Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Paul and the other members of the real Church were filled with the Holy Ghost. When they spoke it was, in reality, Jesus speaking through them (this verse, 2 Pet 1:21, explains where prophecy comes from.) The apostles and saints were servants: instruments. Their "traditions" were simple, with the "chiefest" serving as servant of all, and their dress was always humble, reflecting the simplicity of Christ.
Catholic tradition, on the other hand, is more like old Pharisaic Judasim: ridiculously flamboyant, burdened with unnecessary traditional works, and weak on the works that count. Jesus spoke of those who relied on the works of men:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" (Mat 7:21-22)
I know catholics like to think they are "special", but even that attitude denies Christ.
"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)
Philip
>>>Sola scriptura
Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral tradition.
Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:30-31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures. Heb 5:12 ... need to be taught.<<<
These men were all speaking by the Holy Ghost. We haven’t see or heard any do that since the last book was written by the last apostle. All other claimed “manifestations of the word,” under the pretense of “oral tradition”, are both ungodly and heresy.
Do you really think Jesus would allow the earthly “head” of his church to dress up like a clown and call himself “holy father?” That is absurd, to be kind.
Philip
Hi, metmom,
Jesus is also clearly listed as the mediator of the New Testament: the book the Real Church--the Real Followers of Christ--read to learn about Him:
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant . . ." (Heb 12:22-24)
Philip
>>>Always been amazing that some protestants make fun of Catholics, but the same protestants believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God.........based on what Catholics decided to put in the Bible. Now that’s funny.<<<
The bible states that Christ used evil men to accomplish his objectives on numerous occasions. The earliest to be popularized would probably be the Pharaoh.
Philip
Why did he call this his first resurrection?
"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:5-6)
Was Christ trying to fool us? Or are you implying everyone is going to be a priest of God and Christ and reign with him for a thousand years?
Philip
>>>Jesus gave His church the authority to preach and teach the word of God (as “rightly divided). He did not give anyone, nor any particular body, organization, or institution the authority to overule His word, corrupt His word, rule via the traditions of man, nor add extra-biblical revelation to the revelation already reavealed in His word. Catholicism has twisted, marred, maligned, perverted, and adulterated the word of God. She is thus guilty of spiritual adultery, and the spreading of heretical teachings. Swift judgment will bring her destruction when the King returns to reveal His true bride, made up of those who have truly been “born-again,” and made spotless by His blood.<<<
Amen.
Philip
>>>His “Church” was the Catholic Church, certainly not PROTESTants that broke away from it 1,500 years after He started it, have none of the sacraments and make fun of the Holy Eucharist.<<<
It appears you have no biblical evidence for your comparison. To the contrary. I will give you one that makes more sense:
The Mosiac Law and the Levitical priesthood, established by Moses, was pure. Over the centures a few “know-it-all’s” perverted the law and priesthood to the point that it became unreconizable, when compared with the original.
The know-it-all’s that created the catholic bunch, on the other hand, didn’t wait many centuries to pervert the New Testament. They perverted it from time their doctrines in opposition to Christ were schemed, which was probably about the time of Constantine.
Philip
This Christian doesn't see that in the Revelation. There are a growing number of us that believe the millennial reign is in heaven by the 144,000 that were raptured around 70 A.D. during the first resurrection, The bible, and a literal interpretation of the words of Jesus, support our interpretation. Even history is on our side.
We can debate this on another thead, if you like; but I will challenge such assertions whenever I see them.
>>>The release of Satan is stated in the same chapter 20 and then we see the eternal Kingdom of God ushered in with no end.<<<
That part we can mostly agree on. The difference is, we believe the eternal kingdom, with Christ sitting on David's Throne in heaven, began prior to the day of Pentecost, as is mentioned in Acts 2. Christ had indicated the Kingdom of Heaven was in place during his time on earth:
"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Mat 11:12)
>>>There is, however, another view which should give you more pause and concern than pre-trib rapture adherents. That would be the full prederist view. That view believes the second coming of Christ happened back in 70 AD.<<<
That is another view, altogether: the Preterist interpretation. It doesn't make sense to me, any more that a 1,000 year physical reign on earth. Both interpretations are full of innuendo. Somewhere in between is where I stand. My views are more closely aligned with those of the reformed Presbyterian, except for maybe the timing of the first resurrection. I believe it happened exactly like Christ said it would: in the lifetime of his disciples. The second resurrection occurs at the final judgement, after Satan is defeated. That is when every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess. Those of the first resurrection (the good guys: the holy ones) are exempt from the final judgement, as is written.
Philip
Hi, Hunter. I don't see any "facts" in your statement, and very few in the book "Against Heresies." Irenaeus, as is being revealed more and more, was a lousy historian. What is truly amazing is the foundation of the massive, multi-billion dollar Evangelical Industrial Complex (rapture book sales) are based only on one vague statement by Irenaeus. Every futurist historian has used that vague statement by Irenaeus, or other's interpretation of that claim, to build upon. It is only a matter of time before the entire house of cards comes falling down.
As it turns out, Irenaeus neither witnessed what he wrote, nor received it by revelation. He referred to a "conversation" he had with Polycarp who supposedly knew the apostle John. This was Irenaeus statement upon which all the futurist view is built upon:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Against Heresies, V.30.3)
Does anyone have any idea what that meant: what was seen? If it was not the "vision", you can kiss dispensationalism and other futurist doctrines goodbye.
The other key phrase is "almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." The problem with that statement is twofold: was he referring to Domitian (AD90 era,) or Nero Domitius (suicide in AD68.) But the real challenge is to explain this passage, that was written two paragraphs earlier:
"1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation…" (Against Heresies, V.30.1)
See the problem? John's (vision, person, book, whatever) was seen "almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign." But, just before writing that, Irenaeus wrote about ANCIENT copies of the Revelation. And the ANCIENT book was even older than the ANCIENT copies!
Anyway, I have completely discounted Irenaeus as a reliable source for the timing of the Book of Revelation. Now check this out:
"For when, on the tyrant’s death, he [John] returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." (Clemens Alexandrinus, "Who is the Rich Man that shall be saved?", Ch.XLII)
A 90-100 year old many travelling like that in those days? I seriously doubt it. Maybe when he was in his 60's, upon Nero Domitius' death prior to 70AD.
Philip
The "evil" RCC? My that is a sweeping condemnation of an institution that's been around for almost 2000 years.
Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. He didn't mean to start Lutheranism; he meant to correct his Church. The RCC is made up of mere mortals who are sinners, like we all are.
He was successful as the Church DID correct many of the at-the-time problems, such as purchasing indulgences. Today, indulgences are very few and VERY specific. But, then why would you know that when you consider the Church an "evil" institution?
How could the Church that Jesus started have lasted so long, these last 2000 years? How could it have served SO many billions of people so long if it HADN'T been started by Jesus?
From his biography: MARTIN LUTHER: In his later years, in deteriorating health, Luther became increasingly antagonistic toward Jews, writing that Jewish synagogues and homes should be destroyed, their money confiscated, and liberty curtailed. These statements and their influence on antisemitism have contributed to his controversial status.
There is no mention of the Church killing him. Luther had DREADFUL constipation ALL HIS LIFE. He suffered tremendously from it. He was also 63 years old when he died, NOT by that hand of anyone else.
63 was a LONG life for the 16th century.
Could you rebuke the Catholics who said that Luther was evil while you're at it?
A product of his upbringing no doubt, but Luther had no temporal power, some others did:
Details, details......
You sure use a lot of non Scriptural sources and suppositions in your theories.
From the Internet:
Ephesians 2:8-10
Grace, faith, and works are three terms which we must understand to comprehend the scheme of redemption.
Misconceptions of these words have produced much confusion about how God saves men from sin. Three major errors have arisen because of the failure to "correctly handle the word of truth": the doctrines of "faith only," "grace excludes all law," and "grace and faith exclude all works."
In the Book of Ephesians, we can see the harmony between
grace, faith, and works. Paul presented a fivefold description of redemption in Ephesians 2:4-7.
1. God loved us (v. 4).
2. God made us alive together with Christ (v. 5).
3. God raised us up together in heavenly places in Christ (v. 6).
4. God made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ (v. 6).
5. God showed the exceeding riches of His grace in Christ (v. 7).
Then in Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul summarized God's scheme of redemption.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." .
Wow, what a good source, the internet! LOL
In the Book of Ephesians, we can see the harmony between grace, faith, and works. Paul presented a fivefold description of redemption in Ephesians 2:4-7. 1. God loved us (v. 4). 2. God made us alive together with Christ (v. 5). 3. God raised us up together in heavenly places in Christ (v. 6). 4. God made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ (v. 6). 5. God showed the exceeding riches of His grace in Christ (v. 7).
None of this commentary shows a requirement for works for salvation, or mention works at all!
Then in Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul summarized God's scheme of redemption. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." .
I would substitute 'Plan' for scheme, because of the negative connotations in English. But thanks for the scripture. Let me repost with highlights:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
Salvation in a nutshell:
1. Grace through faith, gifts from God not by our will.
2. Notice that the grace from God is apprehended by faith, not by how we respond to God, it too is a gift.
3. Not of works. Works are specifically excluded from salvation, because as humans we would then boast instead of thanking God for His Gift.
4. Look at that period after boast, the preceding words are a complete statement.
5. Because of these gifts from God we are able to do God-pleasing works, in fact, He has already prepared them for us to do beforehand.
To add the context v.5
5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved
God makes us alive in Christ. In your scripture source I don't see 'alone'. The alone refers to the fact that the saving grace we receive comes to us by faith alone. By faith is a man justified before God.
Romans 4:
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[b] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” 9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.
#132 was dealing with your posting of Luther's anti-semitism. Are you troubled or at least enlightened by the link I posted? Considering the content of it, perhaps Luther's view re: the Jews is something that Catholics should avoid; glass houses and all.
Those views while historical, avoid the fact that in his last sermon, he prayed for the conversion of the Jews to Christ. None of the 'anti-Jewish' mindset survived into the Book of Concord., whereas the Catholic church continued to issue Bulls concerning Jews for almost 300 yrs after the reformation.
According to several on-line sites, from 2011, there are approximately 6.7 billion people on earth and a full one-third, about 2.2 billion of them are Catholics.
The VATICAN, what does IT know, says that there are approximately 1.18 billion Catholics in the world.
How can SO many folks be so wrong? The largest bump is coming out of Africa.
The Internet, THANK YOU, U.S. Army. They invented it.
You and the rest already did that. No need to be redundant unless you wish to scold me some more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.