You can't have it both ways.

[gtrenewed]

Well, either the bible is the Christians final authority via individual interpretation, or it is not? We can’t have it both ways!

My source for what God has given me and what God expects is the Bible. No other person or church will stand before God with me, only Jesus as my Lord and Savior will cover me. So I follow Scripture as I understand it and by faith believe that the Holy Spirit will bring to my remembrence what Jesus taught.

I agree that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this earth, but as King, He did establish an earthly Davidic kingdom, His church, which, from its very inception was as small as a mustard seed, but eventually grew into a massive tree and Jesus’ earthly kingdom, according to Jesus, is comprised of both weeds and wheat, which will not be the case in Jesus’ heavenly kingdom:

Wrong, it is not an earthly kingdom, it is the kingdom of heaven. The RCC is not the kingdom of heaven and certainly not Davidic.

So, the church established by the Davidic King and Messiah, King Jesus, is not the earthly kingdom,

Which do you mean, the church is the earthly kingdom or the church is not the earthly kingdom? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Define what you mean by the church.

I thought the long awaited Messiah was to be a king who would restore the Davidic line and reign on David’s earthly throne, and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever, on into the heavenly kingdom? Well, maybe I am wrong, so, thank God Jesus left His church leadership with the holy spirit, as opposed to you or me, to forever guide His church into all truth as opposed to partial truth.

Again, first you say the church is not an earthly kingdom and then you say it is.
The Holy Spirit is in all believers. If you don’t have the Holy Spirit you are not of God.

 

[gtrenewed]

The church founded by Jesus was not the church of Rome or the church of Constantinople or the church of Antioch or the church of Alexandria - right? It was the church of Jerusalem? If it was not, then they never had that privileged standing. Perhaps you could identify Jesus’ authentic church stemming from Jerusalem, that traversed the centuries alongside the RCC, from the 4th century until the protestant reformation, and continued to traverse the next 5 centuries alongside the CC, the EOC and all of the PC’s? Surely that is the church with the entrusted standing and authority, to bring the gospel into perfect focus?

You lost me here. Do the ? mean you are asking because you are not sure? Are you saying, well I’m not sure what you are saying.
Paul founded many churches and he did not come from Jerusalem. It seems Jesus made a special point of choosing and training Paul outside of the original Apostles. Since the source was Jesus they taught the same thing but Paul was not of the lineage of Jerusalem. This shows at this time what the church was concerned with is the Gospel not an earthly kingdom.

Help me find that one reformed and united church bearing said fruit, stemming from the protestant reformation, as well as the authentic church stemming from Jerusalem, founded by Jesus, that again, traversed the centuries alongside the CC, the EOC and all of the reformed churches? Once we identify Jesus’ authentic church stemming from Jerusalem and Jesus’ reformed church, stemming from the protestant reformation, it looks like we have a choice to make?

Look, you will find the church where the Gospel is preached.
It appears to me that you need to find Jesus. If you are looking for your salvation in anything but Jesus you have missed the Gospel. Stop looking to man and look to Jesus. If you believe you are supposed to be in the RCC then be there. There are those of us who have found liberty in the salvation found in Jesus and seek each other out to have fellowship.

Please show me where scripture says that scripture has all we need, to come to faith and to grow in the Spirit? From a purely sola scriptura point of view, if its not in there it’s not to be believed!

Thanks Gtrenewed…

2Timothy 3:15-16 “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”

 

[joe370]

My source for what God has given me and what God expects is the Bible. No other person or church will stand before God with me, only Jesus as my Lord and Savior will cover me. So I follow Scripture as I understand it and by faith believe that the Holy Spirit will bring to my remembrence what Jesus taught.
So, it is your opinion that I am wrong? Okay… Why can I trust your opinion? Is it because I can trust the fact that the Holy Spirit is bringing to your remembrance through your interpretation of the bible, what Jesus taught to His apostles, in the 1st century?

It is clear that your source for what God has given you and what God expects from you, is the Bible via your unique interpretation of your bible, as the HS guides you. Got it.

Which do you mean, the church is the earthly kingdom or the church is not the earthly kingdom? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Define what you mean by the church.

Well, not that my opinion (or any church for that matter) - will matter to you. Jesus established a church, which is the house of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth, and Jesus is the King of His creation, the church, which is His Mystical Body of which He is the Head and Savior…the King of His Fathers House, here on earth, and His kingdom on earth is comprised of both wheat and weeds, and when Jesus returns he will gather his elect, (his church) - from the 4 corners of the world, and welcome them into His heavenly kingdom. But it doesn’t matter what I say or believe for you have made it abundantly clear that the source for what God has given you and what God expects from you, is the Bible and your personal interpretation of your bible, as you are moved by the holy spirit. No other person or church will stand before God and you, only Jesus and your bible as you interpret it. You follow Scripture as you and you alone, understand it, and by faith you believe that the Holy Spirit will bring to your remembrance what Jesus taught in the 1st century! You’ve got moxie my friend; I’ll give you that.

Take care…

 

[PRmerger]

I thought you agreed that only God gets the glory for answered prayer but I see that you want the glory also for I have to thank you for answered prayer.

Did you see that little winky in my signature?

It looks like this:

It seems like someone is just a little bit disingenuous and pretending to be unable to grasp the concept.

But why would you change it if you don’t see it as wrong?

'zactly. Why would I?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes - Jesus saves, not my works, that is the good news of the Gospel.

Jesus saves. Indeed.

What’s the point, then, of the rest of the Gospel, if we need not care/know if it’s “essential” to our salvation to avoid adultery?

Remember we are not under the law for salvation for all have fallen short.

Well, you must agree as a Christian that the “all have fallen short” is a qualified “all”, right? Not literally “all” have sinned.

 

[schaick]

I have the dates as:
Gregory of Nazianzus c. 329 – January 25 389 or 390
Cyril of Jerusalem ca. 313 – 386
Ephrem 306 – 373
Athanasius c. 293 – 2 May 373

Isn’t there anything earlier?

Did you know that in the 4th century there was a cult that worshiped Mary in Arabia called Collyridians?

I tell you it is traditions that have splintered the church- not Scripture.

 

[schaick]

Jesus saves. Indeed.

What’s the point, then, of the rest of the Gospel, if we need not care/know if it’s “essential” to our salvation to avoid adultery?

**There is the message of how GOD wants the local church should be organized:

For the overseer = bishop:
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.

Who the leader of the church is:
Colossians 1
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.

it warns us to not give 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

Well, you must agree as a Christian that the “all have fallen short” is a qualified “all”, right? Not literally

“all” have sinned.

Literally all have sinned in the eyes of GOD:
Romans 3
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.**

 

[BLYTHART]

I am a non-Catholic Christian and I believe that anything which blatantly disagrees with Scripture is “wrong” (if that’s not too judgmental a word). The way I see it though, Catholicism has added to Scripture, rather than taken away from it. I am not here to say whether Catholicism is right or wrong (that’s not for me to say) but I have to admit that it does seem a bit remiss of we Protestants to casually dismiss 2,000 years of Christian history.

While I believe the Bible to be God’s Word, I do have reservations regarding which passages are to be taken as actual facts and which are symbolic, or involve midrash.

Dave Edwards (Blythart).

 

[schaick]

Schaick, you said:

If interpreting the bible is not rocket science, then please settle the dispute regarding the correct interpretation and application of - This is my body versus, this is a symbol of my body, once and for all? Please, don’t give me your interpretation and call it good, for this does not settle the dispute for those who’s interpretation, disagrees with yours.

I believe in Real presence and that is what the Bible says.

I am trying to pry out of my friend who follows sola scriptura also where the Bible says symbolic presence.

Are there any symbolic presence only believers out there that could explain their point?

 

[schaick]

Do you realize most people in that time period couldn’t read anyway and that God was sharing His Gospel THROUGH His Apostles and THEIR Apostles ORALLY?

Whether a person is reading GOD’s Word, hearing GOD’s Word, telling GOD’s Word it is still - GOD’s Word - Scripture.

 

[schaick]

I’m not a huge fan of scripture verse battles BUT during our readings tonight I stumbled upon this and thought it was pretty relevant to the discussion:

“Brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” - 2 Thess. 2:15

Notice how there is no command to hold fast ONLY to the written word? Funny how that works.

That is a great verse, notice the one previous:
2 Thessalonians 2
14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

What we are to hold fast to is the Gospel is the message whether written or oral it is GOD’s Word. In the Bible there are verses saying to beware of traditions. Time and again we have Jesus showing us how important HE believed Scripture to be by HIS actions.

Blue Letter Bible: the word and how it is used:
Here is the page that shows all the times that word is used in the Bible.

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3862&t=KJV

g3862 παράδοσις paradosis

1. giving up, giving over
   a) the act of giving up
   b) the surrender of cities
2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
   a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
   b) of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and** orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations**, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

Notice that there was a gap of hundeds of years from the time the Bible was written until the time the Catholic Church took up some it’s more recent traditions, the Mary dogmas, Pope infallibility, indulgences, even that there is a Sacred Tradition, etc..

 

[PRmerger]

Literally all have sinned in the eyes of GOD:

I, as a Christian, have to disagree with you shaick.

There are many non-Christians who use that verse to tell us, "See! Even your Scriptures say that Jesus was not divine. It very clearly says in your book that “all have sinned”.

Now, Catholics can answer that one quite confidently because we understand that it’s* not* “literally all have sinned in the eyes of God.”

But, admittedly, you would be stuck when confronted with a non-Christian who wants to argue with you that Jesus was not God, just a good teacher, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Whether a person is reading GOD’s Word, hearing GOD’s Word, telling GOD’s Word it is still - GOD’s Word - Scripture.

No. God’s Word is Jesus.

 

[joe370]

Hey Shaick…

I believe in Real presence and that is what the Bible says.

I am trying to pry out of my friend who follows sola scriptura also where the Bible says symbolic presence.

Are there any symbolic presence only believers out there that could explain their point?

Again, please, don’t give me your interpretation and call it good, for this does not settle the dispute for those, who’s interpretation, disagrees with yours or mine. If interpreting the bible is not rocket science, as you have suggested, then please, using sola scriptura, settle the dispute regarding the correct interpretation and application of - This is my body versus, this is a symbol of my body, once and for all? If you cannot, then sola scriptura is ineffectual as the Christians final authority.

A necessary corollary of the practice of sola scriptura is the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the holy bible. If I am wrong then please correct me, and illustrate exactly what is the necessary corollary of the practice of sola scriptura?

Regarding SS, each individual has the final prerogative to decide for him/herself what the correct interpretation of a given passage, (eg this is a symbol of my body) - of scripture means, irrespective of what anyone else says. If anyone can authoritatively dictate to another, (such as the leadership of a particular church) - the meaning of a certain teaching found in the bible, then scripture would not be his/her sole authority, logically speaking. Something one else would have binding authority, negating the bible alone as the Christians only authority, altogether. Therefore, according to the practice of sola scriptura, any role an authoritative body, bible commentaries, or anyone or anything else outside the sphere of Sola scriptura, that may influence theology in a persons life, is nothing more than an attempt to nudge or suggest an accurate interpretation or to provide evidence to the another as he/she makes his/her own authoritative decision, as you have so aptly demonstrated. Each individual Christian is therefore, put in the position of being his own theologian.

With that said, how is the world to know objectively, with certainty, the truth regarding any one doctrine, such as the Eucharist, when, as you say, * “trying to pry out of my friend” *who follows sola scriptura, the interpretation that I render, regarding, say, the Eucharist, is off limits? It has become a veritable free for all regarding doctrinal truth. You asked:

“Are there any symbolic presence only believers out there that could explain their point?”

And the answer is, absolutely, and their interpretation is authoritative and binding and no one is to question it, if in fact there exist, absolutely no authoritative oversight. This is the very reason why you cannot answer my question. SS ties the Christians hands when it comes to resolving a doctrinal dispute, for the simple fact that the bible alone, as opposed to any one person or persons, is the Christians one and only touchstone by which a teaching, such as the Eucharist, is evaluated. I ask with all due respect: You don’t see how un-bibilical, insufficient and unworkable the practice of SS is, when attempting to unite the Mystical Body of Christ, the church, via the authority of a collection of infallible books?

 

[joe370]

BLYTHART, you said:

I am a non-Catholic Christian and I believe that anything which blatantly disagrees with Scripture is “wrong” (if that’s not too judgmental a word).

Okay, but, as you know, (from a sola scriptura standpoint) - the bible alone is the Christians only authority by which you, me or anyone else can evaluate and determine who is right and who is wrong.

For example, one Christian might insist that the words, “this is my body,” blatantly disagrees with Scripture and another might insist that, “this is a symbol of my body,” blatantly disagrees with Scripture. Both are deferring to the authority of scripture yet both are taking away from their final authority, mutually contradictory interpretations.

For sola scriptura to work there must be a solution to this problem. What is the fix? Perhaps you could be the first person, in my experience anyway, to directly answer this question?

The way I see it though, Catholicism has added to Scripture, rather than taken away from it.

Provide adequate proof and I will most definitely believe you. I can’t just take your word for it though.

I am not here to say whether Catholicism is right or wrong (that’s not for me to say) but I have to admit that it does seem a bit remiss of we Protestants to casually dismiss 2,000 years of Christian history.

Good point. Either the CC is the church founded by Jesus, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, or the CC is nothing more than a product of mere men and the potentially bogus traditions of mere men, of which, by the way, the bible is a product. It was catholic tradition that ultimately defined the canon of scripture. After all, they didn’t simply reference the codified bible, (as a self-authenticated, self-attested source) - to codify the bible. It was the living, consensual, unanimous tradition of the CC that made the final call.

While I believe the Bible to be God’s Word, I do have reservations regarding which passages are to be taken as actual facts and which are symbolic, or involve midrash.

Me too.

Peace Dave…

 

[gtrenewed]

So, it is your opinion that I am wrong? Okay… Why can I trust your opinion? Is it because I can trust the fact that the Holy Spirit is bringing to your remembrance through your interpretation of the bible, what Jesus taught to His apostles, in the 1st century?

Scripture teaches that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, forever!

About the kingdom on earth, yes I say you are wrong! A church is a group of people assembling together to worship. A church is not a kingdom. None of the teachings of Jesus or the first church suggest this. Only when Jesus returns will a kingdom be set up on earth.

The kingdom of heaven is made manifest in each believer and each believer is part of the Body of Christ. Each believer is part of a local church and each church is part of the universal church. As the Gospel spread by preaching Jesus, more churches were started. These churches were not connected organizationally but through the Holy Spirit.

Hundreds of years later they connected organizationally and even later it became the RCC and the EOC. Even later the RCC becomes corrupt and refuses to repent and there is the RCC, the EOC, and the PC. The RCC later repents but it is too late to mend what was broken.

To the PC what is important is the Gospel as revealed in Scripture. To the PC, the RCC has diluted the Gospel and shifted the focus away from being Jesus centered by introducing other doctrines not confirmed by Scripture.

To answer your question - you don’t have to trust my opinion. I am not a man demanding your blind obedience but your church requires blind obedience. When Paul’s leadership and authority was questioned he did not demand blind obedience he reminded them of what he taught, the power of God he displayed, and that he demonstrated his character.

The character of the RCC leadership has been suspect since medieval times and continues even to this day. Yet you continue to demand obedience. You point to billions of followers yet there are billions who follow other religions. Why should I trust your opinion?

It is clear that your source for what God has given you and what God expects from you, is the Bible via your unique interpretation of your bible, as the HS guides you. Got it.

No you don’t get it! The Gospel is unique in the world religions because it is a free gift and not by works. The foundation of salvation, eternal life by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ by faith and not by my works is the Gospel. Your interpretation of salvation requires Jesus plus many other required things. This is not unique because all religions require you to work your way to eternal life.

Well, not that my opinion (or any church for that matter) - will matter to you.

Again you don’t get it! I consider all things in light of Scripture. I have opinions for sure but they change when proven in Scripture. That is how to grow in spiritual things.

But it doesn’t matter what I say or believe for you have made it abundantly clear that the source for what God has given you and what God expects from you, is the Bible and your personal interpretation of your bible, as you are moved by the holy spirit.

Correct, if your opinion aligns with Scripture I will listen even if I don’t agree at the time. I will debate you fiercely until I have the understanding one way or the other. You seem to underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit.

No other person or church will stand before God and you, only Jesus and your bible as you interpret it.

Not sure what this means? All will stand individually before God - you either stand on your own merits or you stand in Christ on His merits. Once your name is found in the book of life your works performed in Jesus will bring rewards.

You follow Scripture as you and you alone, understand it, and by faith you believe that the Holy Spirit will bring to your remembrance what Jesus taught in the 1st century! You’ve got moxie my friend; I’ll give you that.

I am not out here in a vacuum. Others hold to what I understand, and so it has been down through the ages; but if no one else did, I would hold fast because I believe Him who is the author and finisher of my faith - Jesus! So in fact it’s not moxie but the free gift of faith and support of the Holy Spirit.

 

[gtrenewed]

Jesus saves. Indeed.

What’s the point, then, of the rest of the Gospel, if we need not care/know if it’s “essential” to our salvation to avoid adultery?

Well, you must agree as a Christian that the “all have fallen short” is a qualified “all”, right? Not literally “all” have sinned.

The rest of what the Word of God teaches is necessary to grow spiritually. Salvation is the foundation and everything else, including adultery, are works built upon that foundation. All works will be evaluated at judgement but unless we have knowingly renounced faith in Jesus, the foundation of salvation stands.

The point is that a born again believer loves Jesus and wants to please Him, out of love and not out of fear. As we grow spiritually the fruit of the Spirit increases and the works of the flesh decrease.

It is literally all! As Paul said though, it is evident that Jesus is exempt. Every other person born is born in sin and have fallen short. Mary was declared sinless by the grace of God announced by the angel in preparation for her ministry. It is not required for Mary to be born without sin and in fact this presents several problems when compared with Scripture.

 

[gtrenewed]

I believe in Real presence and that is what the Bible says.

I am trying to pry out of my friend who follows sola scriptura also where the Bible says symbolic presence.

Are there any symbolic presence only believers out there that could explain their point?

The RCC doctrine goes beyond real presence. Transubstantiation includes many extra things including that only an RCC priest can perform this at a specific time with specific wording.

Once transubstantiated the wafer continues to be Jesus and thus can be worshipped.

Schaik, is this what you believe Scripture shows? I believe that is why some just go with symbolic.

Real Presence can be supported in Scripture if it ends with the bread and wine consummed by the believer. Paul said the bread we eat and the wine we drink is the body and blood of Jesus. They are received in faith by wisdom revealed in Scripture. I can remain true to Scripture and receive the real presence of Jesus in communion.

 

[PRmerger]

To answer your question - you don’t have to trust my opinion. I am not a man demanding your blind obedience but your church requires blind obedience.

That is a very uneducated opinion about the CC. There is nothing in our teaching that requires “blind obedience”.

Fides quaarens intellectum. *
*
Fides et ratio.

 

[PRmerger]

Salvation is the foundation and everything else, including adultery, are works built upon that foundation.

That is physically impossible, for salvation occurs at death.

And how can adultery be a work that builds upon that foundation?

It is literally all! As Paul said though, it is evident that Jesus is exempt.

Please cite the verse that Paul states Jesus is exempt from his “all have sinned”. Chapter and verse, please, in Romans!

It is not required for Mary to be born without sin and in fact this presents several problems when compared with Scripture.

Indeed. It was not required. But it was fitting.