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 ...
If you go the separate thread route may I recommend an ecumenical thread? This allows discussing the issues without the flaming. Kind of what we are doing here. If you do I recommend reviewing the RM rules page for such a thread.
Are you certain the Jews were not killed and persecuted because of this?
"For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." (Deu 31:27-29)
Or, maybe this?
"Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee: And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever. Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;" (Deu 28:45-47)
David:
"Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing. (Psalms 100:1-2)
Philip
>>>If you go the separate thread route may I recommend an ecumenical thread? This allows discussing the issues without the flaming. Kind of what we are doing here. If you do I recommend reviewing the RM rules page for such a thread.<<<
Thanks. Maybe in a couple of days. I have a pretty busy schedule coming up.
Philip
Daniel 9: 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Seventy weeks are determined – At least we agree that is 490 years so that’s a start.
to finish the transgression – How can you possibly believe that the transgression of Israel has been finished? Let’s look at what is being referred to here.
Daniel 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.
Do you seriously think that Israel no longer transgresses the Law? That would be wrong on many levels. So that section alone would show the error of your theory.
Israel’s sin of disobedience will be brought to an end at Christ's second coming when she repents and turns to Him as her Messiah and Savior.
make an end of sins - No sin in the world today? For your theory to be correct one has to believe there is no sin in the world today as it will be after Christ comes to destroy sin and death.
make reconciliation for iniquity - Israel hasn’t yet been reconciled to God.
reconciliation - The act of reconciling parties at variance; renewal of friendship after disagreement or enmity.
There is no way one can say that Israel exists in a condition of reconciliation today as it will after Christ’s return.
to bring in everlasting righteousness - That’s not just referring to the everlasting righteousness of those who accept Christ. It’s referring to the righteousness of the nation of Israel. The vision and prophesy is after all concerning Israel.
seal up the vision and prophecy - All of Daniel’s prophesy has not been fulfilled and sealed as I have shown above.
anoint the most Holy - Once again, those who think that Christ has been anointed King over the nation of Israel cannot be correct. It’s obvious today that the nation of Israel is not being ruled by Christ. Christ will return and set foot on the mount of olives.
Zechariah 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
That hasn’t happened yet. In fact read all of Zechariah 14 and tell me that exists or has existed ever.
Another passage that shows the rule will be on earth
Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Then you totally ignore the fact that Christ was crucified at the end of the sixty ninth week. Not at the end of the seventieth.
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Seven weeks plus sixty two weeks is sixty nine weeks. You have not accounted for the seventieth week.
Of course it was. Who did you think the people of the prince would be? When we say “people of the prince of the air” we are referring to people who are controlled by Satan. It’s the same when we say “the people of God”. We aren’t saying they are God. Titus and his armies were the “people” of the prince of the air.
>> Everything you said after that is untenable since you projected 490 years of exact timing to equal thousands of years of inexact timing.<<
Tell me then when the seven year treaty was signed with Israel and half way through that seven year period the treaty was set aside and the antichrist set himself up as God in the Temple.
>>That is exactly what Jesus did. He sent his angels and gathered his elect (from the four winds) around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.<<
Book, chapter and verse proving that please.
>> The covenant mentioned in the last verse, and in Romans 11:27 above, is the New Covenant, also known as the New Testament.<<
No, it’s not. If it were you would not be included nor would you have any hope of salvation.
You’re totally mixing up the time of the Gentiles and promise to the nation of Israel in Daniel’s prophecy. After the messiah was “cut off” and Jerusalem was destroyed the time of the Gentiles began. After “the fullness of the Gentiles be come in” the last seven years of the time allotted to the nation of Israel will happen.
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
ph
When scripture references the “later days” or the “Day of the Lord” or “the time of Jacobs trouble” it can’t possibly be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
"When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days you will return to the Lord your God and listen to His voice" (Deut. 4:30).
Israel didn’t return to the Lord and listen to His voice after 70AD.
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn (Zech. 12:10).
The “Spirit of grace and of supplication” hasn’t been poured out on the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” since 70AD. Nor have the inhabitants of Jerusalem mourned.
The distress of Jerusalem wasn’t greater than any time before that. They had been destroyed before. There has also been greater troubles for the Jewish people since 70Ad but nothing like what is coming.
Daniel 12:1 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
Jesus said if He didn’t step in and shorten those days no one would survive.
Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
There is time of seven years remaining which will be the seven years of the tribulation period. During that seven years all true believers (the Bride of Christ) will be with Him just as the bride and groom are together alone for seven days in the Jewish wedding custom. It’s after that seven years that Christ along with us will come to conquer the armies of the world that have come against Israel and will set up the millennial Kingdom here on earth in Jerusalem.
Here is a good site to begin to study.
http://jewishroots.net/library/prophecy/daniel/daniel-9-24-27/seventy-weeks.html
WOW! Now since that catholic belief has been exposed - and the same is for every other 'man made believer' they admit they have no Savior.
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" And Jesus The Word is His Son Who became flesh.
God has no history, HE always was and always will be.
"The bottom line is that the truth of the Catholic Church
The bottom line is the pit for catholicsm and all they deceived, like every other 'man made religion' deceives.
'I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
That AND in there is a distortion of scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or (eite) our epistle.
eite – if, whether, or [http://biblehub.com/greek/1535.htm]
In no way can you make the Greek word eite mean and. The context is whether by word or whether by epistle. The same information was conveyed. Some heard that information by word of mouth and some read the information in the written epistle.
Of course he is. No one says any different. Those who believe in the rapture understand scripture as saying they will meet the Lord in the air. They don’t say He’s coming back to earth.
The audacity of Catholic teaching is astounding. That Catholic Church simply agreed to canonize what already was considered scripture long before.
I was the chairman of a Christian school for five years, and before I took the job I never knew that "Bible Christians" disagreed among themselves about so many things.
“Those who believe in the rapture understand scripture as saying they will meet the Lord in the air”
Gives new meaning to the old gospel song -
I’ll fly away, Oh Glory
I’ll fly away; (in the morning)
When I die, Hallelujah, by and by,
I’ll fly away (I’ll fly away)
The rapture is not Biblical.
Well isn’t that interesting. According to Catholic they put it in the Bible.
I Thessalonicenses 4:17 deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus
There it is!!!! In the Catholic Latin Bible!!! Isn’t that amazing!! I thought you followed that Catholic beliefs and claim it was the Catholics who gave us the Bible. And you don’t even know what’s in it? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
13We do not want you to be unaware, brothers, about those who have fallen asleep, so that you may not grieve like the rest, who have no hope.
14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose, so too will God, through Jesus, bring with him those who have fallen asleep.e
15Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep.f
16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g
17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.
18Therefore, console one another with these words.
Footnotes:
* [4:17] Will be caught up together: literally, snatched up, carried off; cf. 2 Cor 12:2; Rev 12:5. From the Latin verb here used, rapiemur, has come the idea of “the rapture,” when believers will be transported away from the woes of the world; this construction combines this verse with Mt 24:40–41 (see note there) // Lk 17:34–35 and passages from Revelation in a scheme of millennial dispensationalism.
Some more good info.
http://threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/02/do-catholics-believe-in-rapture.html
Catholicism rejects this interpretation of Scripture. There will be no Rapture as understood by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. “Though it does not use the term rapture, the Church does acknowledge that there will be an event where the elect are gathered to be with Christ. The point of contention is the timing of this event: It occurs at the Second Coming, not several years before it. This is indicated by Paul’s reference to it taking place when Christ descends from heaven: the Second Coming. Scripture does not envision the Second Coming accomplishing the Rapture, followed by a “Third Coming” inaugurating the eternal order or the Millennium.” source. In other words, the Church proclaims that Scripture tells us that Christians who are alive at the parousia (the end of the world) and who are living in the state of grace will witness the Second Coming and will live eternally with Jesus in His kingdom.
Incidentally, the Left Behind series posits that those who are “left behind” are the un-saved. However, if one looks at the verse in Matthew cited above we see that, as in the days of Noah, the ones who were “left behind” were the good guys, not the bad guys! That is, during the flood, Noah and his family (the good guys) were left behind, not raptured.
Finally, I’d like to point out this irony: Evangelical supporters of The Rapture object, in different discussions, to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary’s Assumption. I find this ironic, as is it not essentially a “Rapture” that is happening to Mary? Why do Evangelical Christians believe in The Rapture for every other Christian, except for Jesus’ mother? Just sayin’.
It’s all been shown from scripture. I even showed you where it was in scripture. You obviously don’t acknowledge that fact. As to the assumption of Mary. I have asked you to show where the apostles taught that. If you can’t it is per the words of the Holy Spirit through Paul to be considered accursed.
For according to the RC premise, Rome with her (conditionally) infallible magisterium is necessary to authoritatively determine Truth, and thus to establish what is Scripture, and for souls to have assurance of Truth. Like as if you could only ever be sure what food was if the FDA told you. Thus RCs argue that Rome is the infallible OTC (One True Church®) because the inspired Scripture says so, and they know that Scripture is inspired and infallible because the Church says so.
Thus in order to avoid this death spiral, since Staples cannot appeal to Scripture as being the word of God apart from Rome saying so (as RC's can only know what is inspired because the Church has told them so), thus he resorts to appealing to Scriptures as being a historical book, which he reasonably concludes them to be Divine based upon examination of evidences.
However, in so doing he is seeking to determine Truth by a evangelical means in order to convince us you cannot obtain assurance of Truth by that means, as only Rome can provide you that assurance.
In addition, in making his argument he still engages in circularity, for while he polemically tries to argue from Scripture apart from Rome saying it is, yet in trying to argue from it he states as a fact that which is interpretive, but is held as a fact because Rome said so, that is that "Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the foundation of the Christian faith."
For rather than the church being the foundation of the Christian faith, the fact is that her Divine Founder and the church established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. And thus thru members of the church more writings were added to the bulk of Scripture which already existed, in the light of their Divine qualities and attestation, being conformative and complementary to what was prior established.
For as often said, long before Rome presumed to claim she was necessary for Truth to be established, both men and writings of God were manifest and established as being such, with souls having assurance, even when rejected by those who are to affirm them. Thus the church began following an itinerant Preacher from Heaven who was rejected by those in the valid seat of authority, (Mt. 23:2; Mk. 11:27-33) but whom He reproved by Scripture, as He did the devil, (Mt. 4:4; Mk. 7:2-16) and affirmed it was the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims.
Furthermore, I did not realize it but this argument from Tim Staples was posted here last June, and then Jan 18 and yet again 10 days later on Jan 28, which shows you how much stock they place in it despite it being refuted at length the first time, by God's grace, back in June in the midst of moving, which was a quite a story of God's grace.
And then the second time Jan. 25, while i responded to the latest posting by asking important questions relative to the RC premise, which are still awaiting answers.
If determining Truth as the noble Bereans was invalid, with Scripture being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced to be, then you must hold that the only viable alternative is sola ecclesia (SE), in which the church is the supreme authority for Truth.
However, do so then you must show us from Scripture that that an infallible magisterium was necessary for both writings and men of God to be authoritatively established as being so, so that what it rejects must be rejected and what it affirms must be affirmed.
And you must also show us how Catholicism under SE solves the problem is differing interpretations due to lack of perspicuity or scope, and that of divisions and sects. And so that unity in Catholicism is not mainly on paper and quite limited in scope and disallowance of assent, so that they can not have allowable disagreements comparable to such things as dance or don't, drink or don't, baptize infants or don't read Harry Potter or don't watch Star Wars. Or even on geocentrism.
Or that they do not a great deal freedom to interpret Scripture as they want within the parameters of Catholic teaching, as they seek to support her.
And that unity under SE is Scriptural and superior in quality than that which results from being as and doing as the Bereans in searching the Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of Truth claims, which RCs are discouraged from doing as regards RC doctrine.
I was the chairman of a Christian school for five years, and before I took the job I never knew that "Bible Christians" disagreed among themselves about so many things. Catholics can and do disagree abundantly also, both in interpreting Rome (including on what is not open to interpretation), and are far less unified on conservative views than evangelical types, but disagreement is more manifest among the latter much because they are more committed to doctrine, and the study of it.
And it is among the most doctrinally committed in Catholicism that you have your most manifest divisions and sects, even if not as extensive as in Protestantism.
And if you could separate Catholics into different groups based on what they believe then you would have many. But one reason they remain Catholic is because they are treated as members in life and in death, at least in Rome.
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.