According to Scripture (Sola Scriptura)

http://www.catholic.com ^ | Tim Staples

[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?

[smvoice]

Well, according to Acts 8:1, we DO know something about the goings on of the 12 after Pentecost.

"And Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen's) death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad through the regions of Judaea and Samaria, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES." The 12 remained at Jerusalem. My question is why? It matters. They weren't staying there by accident, especially since there was a GREAT PERSECUTION AGAINST the JERUSALEM CHURCH.

It has to do with the "great commission" that Christ gave them.

[CynicalBear]

>>Dispensationalists truly are delusional. Explain to us again how "this" generation means "that" generation in the following verse. That is a trick worth knowing:<<

This group, the group we were just talking about. Is that so hard for you to understand?

>>If you have time, explain to us how the temple of Ezekiel 40-48 is the future "third temple," even though Ezekiel's received the vision half-century prior to the building of the second temple (one would think his vision would have been for the second one.)<<

The first temple was the temple of Solomon. The second temple was the temple of Ezra and Nehemiah and enlarged by Herod. Do you pay attention to what scripture really says at all? Now tell me when the temple of Ezekiel was built.

>>While you are at it, explain the motive behind Scofield ignoring this verse<<

I’m not sure why your obsession with Scofield and asking me to explain him. I don’t follow him nor have I read any of his stuff. You will have to ask someone else. You see, I’m not Scofield.

[CynicalBear]

Do you not believe that the courtesy around here includes pinging someone you talk about in a post or are you just not that much into courtesy?

Then would you please point to the post where I even slightly referenced James 1? Surely you aren’t projecting in or for spurious accusations are you?

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>How preposterous to believe that it was either reincarnation or resurrection of Elijah. (I kid you not)<<<

Jesus seemed to think it was him:

"But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (Mat 17:11-13)

Should we place you into the category of those who "knew him not?"

This is the prophecy that was fulfilled by John:

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6)

The great and dreadful day of the Lord occurred in A.D. 70, as is written.

>>>So that Roman soldier was really a Jew? Was he a spiritual Jew or an ethnic Jew? After all, Zechariah12:10 is talking about ethnic Jews is it not?<<<

I'm not sure. Are you implying the ones looking on Jesus had to be Jews? If so, were there no Jews at Christ's crucifixion crying over him. Not even his mother?

"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." (John 19:25)

One would think that after Jesus saved and healed so many people during his ministry, there would be many of them mourning at his crucifixion:

"And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children" (Luke 23:27-28)

Of course, Joseph of Arimathaea was also not there, and John didn't really mean it when he said:

"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced." (John 19:32-37)

Why didn't I think of that angle: that no Jews were there? I guess the fellow in Zech 13:7, who was smitten on the same day as the first guy who was pierced--the second guy whose sheep were scattered after he was smitten--was also not a Jew. Somehow I thought he was this guy:

"And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." (Mark 14:27)

Your imagination on the events of Zech 12:10 appear very creative. I would say that you might be a great mystery writer, except I know you are just a little sheep: that someone earlier created the Zech 12:10 myth.

By the way, aren't you one of those who thinks the Lord God Almighty, the creator of the universe, is going to come down from his heavenly throne to the earth and sit in a dusty (soon to be old) building for 1000 years? How preposterous.

And don't you also believe there will be animal sacrifices to the God the Father--the Heavenly Father--in some mysterious third temple that no one can find a single reference to, in either the Old or New Testaments, without resorting to spiritualization of the scriptures? How preposterous.

As an aside, one would think there would be a multitude of references to a third temple. Ezekiel devoted nine chapters alone (40-48) to the second temple.

Philip

[restornu]

No.

And I’m not going to.

It’d be nice to have an answer to my question, it’s yes or no. I’d like to understand this further.

***

Why not read what you are commenting on, how can one respond to something they have not read?

[restornu]

Are you saying the Catholic Chuch can say something contrary to the Bible and it is to be accepted as the word of God based on the Catholic Church’s authority

***

Did these men who put the canon together were they called of Go? Did they receive the keys from the Lord to decide which Manu scripture were to be include or excluded?

There was a lot of contention during those meetings and during those times the Holy Spirit present is not there.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

John 14 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[restornu]

So you are saying Catholics do not believe in the Bible?

I really don’t understand what your point is?

***

I don’t that was the point at all!

and your reply was silly of course the Catholic believe in the Bible.

[Elsie]

The protestant version of the Rapture is poppycock.

Which one?

[Elsie]

Words REALLY don’t mean what they say to a Catholic...

[Elsie]

Dispensationalists, on the other hand, have somehow convinced themselves that"after" means "end" and "this" means "that."

Are they Catholics?

They're taught that "until" means "never".

---

Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

[Elsie]

...and your reply was silly of course the Catholic believe in the Bible.

What does a MORMON know about Catholic belief?

You can't get your OWN doctrine straight!

[Elsie]

Why not read what you are commenting on, how can one respond to something they have not read?

This is rich; coming from a MORMON who REFUSES to respond to things she HAS read!

[Elsie]

John 14 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Remember THIS; From Mormon Living Prophet #2???

---

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;

and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,

and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)

[CynicalBear]

>> Jesus seemed to think it was him:<<

No, I already showed you that Jesus said “in the spirit of Elijah”.

Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

>> The great and dreadful day of the Lord occurred in A.D. 70, as is written.<<

So the day of the Lord came “as a thief in the night” and at “a day and an hour that no man knoweth but the Father” as the Roman armies came against Jerusalem ey? I’ll bet you think it came “in the blink of an eye” also don’t you?

That would also require you to believe that Revelation was written before 70AD also wouldn’t it?

>> I'm not sure.<<

I can believe that.

>> Of course, Joseph of Arimathaea was also not there, and John didn't really mean it when he said:<<

Please show where it was that I said there were no Jews there.

>> Your imagination on the events of Zech 12:10 appear very creative.<<

My imagination? Here was my response to your post about Zech 112:10

“So that Roman soldier was really a Jew? Was he a spiritual Jew or an ethnic Jew? After all, Zechariah12:10 is talking about ethnic Jews is it not?

Now what part of that was “my imagination”?

>> By the way, aren't you one of those who thinks the Lord God Almighty, the creator of the universe, is going to come down from his heavenly throne to the earth and sit in a dusty (soon to be old) building for 1000 years?<<

Old? Dusty? Now where did I ever say Christ was going to rule from a place like that? Why do you inject words into everything?

>> As an aside, one would think there would be a multitude of references to a third temple. Ezekiel devoted nine chapters alone (40-48) to the second temple.<<

You haven’t proven that that second temple was the one Ezekiel prophesied. The first was Solomon, the second was the temple of Ezra and Nehemiah and enlarged by Herod. Why do you assign the second temple to Ezekiel?

[redleghunter]

Ireneaus believed in a post tribulation rapture or caught up of the church:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103529.htm

[Elsie]

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Apparently; some 'warnings' are more to be believed than others...

[Elsie]

Ireneaus believed in a post tribulation rapture or caught up of the church:

Where'd he get a crazy idea like that???

---

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

[restornu]

“Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.”

There are plenty of people who know what to believe, who know what to desire, and know what to do, yet they reject it. (Mark 10:17-22)

There is only one thing necessary for salvation, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved...” (Acts 16:31)

***

Doesn't anyone fine it odd...

Hanging out there by it lonesome in Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved... we know that is important but there is more...

Where is the rest of the ordinance?

Like repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost also the covenant of Keep the Lord's commandments?

The scriptures does warn us in

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Some would go away and thinking all they needed to do was to believe and they are saved, but that is only one that one part.

Also one has to know what is expected in the covenant...

[redleghunter]

:)

He also demonstrates in Against Heresies that Revelation and Matthew 24 are yet future.