A few questions for Protestants

[Buzzard3]

Here's the key. Have fun.

Luke 4: 43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

Luke 16: 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Matthew 24: 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Just another example of why institutions fear scripture.

Please provide your infallible interpretation of those Scriptures.

 

[Buzzard3]

The term is ultimately useless until it is put into practice. Yes the concept itself is sound but the whole idea behind it is to put that concept into practice. When people say they believe in sola scriptura what they are saying is that they believe that the Bible holds the ONLY infallible authority on God’s word but when they actually study the Bible that infallible authority is handicapped and rendered useless because it is subject to personal interpretation. That’s when sola scriptura becomes useless. Sola scriptura being the ONLY infallible authority on God’s word doesn’t do anyone a bit of good when it is subject to personal interpretation and brings about all kinds of different beliefs

Exactly.

 

[timothyu]

Yes indeed ... that's why there are tens of thousands of Protestant sects and denominations, each teaching their own version of their infallible interpretation of Scripture!

Many are claiming to be guided by the HS in coming up with their interpretations. At least one main church was honest. They wanted power in earth and claimed to be an ultimate government of man.
The problem is that interpretation is not what the HS does. Jesus said it would be sent to keep the people on the path of something already taught, the Gospel of the Kingdom; and it would not only keep them on that path as a guiding wind but show the how to teach the Kingdom as needed. Nothing said about popping up new ideas in other directions. That would more reflect the work of the Adversary in expanding an already established empire.

 

[timothyu]

Please provide your infallible interpretation of those Scriptures.

Don't be silly. It speaks for itself

The only people to feel the need to interpret are those seeking scripture to justify some human made concept or institution that they have developed. The Kingdom is already established and not of man. God sent His Son to give us a face. Man says that is not enough. Let us built our own institutions as the face of God and see who will follow us instead.

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, Sola Scriptura does not ban such as reasoning and precedent from being taken into consideration for purposes of clarification. But this is quite different from the idea that "Tradition" or legends or longstanding customs somewhere or other in the Christian world offer a valid alternative to the word of God or that turning to them prevents a variety of different interpretations from being heard.

Yep ... the first 1500 years of Christianity were rubbish. True Christianity didn't begin until someone invented the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

Christians would learn much more about salvation and following Christ by reading the CCC than they would by reading the Bible.

Wow. Just Wow.

You sure did make your case...for the POV of the Protestants here.

 

[Buzzard3]

Don't be silly. It speaks for itself

Translation of "It speaks for itself":

Provide your own interpretation.

 

[timothyu]

You sure did make your case...for the POV of the Protestants here.

Ask yourself... what would the Adversary do?

 

[Buzzard3]

Wow. Just Wow.

You sure did make your case...for the POV of the Protestants here.

I thought that post would impress you ...

 

[Albion]

Ask yourself... what would the Adversary do?

Promote the notion among Men that the speculation and theories coming from God's creatures are superior to the revealed word of God himself??

 

[renniks]

There are none. When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible any text that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected.

There's a whole list, starting with indulgences as probably the worst, praying to the Dead is another big one.

 

[Valletta]

So the cart took precedent over the horse?

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. It is a beautiful addition to Christ's Church, but remember Catholics were saved before one Word of the New Testament was written.

 

[Buzzard3]

The only people to feel the need to interpret are those seeking scripture to justify some human made concept or institution that they have developed. The Kingdom is already established and not of man. God sent His Son to give us a face. Man says that is not enough. Let us built our own institutions as the face of God and see who will follow us instead.

Funny stuff ... there is no need to interpret the Scriptures!

 

[Albion]

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around.

Christians would learn much more about salvation and following Christ by reading the CCC than they would by reading the Bible.

Any questions?

 

[timothyu]

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church

Claiming ownership of the scriptures written by first Jews and by the people for the people, rather than by the institutions for the institutions which can only lay claim to other's works?

 

[Buzzard3]

Yes, but he certainly was not referring to any particular church organization when saying that. The reference was to the authentic belief, otherwise termed the "universal" one.

Got any historical facts to support for that point of view? Probably not, since all the early Church history is that of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

Any questions?

Sola Scriptura = The belief that:

(a) the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice, and

(b) the Church that God entrusted to determine the canon of said Bible has no authority whatsoever and is in fact a corrupt, false church.

That is certainly a strange and thoroughly illogical belief.

 

[timothyu]

Probably not, since all the early Church history is that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Odd, considering the Greek and not the Latin held sway over the state religion. It was even in the majority before hand as the eastern empire far outweighed in number the church in Rome itself. The Latin it seems would later make things over in their own image.

 

[Valletta]

Claiming ownership of the scriptures written by first Jews and by the people for the people, rather than by the institutions for the institutions which can only lay claim to other's works?

The Catholic Church CHOSE the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. No Catholic Church, no Bible.

 

[timothyu]

The Catholic Church CHOSE the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. No Catholic Church, no Bible.

Sounds like a struggle for ownership of something that had already existed without the official seal of some institution. All they did was put a seal on it and made the claim.