John 16:12(Denys Sola Scriptura)

Status
Not open for further replies.

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”


Martin Luther
The Facts about Luther, 356


Luther NAILS it!!!

So, the RCC self-claiming that it and it itself alone is the SOLE interpreter.... Well, Luther said it better than I could (and I don't want to get banned, not today anyway).




.
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
34,437
3,872
On the bus to Heaven
✟60,078.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
:thumbsup:

Told you Henry, i wasn't making it all up. :p

Never said you were making it up.:) The problem is that Luther did not want the division, only the reformation. You asked me what I believe in, I believe in the reformation of the RCC. Also, Luther did not like the office of the pope. I don't have an excerpt from Luther now but I will find it and post it later.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
We can interpret scripture but we have no authority what so ever to interpret it outside of the apostolic Tradition which is the faith that Christ left to is Church.


According to the RC denomination, who/what ALONE can authentically interpret the Scriptures? Why, the RCC.

And according to the RC denomination, who/what ALONE determines what is and is not "Apostolic Tradition?" why, it's the RCC.

And according to the RC denomination,who/what ALONE is the sole and infallible arbiter for whether the teachings of the RCC agree with the teachings of the RCC? You guess it. It's the RCC.

Oh, and according to the RC denomination, who/what is that denomination to which Christ left all these secret dogmas (assuming He did)? Guess...





.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,263
4,084
The South
✟114,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sunlover writes,

And who's reading the 'tradition'

And who's interpreting them for us?

The tradition is not of a vain form of godliness but after godliness (after Christ) in a manner of behavior, seen in the apostles lives, in their epistles and by word.

Sun, look here... (Glad someone copy pasted you, this thread is moving too fast)

2Thes 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that ~walketh disorderly~, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

The tradition is after a godly behavoir, not disorderly after the manner of life. Not vain tradition.

The same exact words are used (between these two verses) yet the tradition Paul speaks of is defined in the verse after owns behavior (as the verse defines and implies).

This other tradition (which is not after Christ = Whose doctrine is after godliness, wherein we are to pursue) is defined as well (and contrasted agaist a tradition of men).

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, ~after~ the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

One shows its AFTER Christ (the doctrine of godliness as the other confirms a behavior) The other is speaking of a FORM of godliness (from which we are to TURN AWAY FROM) just like the commandments of men (which TURN FROM the Truth).

One after (Christ) in life and after godliness. The other having A FORM of godliness (commandments of men) which denys the power of God. It allows ones faith stand in the wisdom ~of men~ (to the contrary) of the power of God (upon which we are admonished to rest our faith).

This is kool, Im still looking into this sis. But as I see it the apostles tradition is after a behavior, "what ye have learned of Him" (as it pertains to godly behavior) not anything more then that. This makes entire sense in Christ (to me) the only interpretation is an evidence after the tradition He speaks of (as it pertains to ones behavior). Thus known by ones fruits still stands beautifully on its own.

I cant wait to catch more on this.

Peace

Fireinfolding
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟40,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
follow no church...but rather follow Christ


and the RCC is certainly not the true Church. The true Church is made up of people from all denominations that follow Christ.


There is exactly zero proof in Scripture to support the claim that the RCC is the true church.
or follow the Church of Christ and have it all!
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
which is why he gave us a Church and not just a book.


Absolutely.


But the question before us is accountability. Are our words subject to God's Word or is God's Word subject to our words. That's where we differ. That's the issue here. Is my denomination above God and His Word or under and subject to it?




.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟22,534.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
When in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg he was merely disputing abuses in the Roman Catholic practice of "indulgences." The dispute intensified and widened, however, until Luther and his followers found it necessary to break entirely with Rome. So began the Protestant Reformation, and the doctrinal issues which separated the Reformers from medieval Catholicism are the _same_ issues which divide Protestants and Catholics today. While the doctrine of salvation (i.e., justification) became the central issue under dispute, the underlying question of religious authority was also a major concern.
Luther was convinced that the authority structure of Catholicism (Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium or Teaching Office) was illegitimate. He maintained that the church fathers, the papacy, and church councils were fallible, and had, in fact, erred. During his debates with Catholic theologians, Luther formulated the principle of _sola scriptura_ (solely Scripture) which recognized Scripture alone as the supreme and infallible authority for the church and individual believer. All ecclesiastical authorities were to be judged by Holy Writ, and never the reverse. The principle of _sola scriptura_ rejected both the idea that the Roman church possessed revelation apart from Scripture, and that the church was the infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Since the Reformation, theologians from a wide variety of persuasions have appealed to an equally wide variety of sources as the ultimate religious authority. These include reason, experience, creeds, church consensus, and the individual conscience. While recognizing that these have importance, historic Protestantism has continued to assert that the Bible alone is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. On this point, however, some questions are often raised: How do we arrive at this principle of _sola scriptura?_ How does the Bible derive its authority? And, where does Scripture teach this principle?
To answer these questions it is important to recognize that Christian theology views authority as a chain. For the Christian, the absolute authority is God Himself. More specifically, it is the triune God who reveals Himself, for authority and revelation are correlates. While God revealed Himself in deed and in word in the Old Testament, His greatest and clearest self-disclosure is found in the incarnate _Logos_ -- the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14; 14:6-10). Jesus Christ, who both _reveals_ God and _is_ God, is the imperial authority for the church and individual believer (Heb. 1:1-3). However, Christ the _Living_ Word has delegated His authority to His apostles, who -- through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- have recorded the _written_ word (John 14:26; 2 Pet. 1:21). Thus, Scripture has become our authority because as an infallible record of God's self-revelation it perpetuates Christ's personal authority. Scripture is objectively the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16), and is therefore authoritative!
Does the Bible teach _sola scriptura?_ The best way to answer this is to examine how Christ and His apostles viewed Scripture.
The Gospels reveal that Jesus held Scripture in the highest regard. His statements speak for themselves: "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NIV); "Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law..." (Matt. 5:18); "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" (Luke 16:17). Jesus asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19), while judgment will be measured out by the same standard (John 5:45-47).
The strongest evidence for the authority of the Bible is the fact that Jesus used Scripture as the _final_ court of appeal in every matter under dispute. When disputing the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, He proclaimed, "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition..." (Mark 7:13). Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable. When Jesus was tested by the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, He retorted, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures..." (Matt. 22:29). When confronted with the devil's temptations, He responded three times with the phrase, "It is written" (Matt. 4:4-10). Clearly, Jesus accepted Scripture as the supreme authority and subjected Himself to it (Luke 24:44). And, as followers of Christ, our view of Scripture cannot be inferior to His.
What about the relationship between Scripture and the early church? While it is true that the church preceded the apostolic writings, it was the _message_ (the gospel preached) -- which was later recorded and expounded upon in the apostolic writings -- that produced the church. The New Testament became a permanent, infallible record of what was earlier an oral message. Because Scripture is identified with the gospel, it is authoritative. The church (made up of gospel-believing communities) submits to the Word (gospel) which created it. Scripture derives _none_ of its authority from the church; its authority is _inherent_ because it is the very words of God: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Tim. 3:16).
The purpose of the Scripture is to bear witness to Christ, who Himself bears witness to the integrity and authority of Scripture: "You search the Scriptures...and it is these that bear witness of Me" (John 5:39).
Does the Bible teach _sola scriptura?_ Yes! Jesus Christ speaks to us authoritatively _only_ through the objective Word of God.
Written By: Kenneth R. Samples

Paul says false apostles "commend themselves" and that "it is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man who the Lord commends" (2Cor 10:12.18). Indeed, biblically any time the commission of a spiritual leader is expressly recorded - it is always from miracles or succession rather than self-commendation:
Moses lays hands on Joshua in succession (Numbers 27:15-20, Deuteronomy 34:8-10)
Miracles attest that Elisha succeeded Elijah (2nd Kings 2:8-15)
Aaron's appointment, after Korah's rebellion, is confirmed with a miracle (Numbers 17:1-10)
Those returning from Babylonian captivity without records of priestly descent and succession had priestly privileges suspended, such as authorative exposition (Nehemiah 8:2-8), until a known priest consulted Urim and Thummin (Ezrah 2:59-63)
conception (Luke 1:5-24)
Elders and deacons are appointed by apostles (Titus 1:5, Acts 6:3, Acts 14:20.23)
After Judas perished, Peter recounts "let another take his office" whereupon Matthias was selected for apostolic succession (Acts 1:15ff)
Paul's apostleship was designated by miracles (Acts 9, 2Cor 12:12 cf. Mark 16:17)
, The New Testament warns Christians about this reformation standard by condemning the insubordinate reforms of Korah (Jude 1:11). Korah, an elder of Israel, assembled the people "together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, 'You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?'" (Numbers 16:3). For his insubordinate reformation, God condemned Korah and his followers to death. So from this we learn to test the "rank" of reformers before giving assent, lest we "wander away into vain discussion" (1st Timothy 1:6). For example, when Jesus was using Scripture to close and replace the institution and doctrine of the Pharisees, even the Pharisees paused to test a reformer:
Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets who died?! Who do you claim to be? And Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:53.58).​
Now all this is not to say that a reformer must be God himself to bring reform to the church, but it does emphasize the importance of divine authority given to those who initiate reform. Thus the Arian heresy, a doctrinal crusade of the fourth century, was un-anointed because it was initiated by elder Arius rather than by apostles. Surprisingly though, this pattern of ignoring or rejecting the authority of our apostles, in favor of false teachers, was a problem even for the apostles of the first century:
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟22,534.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
According to the RC denomination, who/what ALONE can authentically interpret the Scriptures? Why, the RCC.

And according to the RC denomination, who/what ALONE determines what is and is not "Apostolic Tradition?" why, it's the RCC.

And according to the RC denomination,who/what ALONE is the sole and infallible arbiter for whether the teachings of the RCC agree with the teachings of the RCC? You guess it. It's the RCC.

Oh, and according to the RC denomination, who/what is that denomination to which Christ left all these secret dogmas (assuming He did)? Guess...





.


:yawn: :sleep:
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,263
4,084
The South
✟114,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Back on topic:


If we do need more than Scripture, then what do we need?

They are ~saying~ "tradition".

This is why I posted an example of tradition which has nothing to do with anything but ones behavior. Confirming After Christ (not tradition) is a manner of godly living rather then a fform of godliness.

I gotta feed my goats, be back^_^

I hope yall will slow down these pages^_^
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Josiah said:
Good question....


A Mormon may genuinely believe all that LDS Tradition says, even though the substantiation for the self-claims is completely lacking.

Now, he might say that he simply believes it to be true - in spite of no real evidence. He simply chooses to believe it is true. While I may not, I can affirm his honesty and accept his position as one of faith.

Ah, but when the Mormon shouts (as some do), but the Bible teaches that the LDS self-claims are true, then it's not unreasonable to ask "where?" Or when he says, "And history teaches that Jesus visited the Americas!" it's not unreasonable to ask "where?" When the Mormon says, "the LDS says it's true so that's proof!" or "The chosen Tradition of the LDS as the LDS itself so interprets and arbitrates so that's proof!" most of us would conclude that it's not. It's just self-authentication. And usually, in a moment of honesty, the Mormon will often admit that.

But which is worse? That is your question. To accept something as true while admitting one has no substantiation for it? Or insisting that one has substantiation for it but it's painfully obvious it's just circular, self-authenticating arguements based on the same self-claims?

I think the second is worse.

And remember when you said you never compare Catholicism to Mormonism?? CJ, you have absolutely no credibility


Looking..... looking..... looking.......


Nope.


Don't see it.






.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Josiah said:
According to the RC denomination, who/what ALONE can authentically interpret the Scriptures? Why, the RCC.

And according to the RC denomination, who/what ALONE determines what is and is not "Apostolic Tradition?" why, it's the RCC.

And according to the RC denomination,who/what ALONE is the sole and infallible arbiter for whether the teachings of the RCC agree with the teachings of the RCC? You guess it. It's the RCC.

Oh, and according to the RC denomination, who/what is that denomination to which Christ left all these secret dogmas (assuming He did)? Guess...

:sleep:


Don't want to guess, huh?




.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟40,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
In the RC denomination, it's the RC denomination that chooses who is and who is not an Early Church Father.

It's the RC denomination what chooses which snippet from them is and is not Tradition - depending on whether it is correct or not (ie if it agrees with the RCC or not).

It's the RC denomination that authoritatively interprets the meaning of the snippet it itself choose from the ECF it itself chose, so that it agrees with the teachings of the RC itself. It's own interpretation of it's own chosen snippet of it's own chosen author is infallible and thus unaccountable.

It's the RC denomination that is the sole arbiter for whether the RC denomination is teaching correctly; it's Rule for this process is it's own chosen Tradition as it itself so defines, chooses and interprets (those chosen guys, those chosen snippets, that interpretration so as to teach what the RC denomination teaches). It's the RCC will alone and infallibly determine if self is teaching according to the rule of the teachings of self.



I hope that helps understand the process.





.
There you go again, offer your opinion with absolutely no evidence that a single word of what you say is true.

Tell us, why should anyone believe any of this? becuase your telling them what they want to hear?

I'd like to be able to credit the opponents to Catholicism a little more intellectual integrity and honesty than that.
 
Upvote 0

IamAdopted

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2006
9,384
309
South Carolina
✟18,557.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That is true. :)

And that is why sola scriptura fails . . all sola scriptura has is men and women reading them and interpreting them. :)
Really well that is not what scripture says. Scriture says if we are born of the Spirit then it is indeed the Holy Spirit which is the spirit of Truth that resides in us that teaches us..
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Oh good Lord.

We asked you a question.. "Are you infallible?"

You answered, "No, you can err."

So we asked, "Then how do you know what you intepret is correct?"

In which you answered something to the effect, "Because the Holy Spirit teaches you."

In which I answered with the words of Luther.

I can say it myself if you wish?

Every body's interpretation no matter how foolish it is claim the Holy Spirit has taught it to him,.

Now you can either respond or not, but stop telling me that I devalue the bible.
I agree with Floating Axe,
We are not infallible,
we CAN err,
we DO learn all we learn from
God through whichever means
He chooses and whichever means
we employ.

You are implying that your church IS
infallible and cannot err and that's
nowhere in the Bible.

When one start thinking one has
all of the answers is when pride and
illusion enters in.

God did not tell us we had to know
everything by any means.
He told us to Love Him and love others,
and to study to show ourselves approved.

Not you have to have all answers
correct to be approved.

sunlover
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟50,355.00
Faith
Catholic
Sorry twas at the Dentist...
Whats missing is any proof of universal authority from our Lords talk with Peter up until and including Irenaeus.
Amongst hundreds of writings there is nothing

"primacy of peter" all other churches must answer to...
Uniersal.
authority.
easy words to look up.

That's not a good tone to start things off with . . . .

What does primacy of Peter mean to you?


.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.