your point.

This is nothing more than evasive language. You said that the The Holy Bible is not a product of the Catholic Church but GOD. If Nicky is right, and she is, then the Holy Bible is a product of God, defined by the CC - right? Without the CC to include those books and exclude books (books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the New Testament, are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions) - from the holy bible, that didn’t belong there, you, most definitely would not have, in your bible, the 27 books you now possess?

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7028233]
ML rejected the authority of the CC, (which is OK with me if you can prove that the CC is not the church founded by God; I couldn’t )

Hi Joe,
Actually, he rejected the authority as it was being practiced/abused in his time. I think he would have been fond of JP II and Paul VI and John XXIII and Benedict XVI.

• the ministerial priesthood

Not at all. The Augsburg Confession (XVI) clearly supports the ministerial priesthood.

free will

Goodness, no.

4 books of the NT, seeing them as as non-canonical, (yet his successores kept them in there)

He never deleted them from canon. He, like many others prior, all the way back to Esubius, questioned them, hence the term “Antilegomena”.

7 of the OT

Again, on the same grounds as many Catholics contemporaries, and prior to him, all the way back to St. Jerome.

and the teaching that faith without works is dead

He never rejected this, and no true Lutheran can or should.

Joe, I have come to the belief that your experience as a Lutheran was one of poor catechesis, and apparrently a LINO (Lutheran in name only) pastor. That said, the Holy Spirit has found you a place in the Catholic Church, and I give thanks for that , as well as our becoming fiends here.
Jon

 

[Cranmer2010]

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

---

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?

Maybe someone here could an explain how Sola scriptura works and if it does work then why so much division in Protestantism? .

Your thoughts?

Jimmy, I’m afraid that you are totally missing the content of your point here. First of all, Sola Scriptura doesn’t state that anything not contained in Scripture is either invalid or untruthful. Sola Scriptura is much more accurately described as Scripture being the final authority by which we base out Christian learning and teaching from.

Secondly, if we look at Protestantism as a whole, there are truly only about 7 or 8 main denominations. Even at that the differences bewteen these denominations aren’t always about Scripture interpretation. It would be completely absurd to assume that there can be literally 40,000 separate legitimate Protestant denominations with just as many interpretations of Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

And lets not forget the earlier schism.
But so they have different Traditions?

Not much. Only about 2% divides us now, as opposed to a much larger percentage with our Protestant brethren.

How did you decide which one was correct? I am sure you also examined the Oriental Orthodox and the other churches that trace their bishops to the Apostles? You had to examine all of them to decide which traditons were correct?
Just checking.

Yes, this is correct in my case. I was in Seminary, trying to decide which denomination I was being called to. When I examined the schisms, it became clear that all of the separations, both before and after the Reformation, define themselves by which parts of the Catholic faith they rejected.

My point is that Catholics and many other groups adhere to Scripture and Tradition and disagree.

Yes, a just point. This is precisely why Jesus had to leave the Keys with somebody. He knows our frame, and how we are. He knows that humans require authority, and He made that authority visible, and promised to prevent it from error.

That is a fact.
Cannot be argued.
My point is also that Christians adhere to Scripture alone and disagree.
Both are facts.
Cannot be argued.
Can we agree on that?
I am not derailing, I am examining your basic presupposition by which the question was asked.

I think you bring out a good point. Attempts to rely on scripture without tradition result in division. Attempts to rely on scripture and tradition, without authority, also result in division, though it is not as prevalent.

You came to that conclusion
and millions of other Orthodox did not.

I think the problem with the Orthodox comes from a diffferent source. I am just listening to a history lecture where the presenter is reading a lament by the Pope that the Crusaders attacked and sacked Constantinople against his wishes. He mourned the damage done to the Christian Church because of the European Latins being “bathed in the blood” of their brethren. The soldiers were ignorant, and lacked appropriate leadership to guide them, and mistook the Greek Catholics for infidels.

The Latins stole a number of valuables from the Churches in the East, taking them back to the West for “safekeeping”. Some of them have yet to be returned.

It was actions like these, along with other gross intolerances of cultural differences, misunderstandings about language, and human arrogance that sowed the seeds for the schism of East and West. None of them were doctrinal.

Now that both sides have withdrawn the misplaced excommunications, unity is being resorted.

You are right, though, one of the issues that remains outstanding is the authority of the successor of Peter. The Eastern Christians have always affirmed the authority of the Aposotlic See in Rome. It is a matter of how far that authority extends.

And hundreds of other groups that adhere to Tradition as well.

There are some offsrpring of the Reformation, such as Lutherans and Anglicans that do adhere to tradition also. Each are defined by which parts of the Apostolic faith they reject.

So your personal interpretation of the facts is superior to theirs? How does one personally evaluate tradition to decide which group is correct? Is it like evaluating which Sola Scriptura group is right? Do you use the same books of history and tradition to decide?

Another very just set of questions. However, no matter what books and procedures one uses to evaluate, one is ultimately left with the reality of who Jesus left in charge.

you can always find an authority. Don’t you think?

Yes, but most of them are self appointed, or appointed by those who departed from under the authority appointed by 'Christ.

Peter is the symbol of unity among the Apostles. Jesus prayed for him singly. Satan wanted to sift all the Apostles, but Jesus only prayed for “you” (singular-Peter). He instructed Peter, after he had been resorted to strengthen his brethren. This is part of the Petrine gifts, also including the responsibility to feed and care for the flock.

All the Apostles share in these duties and authority, of course, but never apart from unity with Peter. And, as we can see, the entire problem of disunity ends up being centered around this lightening rod-unity (or not) with the successor of Peter.

For me, it was understanding these Petrine gifts and responsibilities that was the deciding point.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy, I’m afraid that you are totally missing the content of your point here. First of all, Sola Scriptura doesn’t state that anything not contained in Scripture is either invalid or untruthful. Sola Scriptura is much more accurately described as Scripture being the final authority by which we base out Christian learning and teaching from.

Secondly, if we look at Protestantism as a whole, there are truly only about 7 or 8 main denominations. Even at that the differences bewteen these denominations aren’t always about Scripture interpretation. It would be completely absurd to assume that there can be literally 40,000 separate legitimate Protestant denominations with just as many interpretations of Scripture.

I understand what you are saying. I also know that Sola scriptura has a different meaning to different people. As far as there being 7 or 8 main Protestant denominations, I can believe that. However, with the newer, Evangelical and Born-again groups, there are hundreds of sub-sects of those original 7 or 8 denominations, right?

 

[guanophore]

No it was not. The Bible never uses the word anointing in relation to the baptism by John. Its not there. It does not exist.
I am not ignoring something because it does not exist.

John did not use oil, but the HS appeared over Jesus, validating that He is the Annointed One. That is why John told Him "I need to be baptized by you’.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Not much. Only about 2% divides us now, as opposed to a much larger percentage with our Protestant brethren.

I don’t believe that to be accurate. To say that Catholics are united on such things as the Eucharist or even the Virgin birth is not accurate. To profess to be united and to actually be united is two different things. Protestants suffer from the same drawbacks.

Yes, this is correct in my case. I was in Seminary, trying to decide which denomination I was being called to. When I examined the schisms, it became clear that all of the separations, both before and after the Reformation, define themselves by which parts of the Catholic faith they rejected.

That’s also not a true statement. Anglicans for instance in many cases follow the traditions of the Early Church such as the Eucharist and the Gregorian Kalender but do not recognize later adoptations of Catholicism such as Infallibility and many of the Marian dogmas. It has to do with who the Early Church was, not what Rome does or does not do.

Yes, a just point. This is precisely why Jesus had to leave the Keys with somebody. He knows our frame, and how we are. He knows that humans require authority, and He made that authority visible, and promised to prevent it from error.

Again, not so. Scripture clearly shows us that Jesus gave these leadership qualities including the power to bind and loose to all the Apostles, not just Peter.

I think you bring out a good point. Attempts to rely on scripture without tradition result in division. Attempts to rely on scripture and tradition, without authority, also result in division, though it is not as prevalent.

To add to the authenticity of the Scriptures results in the disortion of who God really is. God’s Church is a body, not an institution.

There are some offsrpring of the Reformation, such as Lutherans and Anglicans that do adhere to tradition also. Each are defined by which parts of the Apostolic faith they reject

.
Again, it is about adherring to who the Early Church was and how Christ preserved his Church, not about rejecting anything Apostolic.

Peter is the symbol of unity among the Apostles. Jesus prayed for him singly. Satan wanted to sift all the Apostles, but Jesus only prayed for “you” (singular-Peter). He instructed Peter, after he had been resorted to strengthen his brethren. This is part of the Petrine gifts, also including the responsibility to feed and care for the flock.

All the Apostles share in these duties and authority, of course, but never apart from unity with Peter. And, as we can see, the entire problem of disunity ends up being centered around this lightening rod-unity (or not) with the successor of Peter.

But Scripture goes much further about how ALL of the Apostles share in the authority that Jesus gave them. You seem to want to forget all of those attributes that the whole Book of Acts speaks about. Peter was also opposed by Paul on issues that could very well be seen as falling under the Infallibility realm. Also, Scripture does not speak of any successor of Peter. Again, this seems very indicative that Peter alone was not how Jesus founded his Church.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

ML rejected the authority of the CC, (which is OK with me if you can prove that the CC is not the church founded by God; I couldn’t )
Hi Joe,
Actually, he rejected the authority as it was being practiced/abused in his time. I think he would have been fond of JP II and Paul VI and John XXIII and Benedict XVI.

Yes, I spoke in haste. More than anything else, it was ML’s opposition to the indulgence abuses that led to his rejection of papal authority. Jon, if not for the temporary abuses in the CC do you believe that ML would have never publicly taught that the Bible alone was all sufficient and stuck it out with the CC like Francis of Assisi did when the CC was in a bad way?

Quote:

• the ministerial priesthood
  Not at all. The Augsburg Confession (XVI) clearly supports the ministerial priesthood.

Jon,why did ML say the following:

*“Every true Christian really should know that there are no external, visible priests except those whom the devil has raised up and exalted through the lies of men. We have only one Priest, Christ, who has offered Himself for us and all of us with Him (1 Peter 2:24). It is certainly an incontrovertible conclusion that in New Testament times there can be no external priests who are separated from laymen by tonsures. Therefore all who now exist are so without Scriptures and the call of God, that is, as creation of the devil. No one of himself assumes this honour except he whom God calls, as He did Aaron.”
*

“Injustice is done those words ‘priest,’ ‘cleric,’ ‘spiritual,’ ‘ecclesiastic,’ when they are transferred from all Christians to those few who are now by a mischievous usage called ‘ecclesiastics.’”

Quote:
free will
Goodness, no.

Why did he say the following:

*"…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan." *

Quote:
4 books of the NT, seeing them as as non-canonical, (yet his successores kept them in there)
He never deleted them from canon. He, like many others prior, all the way back to Esubius, questioned them, hence the term “Antilegomena”.

He didn’t delete them, however he did label them as contradicted or disputed, like you said, and he was wrong - right? For example you don’t agree with ML regarding the following:

*…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical."

…this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.*

Jon, despite his heavy reliance on the Bible as the sole source of truth, ML did not seem to believe that it was inerrant.

Quote:
7 of the OT
Again, on the same grounds as many Catholics contemporaries, and prior to him, all the way back to St. Jerome.

All my research has shown me that the CC has always embraced these 7 books. Perhaps you could provide some allusions or citations?

Quote:
and the teaching that faith without works is dead
He never rejected this, and no true Lutheran can or should.

Jon the bible, in Romans 3:28, states,* “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”*

ML, in his German translation of the bible, specifically added the word alone (“allein”) - to Romans 3:28, a word that is not in the original Greek. Interestingly the letter of James is the only place in the bible to actually use the term faith alone and it’s used in a way that contradicts ML’s statement/addition:

*“You see then that a man is justified by works, **and not by faith alone.” *(James 2:24)

It hit me, one day, that James 2:24 must have contradicted ML’s sola fide teaching and must have been a major reason why he discounted this book from the Bible? Perhaps you could pm me and shed some light on this subject for I don’t want to derail this thread, although it is kind of related: it can’t be both ways! The first thing that crossed my mind, long ago, was that this addition strongly suggests that ML viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible, as the primary authority. I can cite other changes that he made to the NT, that kind of bothered me as well. Can you imagine what non-Catholics would do if the CC added something? Phew…ML also said the following which really bothered me: “Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day.” Jon, why do you think he made that non-biblical statement? Am I missing something? He seemed to overlook what the book of Hebrews taught:

*“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.” (Hebrews 10:26-27)
*

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Joe, I have come to the belief that your experience as a Lutheran was one of poor catechesis, and apparrently a LINO (Lutheran in name only) pastor. That said, the Holy Spirit has found you a place in the Catholic Church, and I give thanks for that , as well as our becoming friends here.

Not so Jon. Here is another quote of ML that bothered me, with which I don’t think that you agree:

*The first three (gospels)- speak of the works of our Lord, rather than His oral teachings; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred above the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels.
*

Jon, I too believe that the Holy Spirit has found you a place in the Lutheran church; our paths just led us in different directions that will one day lead us to the same eternal place, our heavenly home. I treasure our friendship as well; our debates are always a breath of fresh air…

 

[joe370]

Cranmer, you said to Jimmy:

I’m afraid that you are totally missing the content of your point here. First of all, Sola Scriptura doesn’t state that anything not contained in Scripture is either invalid or untruthful.

That’s what Jimmy is talking about, I believe: some SS advocates disagree with you, and therefore we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact definition of sola scriptura, and until a SS advocate can do so, how reliable can it be?

You said:

Sola Scriptura is much more accurately described as Scripture being the final authority by which we base out Christian learning and teaching from.

Cranmer, using SS as the Christians final authority,do you believe that the bible alone can settle, once and for all, the hotly debated dispute regarding the following:

This is my body

or

This is a symbol of my body?

If the bible alone is the Christians final authority then let’s use it to resolve this doctrinal difference? Even if you and I come to the same conclusion, SS still doesn’t work until all Christians draw the same conclusion, based on the bible alone as the Christians final authority. Always bothered me as a former non-Catholic.

Help me out here friend.