You can't have it both ways.

[Rightlydivide]

The doctrinal truths found in your bible, taught by Jesus Christ, comes second to Christ transforming you? Most SS advocates insist that it’s those doctrinal truths found in the word of God alone that brought them to Christ and that it is those same doctrinal truths, found in the word of God alone (such as the following passage) - that transforms/renews their hearts and minds, molding, shaping and better configuring them to Christ. Is that the case for you?

By asking this question, I can tell I have not conveyed my point again.
I was a few months from death with both my lifestyle and the physical damage I had inflicted because of my sins.
I had zero interest in learning the doctrinal truths of fairy tales or judgemental hypocrites.
Then…I got saved.

 

[schaick]

What part of the Holy Trinity is the Bible?

The Bible is a collection of writings, which God’s Catholic Church and Catholic Popes have solemnly and infallibly recognized as being inspired by God. The Bible is not, itself God. However, reading some of these opinions here regarding Sola scriptura, one might wonder if some here believe that the Bible, is in fact… God.
.

There are verses in the Old Testament that shows a unity of GOD containing more then just one person, as do verses in the New Testament.

To save space and not derail this thread I will mention just a few of the verses from the Gospel:

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus is equal with GOD:

John 5
18…not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

GOD and Jesus give life and they work together in some type of partnership:

John 5
19…"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
…
21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

Jesus has the power to judge:
John 5
26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

3 persons:
Matthew 3
16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Authority proceeds from the Father:
Matthew 28
18…"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

John 6
38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Holy Spirit a part of the partnership
John16
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 20
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost:

Luke 1
35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

All three seperate persons appear at the same time:
Luke 3
22And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

No one thinks the Bible is GOD!! We should treat it with respect but we can write in the Bible, burn it, drop it whatever with no consequences BUT to enter HIS Kingdom we must live by the information contained in it.

 

[StTommyMore]

By asking this question, I can tell I have not conveyed my point again.
I was a few months from death with both my lifestyle and the physical damage I had inflicted because of my sins.
I had zero interest in learning the doctrinal truths of fairy tales or judgemental hypocrites.
Then…I got saved.

No you didn’t. Salvation is not a instantaneous event. It is a process of gradual growth in the Lord.

 

[schaick]

Schaick, you said:

Not true; they except the authority of their church leaders via their leaders’ interpretation of the bible alone or, in some cases, just their interpretation of the bible alone, all the while rejecting the authority of the same church that gave them their bible.

All catholics except the authority of the word of God; what a strange accusation. If the bible is the inspired word God, and it IS, then help me find the inspired interpreter? Surely God did leave the world with the inspired infallible word of God without a means of interpreting it infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit in perpetuity???

Without an inspired interpreter, more than one truth regarding certain teachings, will continue to plague Christianity, and we both know that there can be only one truth regarding any one teaching, found in the holy bible. So far the only non-Catholic that has ever answered this question, in my experience, is UniversalGuy.

I have been saying on this forum for some time that there is one interpretation with many **applications **because GOD is not a god of confusion.

At times in the interpretations there is a fuller meaning that we can take into account, but it in no way contradicts the main interpretation.

I have been in multiple Bible studies with people from multiple denomination [Bible Study Fellowship- one of the best!] it is amazing that we all get the very same basic interpretation. Only our applications, celebrations are different.

Authority of the universal Church- are we applying the one true interpretation correctly?

If that is so then God’s word must state that fact. Please provide verses that bolster your claim. Again, if you are right then help me find the inspired interpreter that can discern truthful information from bogus information.

 

[Nicea325]

Schaick:

Because of Jesus says about HIMSELF being the Bread of Life and 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. What we don’t know is whether it is Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, HIS ressurrected Body and Blood.

Wrong! Jesus never says MY FLESH counts for nothing…read it again in its entirety. He says THE FLESH.Why would Jesus say a few sentences before that one must eat HIS FLESH or else one has no life and then say a few moments later MY FLESH counts for nothing?

I have been saying on this forum for some time that there is one interpretation with many applications because GOD is not a god of confusion.

Contradictory statement and self-refuting. If God is not a God of confusion and many applications is perfectly within the confines of scripture,then why over 30,000 different denominations? I thought God is the not the author of confusion?

At times in the interpretations there is a fuller meaning that we can take into account, but it in no way contradicts the main interpretation.

U-huh? Come again?

I have been in multiple Bible studies with people from multiple denomination [Bible Study Fellowship- one of the best!] it is amazing that we all get the very same basic interpretation. Only our applications, celebrations are different.

Yet you all belong to different denominations? Apparently they are differences or else there would not be thousands of different denominations.

Authority of the universal Church- are we applying the one true interpretation correctly?

Evidently not if there exist so many different denominations. The belief that thousands of different denominations all belong to Christ Universal Church is bogus. Universality does include different doctrines and teachings. Different cultures,languages,customs is part of Christ universal church but built on the same dogma/doctrine.

 

[joe370]

Hey Rightly…

By asking this question, I can tell I have not conveyed my point again.
I was a few months from death with both my lifestyle and the physical damage I had inflicted because of my sins.
I had zero interest in learning the doctrinal truths of fairy tales or judgemental hypocrites.
Then…I got saved.

I am so very sorry for your close brush with death and very happy for your recovery and the fact the you found our Lord Jesus Christ, and I will from here on out, discontinue my line of questioning regarding the discernment of truth, doctrinally speaking.

Peace my brother in Christ…

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick, you said:

I have been saying on this forum for some time that there is one interpretation with many applications because GOD is not a god of confusion.

So we both agree that the bible alone has only one truth regarding any one doctrine (other than when a fuller meaning of a doctrine, can be fleshed out without changing it) - and the fact that there is more than one truth regarding certain doctrines is due to fact that people misinterpret the inspired inerrant word of God?

At times in the interpretations there is a fuller meaning that we can take into account, but it in no way contradicts the main interpretation.

Again, I agree, but that is not the case with the doctrine below.

I have been in multiple Bible studies with people from multiple denomination [Bible Study Fellowship- one of the best!] it is amazing that we all get the very same basic interpretation. Only our applications, celebrations are different.

Me too, but I have also experienced just the opposite, right here at CAf, right here at this thread.

We both agree that there is only one truth regarding the following teaching, so, in your opinion, did God leave the world with a way to discern the truth regarding the following teaching which is so very important:

This is my body…

or

This is a symbol of my body?

Is there any way to know the truth regarding the same teaching, which has mutually exclusive interpretations and deals with eternal life:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth,* unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.** **54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, *and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Schaick, the answer from a sola scriptura standpoint is a resounding no.

Schaick, why is it, in your opinion, that non-Catholics arbitrarily believe the Holy Spirit guided the CC in definitively setting the canon of Scripture, but refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit guided the CC in their interpretation of the canon of scripture, beyond the point of its codification?

Most non-Catholics reject the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuryinterpretation of the CC, regarding the Eucharist, but have no problem embracing the holy bible, defined by the same church in the 4th century, as the inerrant word of God. Why embrace the CC’s 4th century codification of the holy bible and then reject the CC’s 4th century interpretation of Eucharistic doctrine, which was always believed since the 1st century? Of course the same cannot be said about the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible, until the CC definitively set the canon of Scripture?

It is historical fact that the Catholic Church decided the canon of the Bible, as we know it today. In the first few centuries there was a restless confusion over which writings were to be considered inspired scripture and which were not. It was,ultimately, the bishops of the Catholic Church that convoked at the end of the 4th century and finally/ officially defined the canon, as we know it today.

Schaick, if we can trust the Catholic Church to definitively determine the official canon,of scripture then perhaps we can also trust the CC to interpret it for us - maybe?

Logically, the authority of the bible’s canon is only as good as the authority that defined it - right? Since it is that same Church, the CC, that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose… the same church that Jesus gave the spirit of truth to forever guide, into all truth, certainly we can trust the interpretation of that church, in spite of the fact that that church is comprised of all fallible leaders? After all, the apostles, who penned the very words of sacred scripture, were all fallible as were the codifiers of sacred scripture, and that process was a long a grueling one.

Is it fair to suggest that it is for this reason alone that Catholics and non-Catholics can believe that the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God. If one cannot not believe or trust the authority of the Catholic Church regarding doctrinal matters, then again, why believe their authoritative definition of the holy canon? I don’t get that logic. In the secular world this logic would never fly.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalGuy thanks for answering my question regarding an inspired interpreter for the inspired word of God.

What made you narrow it down to these 2 churches. (Either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church) - I only ask because that was where my journey to truth led me before finally choosing the CC.

Their continuing existence. It’s just about impossible for me to get 100% behind the belief that the Bible is the final authority when it’s obvious this wasn’t the way early Christians understood Christianity. If the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church had collapsed, sola scriptura would obviously be the only way to ascertain truth, no argument. But they’re still there.

You said:
UniversalistGuy;7020811:

Possibly. The Catholic view makes sense. And the Sola Scripture/Prima Scriptura does seem a bit weak. It only makes sense if I assume that the Catholic Church has gone wrong.

You lost me there brother? I don’t see how it makes sense even if the CC has gone wrong, which of course means goud failed to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church of which He is supposed to be the savior - right???

It doesn’t make sense to you cos you’re on the other side of the fence. Come over to my side and you’ll make sense of it no problemo. Here I am looking at 4 choices. Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or Restorationist. The Protestant and Resorationist say that what went before was wrong. That’s their basic reason for their existence. What went before has gone wrong but with us you’ll be right so come and get it. Therefore to accept the Protestant or Restorationist idea I’m forced into supposing that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are wrong, see? And if they’re wrong it must be that the gates have hell must have prevailed against them both, right?

It isn’t the same when I look at the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The basic reason for the existence of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is the same one. They say they were there from the get go. And they were, no argument. So their basic reason for existence doesn’t have anything to do with the Protestants or the Restorationists because those came along later. The Catholic Church stands on its own merit and doesn’t have to state in its explanation for being in existence that it’s dependant on the Protestnts and the Restorationists being wrong. Neither does the Orthodox Church. See it from my side, now?

UniversalistGuy;7020811:

And while I think the Catholic Church possibly has gone wrong I can’t build much on an assumption. Perhaps God wants everybody to be a Catholic? I’ll keep on thinking. Thank you for posting.

Good luck on your journey my friend.

I guess at this point I think I’m leaning to the Orthodox. It’s mainly the indulgence thing that makes me think the Catholic Church has gone wrong. But thank you for your kind word.

 

[Jimmy_B]

There are verses in the Old Testament that shows a unity of GOD containing more then just one person, as do verses in the New Testament.

To save space and not derail this thread I will mention just a few of the verses from the Gospel:

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus is equal with GOD:

John 5
18…not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

GOD and Jesus give life and they work together in some type of partnership:

John 5
19…"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
…
21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

Jesus has the power to judge:
John 5
26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

3 persons:
Matthew 3
16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Authority proceeds from the Father:
Matthew 28
18…"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

John 6
38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Holy Spirit a part of the partnership
John16
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 20
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost:

Luke 1
35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

All three seperate persons appear at the same time:
Luke 3
22And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

No one thinks the Bible is GOD!! We should treat it with respect but we can write in the Bible, burn it, drop it whatever with no consequences BUT to enter HIS Kingdom we must live by the information contained in it.

Hello schaick,

So, what are you saying here? Ae you saying that the Bible is the Holy Spirirt? I am familiar with these verses and with the meaning of the Holy Trinity, so I don’t know what your point is here. My question was, what part of the Holy Trinity is the Bible? I ask this question, because some here have claimed that the Bible is their “sole authority”, speaking as if the Bible itself… a book, is in fact God and it’s not God.

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*.**

I know the Holy Trinity as - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit… not, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Bible and that was my point.

…

 

[JonNC]

=Alexander Roman;7020890]You are right sir! In fact, Martin Luther himself removed from the New Testament a number of books including the Epistle of James which he called “an epistle of straw” because of its teaching on faith and works. He also removed the book of Revelation. It was only in the 1700’s that the Lutherans returned to the 27 books of the New Testament.

Sorry, no. Luther’s 1522 NT translation included all 27 books. His complete translation included all the OT and NT books typically found in a western Bible of his time, in addition to The Prayer of Manasses.

Interestingly as well, the Ethiopian tradition has 35 books in the New Testament, the Assyrian has 22 (I believe Luther followed this canon).

See above. Luther in his later years often preached from James, Hebrews, etc.

Ultimately, I believe that what we need today is a renewed reverence for God’s Word, assiduous reading of it, including memorization of its texts. Scripture enlivens our minds and souls, joins us to God as prayer does, and is like an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit on our lives.

The Protestant family of Nicholas Ferrar who lived at Little Gidding in England recited the Psalms twice in each day (they did a four hour night vigil from 9:00 pm to 1:00 am). They all knew the psalms by heart and got children in the village to memorize them too.

Now this I agree with, and I would include the dueterocanon in that practice.

We should all, Protestant/Evangelical and Catholic, ask ourselves - what is it that occupies our free time today? What do we know by heart? Is it Scriptural verses, the psalms? Are we connected to God through His Word?

Agreed.

Peace!

And also with you, Alex.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7018303]Jon, that doctrinal purity and Truth is still preserved in Jesus’ earthly church too, according to the bible. The church triumphant really has no need for doctrinal truth (although they know it better than us) - It’s His earthly church that desperately needs those truths and Jesus gave us a way to know those truths so that when people attempt to contort those truths eg. this is a symbol of my body…they can be refuted. If those truths cannot be known with certainty eg - this is my body…as opposed to, this is a symbol of my body…then the holy spirit is not guiding Jesus’ church into all truth. If we agree that truth is necessary for salvation, eg unless you eat my flesh…you have no life in you… then clearly Jesus would preserve said truth so that all Christians (not just those Christians that belonged to Jesus’ church prior to the east west schism) - can know truth - right?

I can’t argue with that, Joe. The question since the schism and Reformation is knowing for sure where that truth is. The differences between those who claim spripture and Tradition, and the differences between those who claim sola scriptura, and solo scriptura, just makes that certainty difficult. Therefore, we pray for the SPirit’s guidance, and the Lord’s forgiveness.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B
My point is that there are Protestants here, who claim to believe in Sola scriptura and complain when Catholics use sources outside the Bible, like the Catechism and extra-biblical documents from Catholic Popes and Church Fathers and so on, but then they will refer to documents written by Martin Luther and others, which is also extra-biblical. Catholics don’t go by Protestant rules but Protestants should obey their own rules… right?

=UniversalistGuy;7017724]

Right.

It depends on what you mean by right, or at least who you are talking about. Excluding the use of extra-biblical texts and teachings is not what sola scriptura means. SS is a practice of using scripture to hold teachings (Tradition) accountable. If SS meant the exclusion of extra-scriptural writings, there would be no need for sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, will you answer the question addressed to Rightfullydivide:

If he is right and there is no inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God, then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong, when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? Again, for example, Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that He meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (or is there???) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ which is crucial to everlasting life according to sacred scripture?

There may be one institution that is “divinely inspired” to interpret scripture. The question is, who is it? Or maybe, who are they?
As for your example, as I’ve mentioned in other threads, when Melanchthon wrote about the Eucharist in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, he rightly sources three things: 1) scripture - Christ clearly says, “This is my body…”. 2) He then references the early Church, both east and west, and their agreement on the RP. 3) Finally, he references the Church father (Vulgarius and St. Cyril).

And this is how SS is supposed to be used.

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

No you didn’t. Salvation is not a instantaneous event. It is a process of gradual growth in the Lord.

Everything about it was instantaneous and less than two days later what years of rehab and AA could not accomplish; God did

 

[StTommyMore]

Everything about it was instantaneous and less than two days later what years of rehab and AA could not accomplish; God did

Salvation is a process, not an event. Everything in the scriptures points to the gradual nature of sanctification

 

[Rightlydivide]

Salvation is a process, not an event. Everything in the scriptures points to the gradual nature of sanctification

That was not gradual. No sir. I was as lost as can be. Glory to God for saving me.
You can name any horrible sin you can think of and the desire was gone. Even something as minor as smoking and being a drunk. Only God can remove any after effects of stopping those. Its simply not possible without God’s saving grace.
Take care.

 

[StTommyMore]

That was not gradual. No sir. I was as lost as can be. Glory to God for saving me.
You can name any horrible sin you can think of and the desire was gone. Even something as minor as smoking and being a drunk. Only God can remove any after effects of stopping those. Its simply not possible without God’s saving grace.
Take care.

Wow, so no concupiscence either?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Wow, so no concupiscence either?

I do not know what that means.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy;7017724:

Jimmy B;7017095:

My point is that there are Protestants here, who claim to believe in Sola scriptura and complain when Catholics use sources outside the Bible, like the Catechism and extra-biblical documents from Catholic Popes and Church Fathers and so on, but then they will refer to documents written by Martin Luther and others, which is also extra-biblical. Catholics don’t go by Protestant rules but Protestants should obey their own rules… right?

Right.It depends on what you mean by right, or at least who you are talking about. Excluding the use of extra-biblical texts and teachings is not what sola scriptura means. SS is a practice of using scripture to hold teachings (Tradition) accountable. If SS meant the exclusion of extra-scriptural writings, there would be no need for sola scriptura.

Jon

I said right because I thought he was talking about non-Catholics that quote out of the Bible to prove that they’re right about whatever they’ve decided they’re right about. And when Catholics argue from something that isn’t in the Bible the non-Catholics say it’s “man made tradition” and stuff. But the same non-Catholics use things that aren’t in the Bible because even though they’re not in the Bible they’re still “biblical.” That’s having it both ways and that’s what I was saying right to. Right?

 

[StTommyMore]

I do not know what that means.

Man’s natural inclination to sin. The threefold concupiscence can be described as “The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”