SCRIPTURE ALONE ("SOLA SCRIPTURA")

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html ^ | John Salza

[Lil Flower]

If I come across as arguementative I can assure you I don't mean to, I just think that if anyone is going to say that Christ ended the the sacrificial system of "temple worship" because he came and made the ultimate sacrifice, which i believe, then why would he want to reestablish it? To me, the Old Testament from beginning to end is pointing to Christ and His coming to save man from their sins. Therefore, once Christ established the Church and pentecost took place, there is no need to ever go back to a system that was, incomplete. So it doesn't make sense to me for God to want temple worship to be reestablished because it makes Christs' sacrifice not adequate enough. All of the sacrifices taking place in the Old Testament were pointing to Christ.

So I agree with your earlier statement that Christs' sacrifice was/is sufficient. There is no need for any thing else. To me it would be insulting to Him. I understand that you believe that the Mass is adding something, or suggesting that Calvary was inneffective. I have a simple-minded way of seeing it. Christ was previously outside of "time."When he came to this earth He, by his choice, came into "time". But he has returned to Heaven and is thus outside of "time" again. Now, in our understanding, Calvary took place "back in time". Yet salvation that came from that sacrifice is available to us today, and it is available to those born many years after we are long gone. Therefore, salvation from Calvary is outside of time.So to me, Mass is a partaking of that sacrifice today. It is not a different sacrifice, it is the same one. I hope that made some kind of sense lol. But I warned you, I am simple- minded about these things. :)

[ScubieNuc]

Then why is God going to reestablish the sacrificial system with the buildig of another jewish temple at the beginning of the tribulation period?

Now I'm not a Revelations/end times expert, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where GOD re-establishes the sacrificial system.

If the sacrifical system gets re-established, it will be done by man. I have read where, in Israel, there are groups that are trying to get the Sacrifical system going again. The main problem, as I understand it, is no proof of the Priesthood line (Levites?).

The problem with the Dome of the Rock, apparently isn't that big of a deal. I read where it is actually built in the Courtyard area, which has been given over to the Gentiles (Rev. 11:2). So the Jews could rebuild the "Holy" part of the Temple again.

While I find it interesting stuff, I think people try to "see the future" too much, as opposed to "be the future." (Be the future to me is spreading the Gospel of Jesus.)

Sincerely

[ScubieNuc]

How do you remember all those names and dates? I'm assuming that these were passed down to you orally. /sarc

Seriously, though, alot of this argument of "sola scripture" comes about when discussing things like Mary's supposed assumption or Papal infalibility. Non-Catholics will say it isn't in the Written word, therefore it is not sound doctrine. Catholics will say that oral tradition is also to be used.

However, when you wish to convey your most important thoughts you WRITE THEM DOWN. Which is exactly what the writers of the New Testament did, wrote down the most important topics.

Sincerely

[TradicalRC]

You're statement is based upon faulty assumptions. My statement was factual...yours is erroneous and facetious.

You're statement is based upon faulty assumptions. My statement was factual...yours is erroneous and facetious. ...

I figured since you thought this an adequate enough response to me then it must be an adequate enough response to you.

[highlander_UW]

I figured since you thought this an adequate enough response to me then it must be an adequate enough response to you.

Of course the difference is mine is truthful and yours is a falsehood. I didn't post more information because it's my belief that given what appears to be a lack of valuation on truth on your part it seemed pointless to present more detail. In the past I used to explain things to people more throughly, but when one is discussing a topic with some types of people it's simply a waste of time...I judge this to be one such situation. I'm done here.

[Uncle Chip]

The first Council of the Church at Jerusalem affirmed the prophecy of Hosea that after "taking out of the nations a people for his name [the Church]", Jesus will return and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down.[Acts 15:14-17]

It seems that the Church keeps forgetting about this important Council and instead thinks that the first council was at Nicea.

There is a group in Israel that is getting everything ready for the start of animal sacrifice in a rebuilt temple. It may be built by the hand of man, but it will be done by the providence of God because it was prophesied by the word of God, both in the prophets like Daniel and the apostles. and the only councilit will come to pass.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I don't find New Testament writings to be inspired at all so hence verses bashing Pharisees really doesn't thrill me all that much.

[Lil Flower]

Then it seems to me if it is acceptable to you that the jewish temple be rebuilt and temple sacrifices reestablished, even though there is no salvific benefit of it, then you shouldn't have a problem in what you believe to be the Mass. It seems to me then that you (dispensationalists) are holding on to temple sacrifice, not Catholics.

[Aquinasfan]

You confuse a church with The Church. Further, you confuse the spiritual Church of Christ known by God, not wrought by human hands, with a temporal institution of man corruptible by human nature.

Was Jesus confused too?

Jesus told us to take our disputes "to the church." He must have been speaking of the Church that he founded, a visible and doctrinally unified Church, because the converse makes no sense. It's nonsensical to take doctrinal disputes to an invisible Church, which promotes contradictory fundamental doctrines.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Jesus told us to take our disputes "to the church."

I think what he really meant was to take them to the Free Republic. :-)

[Lil Flower]

I think what he really meant was to take them to the Free Republic. :-)

LOL

[Aquinasfan]

However, when you wish to convey your most important thoughts you WRITE THEM DOWN.

Where's that in the Bible?

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 23:1-3

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.

Matthew 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

These passages don't seem to conform with Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone."

[pjr12345]

He must have been speaking of the Church that he founded

Not likely. The Church hadn't been instituted yet. Do you think he might have been referring to (a) the local Jewish synagogue; (b) a local assembly of like-minded believers; or (c) an inflated bureaucracy of man, centered in Rome claiming to be his proxy here on earth?

I bet I know your answer!

[Aquinasfan]

IIRC, the First bishop of Rome to call himself "The Pope" was Boniface III.

Which simply means "papa" in Italian. The pope is the Bishop of Rome, as Peter was. The popes hold the key of the office of the vice-regent of the House of David, of which Jesus is the eternal King.

Isaiah 22:22

I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Revelation 3:7

"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Matthew 16:19

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Funny how Jesus told us never to call anyone Father on this earth.

Or teacher.

Matthew 23:8-10

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

Jesus was simply using hyperbole.

[Uncle Chip]

Then it seems to me if it is acceptable to you that the jewish temple be rebuilt and temple sacrifices reestablished, even though there is no salvific benefit of it, then you shouldn't have a problem in what you believe to be the Mass. It seems to me then that you (dispensationalists) are holding on to temple sacrifice, not Catholics.

I think you misunderstand the point. I am not rebuilding the Temple. The Jews will rebuild it. And it is not being done because I want it, or need it for salvation, but because God prophesied that it would be done at the end of the age. Prophesy will be fulfilled whether I and or you accept it or believe it or not.

[ScubieNuc]

It may be built by the hand of man, but it will be done by the providence of God because it was prophesied by the word of God, both in the prophets like Daniel and the apostles.

When you say..."done by the providence of God..." are you saying that God is re-instituting the sacrifical system?

If so, why? As you stated in your post #454 Jesus's sacrifice is enough and it replaced the old blood sacrifical system.

Hbr 7:26,27 For such an high priest became us (This is Jesus), [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hbr 9:25,26 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hbr 10:11-14 ¶ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

If God re-institutes daily animal sacrifices again, doesn't that make Hebrews a lie?

Sincerely

[pjr12345]

The pope is the Bishop of Rome, as Peter was.

Outside of RCC Mythology, can you provide supporting evidence of this?

When Paul was taken to Rome (see Acts 28) there were already believers there - churches. Peter remained in Jerusalem preaching the Gospel in that area. Also, if you look at the closing of the epistle of Paul to the Romans, you will notice that he greets the churches of Rome. Apparently there were more than one.

Hmm... Who founded the churches of Rome? We know it wasn't Paul or Peter or James.

Which church at Rome was Peter supposedly a bishop with?

The likelihood is that the dispersion of the thousands of converted Jews in Jerusalem for Pentecost from all over the world took their new-found faith home with them, planting local assemblies everywhere! And all without the oversight, direction and control of a central hierarchy of man! Wow, can God even do that??? I thought He need the RCC to see to the spreading of His Gospel!

[ScubieNuc]

I don't really know the details of Luther's doctrine, so I'm not going to try to defend Luther's doctrine.

Alot of this debate on "sola scripture" is a lawyereze way of defining what alone means. I don't believe I have used the phrase alone in the way that most Catholics wish to debate it. After all, as a minimum we needed Jesus to come, Diciples/Apostles to teach and write, believers to spread the gospel, and the Holy Spirit to guide. That makes four things, so in a lawyereze sense I agree with you, that isn't scripture alone.

But that is a side track to what I was trying to make a point of....when something is important, it gets written down. When you or any other Catholic wishes to prove their point, you reference the written words of people (Aquinas, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.). Why did these people write it down? Because they thought it was important.

Isn't it logical then, that the earlist writings of the Apostles (the first Christians for that matter) is the most important ideas? These written ideas are what we call Scripture/New Testament.

The odd thing to me is the higher degree of importance that Catholics put on the written words of people hundreds of years after Christ, than on the written words of those people who witnessed and/or walked with Jesus.

Sincerely

[FourtySeven]

According to II Timothy 3:14-17, what else besides "Scripture" did Paul say was beneficial or profitable for doctrine, correction, exhortation and instruction ...? What else? Anything else?

Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

What was "for the perfecting of the saints" in this passage? Scripture? No. The "apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastors" were.

Or are you going to say that "perfecting" does not equal (much less surpass) "profitable"? IOW, isn't something that "perfects", "profitable"? Isn't something that "perfects", "beneficial"?

IMO, this comparison of Scripture, "rightly divided", to use the King James english, is perhaps the most devastating to the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura. We can clearly see, comparing 2 Tim 3:16-17 and Eph 4:11-12 that BOTH Scripture AND "teachers" are of equal importance, at least as far as profit/instruction/perfection goes.

[ScubieNuc]

I don't find New Testament writings to be inspired at all...

Well, then we don't have a common ground, and it would make no sense then to debate about Christianity/sola scripture. Catholics believe that the New Testament is inspired, so on that common ground we can debate.

The only discussion I can see between us would be on what makes the New Testament inspired. I would say the Holy Spirit makes it inspired. You might say prove it. Then I would say I can't prove it because the Holy Spirit proves Himself, and He comes through faith and faith comes from the Scriptures.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Sincerely