Question about "sola scriptura"

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Actually, in that verse Jesus does not. It isn't until later that Jesus gives the rest of the apostles that power, however only Peter has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and Peter is the rock in which Jesus shall build his church, as in the language that Jesus spoke (Aramaic) Peter is "kepha" which directly translates to "rock". So Jesus is literally saying "I shall call you Kepha, and on this kepha I shall build my Church."

the 'keys to the kingdom' were the ability to bind and lose, which all of the 12 received. rome just needs to give this one up, but they won't because they've invested too much into this unfounded doctrine.

[Staff edit]

Clearly you just refuse to listen to what I said. So I shall just ask this, "how is that verse a verse that states that we should practice SS?"

because sola scriptura is about following God's Word and only God's word. when she sheep hear the voice of someone other than their shepherd, they are to not heed that voice. rome and her doctrines are that 'other voice.'

[Staff edit].

 

[Wolf_Says]

You are contridicting yourself.

You say in one phrase it isn't until later that Jesus gives the rest of the apostles that power, but then say only Peter has the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

So please clarify because you are contridicting your own words.

No I am not, the apostles had the power to forgive sins or retain them, which then were either forgiven in heaven or retained in heaven. It's not a contradiction.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Orthodox Jews rejected those books because many contained prophecies of Christ.

The Jews of Jesus's time used these books as scripture.

For example:

1 Cor 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?


What scripture is Paul referencing here?

that passage is part of Paul talking about our faith being worthless if Jesus did not rise from the grave. we are baptized into Christ and that particular verse is saying that it would be worthless to be baptized into a dead person.

 

[Wolf_Says]

the 'keys to the kingdom' were the ability to bind and lose, which all of the 12 received. rome just needs to give this one up, but they won't because they've invested too much into this unfounded doctrine.

The 12 recieved the power to forgive or retain sins. Different from the keys to the kingdom.

[Staff edit].

because sola scriptura is about following God's Word and only God's word. when she sheep hear the voice of someone other than their shepherd, they are to not heed that voice. rome and her doctrines are that 'other voice'.

Wrong, SS is about believing that the Bible is the sole authority on earth in regards to salvation, which it is not. SS is believing that if it is not in the Bible it is therefore wrong, however SS is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

[Staff edit].

 

[ToBeLoved]

No I am not, the apostles had the power to forgive sins or retain them, which then were either forgiven in heaven or retained in heaven. It's not a contradiction.

Can you show me where it says the apostles had the power to 'retain sins' of people? I've never heard that before.

You need to explain yourself better and include scripture. I cannot understand what you are saying? It is very confusing the way that you word things. Without scripture, I can't see where you are coming from at all.

 

[Soyeong]

Sorry, but SS is not true, and is promoted nowhere in the Bible.

You are correct that God is not the author of confusion, and has sucessfully explain with that 1 sentence why SS does not work (aka look at all the difference denominations of protestants all claiming to follow SS but cannot even agree on whether baptism is necessary for salvation or not.)

The single proof that SS does not work is the very existence of this forum, where there are constant debates to Christian beliefs, and all sides of the argument point to multiple verses from scripture to back up their claims.

It's not like there aren't many Catholic denominations with differences in opinion of how to correctly interpret various verses. However, sola scriptura does not prohibit people from having difference of opinion about how the Bible should be interpreted, it just says that the Bible has priority where there is a conflict between what it and what man says. A case in point, in Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scriptures to see if it was true and would have rightfully rejected what he said if he has said anything contrary to OT Scriptures.

 

[Soyeong]

Well actually Paul is acknowledging what I said, see the red text above.

I said that Timothy's mother was Jewish. Timothy was 'acquainted' with the sacred writings as his mother was Jewish. But a man is the head of the household and his father was a gentile, specifically a Greek gentile as I have shown in a previous post.

So please show me scripture that proves me wrong, because this does not.

You must do better if you want to argue scripture with me brother.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The books of the NT had not yet been written at the time of Timothy's infancy, so Paul was only referring to OT Scriptures.

 

[Thursday]

Which verse in Maccabees do you think it points to? Wondering why you wouldn't have included the verse.

Also, you should qualify exactly what you think I have gotten incorrect and then how you feel your verse shows an error. I don't have any idea what you are talking about, this is like a riddle with no words.

You are wrong when you said Paul was pointing out a Pagan practice. This was a practice of the Jews.

2 Mac 12
39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

 

[Thursday]

that passage is part of Paul talking about our faith being worthless if Jesus did not rise from the grave. we are baptized into Christ and that particular verse is saying that it would be worthless to be baptized into a dead person.

Yes, but he was referencing 2 Macabees, which Luther removed from the bible.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Can you show me where it says the apostles had the power to 'retain sins' of people? I've never heard that before.

You need to explain yourself better and include scripture. I cannot understand what you are saying? It is very confusing the way that you word things. Without scripture, I can't see where you are coming from at all.

John 20:23

 

[Soyeong]

Let me fix something, as I was in a hurry and mistated.

Timothy stated nothing, as it was Paul who wrote the letter to Timothy.

Paul is stating that we should follow the OT, as that was the scripture by which the truth of Jesus was spread throughout the world, and Christianity was built upon.

It is a historical fact that the Holy Bible as we know it now was not around until it was put together and declared sacred scripture by the Church in the late 4th century. Paul's letters to Timothy clearly outdate the existence of the Bible (otherwise they wouldn't be in the Bible).

I do not need to pull out a scripture verse for this, because it is history.

However, I will say that we have left off the begining of that portion of the letter. Please, I shall post the entire thing. 2 Timothy 3:10-17 :
10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

In 2 Peter 3:16, it compared Paul's letter with Scripture, so while it is doubtful that he thought he was writing Scripture, they were recognized as such within a relatively short about of time. Furthermore, 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7 as Scripture. Most of the books in the NT were quickly recognized as being authoritative with only few books being in question, which is reflected in the fact that canons that were much earlier than the 4th century closely match the modern canon. So what happened in the 4th century was essentially putting an official stamp of approval on what was already recognized by the populace as being authoritative. With all that said, 2 Timothy 3:15 refers to what was Scripture during the time of Timothy's infancy, which was a time when the books of the NT hadn't been written yet. So I agree that Paul was referring to OT Scripture as being profitable for all the things he listed, which is in line with the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who diligently tested everything Paul said against OT Scripture to see if it was true.

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus only started one Church and he promised the leaders of his Church that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.

So, if two Churches teach contradictory doctrines, one or both must not not be the Church Jesus started, right?

The Greek word "ekklesia" is used in the Septuagint to refer to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness, so that is when the Church Age began. When translators of the Bible inconsistently translate "ekklesia" as "church" when it refers to an assembly of Christian believers, but translate it as "assembly" everywhere else, they create the false impression that Jesus was talking about something new rather than restoring something old according to prophecy (Amos 9:11).

 

[Thursday]

The Greek word "ekklesia" is used in the Septuagint to refer to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness, so that is when the Church Age began. When translators of the Bible inconsistently translate "ekklesia" as "church" when it refers to an assembly of Christian believers, but translate it as "assembly" everywhere else, they create the false impression that Jesus was talking about something new rather than restoring something old according to prophecy (Amos 9:11).

Yes, Church is assembly. Jesus started a single assembly and gave this assembly leaders. He told the rest of us to listen to his Church.

Jesus said very clearly that HE would build his Church. Was the Church Jesus built new?

 

[Soyeong]

Yes, Church is assembly. Jesus started a single assembly and gave this assembly leaders. He told the rest of us to listen to his Church.

Jesus said very clearly that HE would build his Church. Was the Church Jesus built new?

No, the Church that he restored according to prophecy was not new because it already existed back in Exodus. Having the keys to kingdom has never permitted anyone to sin in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, but grants the authority to make rulings about how to correctly walk out our obedience to God's commands.

Did Yeshua Build a Church?

 

[South Bound]

Will I? Interesting. And how will those Protestants respond, do you suppose, when I point out the doctrinal differences existing between them and another Protestant denomination just up the street from their own congregation? After all, both groups claim to derive their doctrines from Sacred Scripture. How, then, could they have reached such different conclusions? This alone casts doubt upon the efficacy of Sola Scriptura.

They'd ask you to back up your claims and name the differences.

What's more, the corollary to your question is, if the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura is not true, then why do the two churches affirm the same creeds and confessions and hold to the same understanding of the essential doctrines?

They could just as easily ask you, if the Catholic doctrine of sola ecclesia is true, then why don't Catholics agree about such things as whether or not Catholics are to pray to Mary or what the purpose of Purgatory is?

All these groups claim to abide by Sola Scriptura. And yet manifestly they have definitions of what that means so different as to be incompatible. They can't all be right. Things that are different are not the same. So which one (if any) has the "correct" definition of Sola Scriptura?

In your opinion. The problem is that (a) the two examples you cited (and I am not including the Church of Christ for reasons obvious to any Christian here) are not at odds with one another at all. They're just two sides of a praxis known as the normative principle and (b) we don't get our understanding of the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura from the opinions of men but from how it is described in scripture

 

[thecolorsblend]

They'd ask you to back up your claims and name the differences.

Seems like I just did.

What's more, the corollary to your question is, if the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura is not true, then why do the two churches affirm the same creeds and confessions and hold to the same understanding of the essential doctrines?

So their similarities are supposed to make me forget the many and varied differences between each Protestant denomination? If the meaning and intent of Sacred Scripture is so clear and unmistakable, why do these disagreements exist?

They could just as easily ask you, if the Catholic doctrine of sola ecclesia is true, then why don't Catholics agree about such things as whether or not Catholics are to pray to Mary or what the purpose of Purgatory is?

Not sure what there is to disagree over with those things given that the Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses both. Any Catholic who disagrees with those issues could be rebelling against the Church.

In your opinion.

What have I said that is a matter of opinion? The groups I cited disagree on the basic definition of Sola Scriptura. It's common knowledge.

The problem is that (a) the two examples you cited (and I am not including the Church of Christ for reasons obvious to any Christian here)

With respect, it isn't obvious to me. Why are you excluding them?

are not at odds with one another at all. They're just two sides of a praxis known as the normative principle and (b) we don't get our understanding of the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura from the opinions of men but from how it is described in scripture

Very pious of you. Why then has Sacred Scripture led so many denominations in different, often opposing directions?

 

[South Bound]

Seems like I just did.

You didn't. You just said they disagree but you never told us what these alleged disagreements are supposed to be.

So their similarities are supposed to make me forget the many and varied differences between each Protestant denomination?

"Many and varied differences" and you can't even think of even one example?

If the meaning and intent of Sacred Scripture is so clear and unmistakable, why do these disagreements exist?

You've yet to tell us what alleged "disagreements" you're referring to.

Not sure what there is to disagree over with those things given that the Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses both. Any Catholic who disagrees with those issues could be rebelling against the Church.

So when two Catholics disagree that says nothing about the Catholic doctrine of sola ecclesia but when two Protestants disagree (even though you cannot nae any disagreements) that's evidence against the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura? Why the double standard?

What have I said that is a matter of opinion? The groups I cited disagree on the basic definition of Sola Scriptura. It's common knowledge.

As I pointed out before you obviously didn't think your straw man through very well as the two things you described are not at odds but are merely two ways of describing the same thing.

Very pious of you. Why then has Sacred Scripture led so many denominations in different, often opposing directions?

Why won't you tell us how they "oppose" one another?

 

[jerrygab2]

The rest of your post is tl;dr... which is an idiom people 2,000 years from now might not completely grasp without a lot of research.

I'm from now and still have to research youngins idioms

 

[thecolorsblend]

You didn't. You just said they disagree but you never told us what these alleged disagreements are supposed to be.

You seriously need me to explain differences between the various Protestant sects?

So when two Catholics disagree that says nothing about the Catholic doctrine of sola ecclesia but when two Protestants disagree (even though you cannot nae any disagreements) that's evidence against the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura? Why the double standard?

Because things that are different are not the same. The Catholic Church teaches that she alone possesses the fullness of truth. Now, an outsider can agree or disagree with that proposition but that's irrelevant. A Catholic cannot in good faith disagree with that proposition. The Church's teaching authority is regarded as being infallible with respect to the necessities of belief regarding faith and morals. Forgive me for saying so but this is a degree of authority most Protestant bodies do not claim to possess.

In case I'm being unclear, the Catholic Church views a Catholic rejecting certain of her teaching(s) as a possible act of rebellion. It risks rupturing one's communion with the Church. For most Protestant bodies, however, disagreement with their views on miscellaneous doctrines is viewed merely as, well, disagreement. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention (for reasons I can't say I fully understand) has all but vilified the consumption of alcohol. This doesn't stop the majority of Southern Baptists I know from imbibing... and their disagreement doesn't somehow rupture their "communion" (for lack of a better term) with the SBC.

As I pointed out before you obviously didn't think your straw man through very well as the two things you described are not at odds but are merely two ways of describing the same thing.

I cited the Churches of Christ and the Southern Baptist Convention in my other post.

I was raised in the Churches of Christ. The congregations I attended all believed that baptism is a necessity for complete conversion. That is to say, baptism is the step which places the believer into a relationship with Our Lord. Later in life, I joined up with the Southern Baptists, who view baptism as a visible sign of a conversion which has already taken place. It is a good thing to do but it's merely an act of obedience; it isn't thought to have any effect unto itself. Now, both bodies hold that their views are derived exclusively from Sacred Scripture. Yet they clearly have different views regarding the power and efficacy of the same practice.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Yes, but he was referencing 2 Macabees, which Luther removed from the bible.

if you agree with my assessment than it has nothing to do with 2 macabees. it has to do with Paul saying it to be worthless to baptize someone in the name of and unto someone who is dead.

baptizing people for the dead is a Mormon practice.