Luther vs Catholic Church

Mountainmike · Jul 30, 2017

amariselle said:
I wasn't speaking of you or anyone else specifically. I am glad you read it though, so do I.

We should spend more time agreeing on what we share as Christians! Places like this focus too much on differences.

PeaceB · Jul 30, 2017

amariselle said:
None of those verses give any support for the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Those verses are speaking of how the Old Covenant pointed to Christ, types and shadows of things to come, because we know that animal sacrifices are not in any way able to save anyone, but those sacrifices pointed to the one time, and all sufficient sacrifice to come, the spotless Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world.

23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Are you having difficulty answering my question? You wrote a lot of things, but you did not answer the question.

Why are "better" sacrifices (plural) applied to the heavenly things?

As for confessing our sins, we do so because we know our High Priest in heaven intercedes for us, not because we lose salvation when we sin, and not because the sacrifice of Christ is not finished or is not sufficient, but because we know we can come boldly before the throne of grace and ask for help in any time of need, and that we can cast all our cares on Him because He cares for us.

23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

The text does not state that Jesus intercedes lives to make intercession for you so that you can "ask for help in time of need" or "cast all of your cares on him". It states that "he is able to save to the uttermost . . . since he always lives to make intercession for them." What is Jesus saving you from? And if you do not lose your salvation when you sin, why is it that Jesus needs to intercede to save you?

Do you see how your theology makes no sense?

When we are saved, we are born again. We are not unborn every time we mess up.

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Also, we can know from Scripture that there is no other sacrifice for sin but that which Christ already offered on thecross, once for all.

Yes, but the merits from our Lord's passion are not are not applied to sins that you have not yet committed and repented of. You seem to think that by making a sincere profession of faith, the merits from our Lord's passion are instantly applied to future sins that you have not even committed yet. But such a view cannot make sense of the the Scripture verses that I cited above. If what you seem to believe were true, there would be no need for Jesus to live to intercede before the father to save us. And there would be no need for the (plural) heavenly sacrifices referred to in Hebrews 9:23.

paul1149 · Jul 30, 2017

Mountainmike said:
We should spend more time agreeing on what we share as Christians! Places like this focus too much on differences.

That seems to be an individual decision. I've been around places like this since 1983, on the old CompuServ Religion forum. Section 2 was for Prots, #8, I believe, was Caths. Lots of heat, not a lot of light.

What has changed? It's no longer CompuServ, the software is better, and the screen names.

What any of this has to do with "they will know you are My disciples if you have love for one another", I don't know. Perhaps this is why the church is so compromised and anemic, because we aren't properly "discerning the body".

redleghunter · Jul 30, 2017

Goatee said:
Seems like he changed his mind about what he started!

I see this claim a lot but no one ever cites a credible source.

As many good Catholics remind me often, Pope Francis is the victim of a host of secular and SSPX media types who take his quotes out of context and/or had poor translations of his comments published.

Seems Luther suffered from the same poor media staffing:

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Did Luther Regret the Reformation?

redleghunter · Jul 30, 2017

Mountainmike said:
Our creed is sola Dei verbum - only the word of God.

Which recognises that sola scriptura is provably false, and the meaning has to be carried by tradition. ( which means the true faith handed down) and authority to bind and loose on disputes. All stated in scripture.

Take a simple example.
Salavation.
Some believe OSAS
Some believe saved can lose it.
Some believe not saved till the race is run, until which the jury is out. I say jury meaning a jury of one! Our Lord.
Some believe in double predestination, so nothing you do can matter, and you were saved before you were born. Or not.

They are all mutually exclusive , only one is truth.

OSAS is roundly discounted by all the church fathers fro. The first who spoke against it as a heresy, and it certainly was not the faith handed down.

It doesn't stop many Protestants believing they can interpret the bible how they like, including OSAS

Some even reintroduce concepts long ago deemed hetetical like Pentecostals and modalism.

Net result there are at least five exclusive Protestant beliefs on
Eucharist
Baptism
Salvation.
Sacraments.
Marriage
Church
LGBT
Which councils
What is scripture even,
Role and power of clergy.
Purgation , purgatory or non.
Intercession of saints
The list is endless.

All because all of you discount the method our Lord put in place for doctrine, succession and authority, the magisterium that tells you what is right

And all swear blind as you do only you know the " right" doctrine. 10000 mutually exclusive variants prove you are WRONG. There is but one truth. You cannot make up your own, or interpret scripture as you will.

When there were 3 Popes at one time, each excommincating the others, which magsterium was the correct one?

redleghunter · Jul 30, 2017

amariselle said:
You are mistaken if you think all Catholics agree on those things you just listed. There is doubtless just as much division within the Catholic Church as Protestant churches. Just because it seems united on the surface, does not mean it actually is.

In fact, even the Popes throughout history couldn't agree with each other.

Especially when there were 3 Popes :

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

amariselle · Jul 30, 2017

redleghunter said:
Especially when there were 3 Popes :

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

Such is the "unbroken apostolic succession".

amariselle · Jul 30, 2017

Mountainmike said:
We should spend more time agreeing on what we share as Christians! Places like this focus too much on differences.

I guess, what I'm most concerned about is the Gospel and how we are saved and can know we are secure in our salvation. By grace, through faith, not of works. Saved by believing on Jesus Christ, (the will of the Father), Who by Himself purged our sins and now sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. Our Great High Priest and only Mediator.

God bless

redleghunter · Jul 31, 2017

PeaceB said:
Here some Scripture for you.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
In your opinion, why does verse 23 state "better sacrifices" instead of "a better sacrifice"? In other words, why does the author use the plural, "sacrifices" rather than the singular "sacrifice"?

Better yet, please provide the official Catholic church interpretation of those verses.

While we wait for the official interpretation, I offer what the Roman Catholic NAB study Bible provides as commentary:
Hebrews 9:
69 [ 9: 23 – 28 ] Since the blood of animals became a cleansing symbol among Old Testament prefigurements, it was necessary that the realities foreshadowed be brought into being by a shedding of blood that was infinitely more effective by reason of its worth ( Heb 9: 23 ). Christ did not simply prefigure the heavenly realities ( Heb 9: 24 ) by performing an annual sacrifice with a blood not his own ( Heb 9: 25 ); he offered the single sacrifice of himself as the final annulment of sin ( Heb 9: 26 ). Just as death is the unrepeatable act that ends a person’s life, so Christ’s offering of himself for all is the unrepeatable sacrifice that has once for all achieved redemption ( Heb 9: 27 – 28 ).

From: Fireside New American Bible Revised Edition E-Book THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE REVISED EDITION Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONFRATERNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND THE UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

redleghunter · Jul 31, 2017

PeaceB said:
When you pray, why do you ask God to forgive your sins, if all of your past, present, and future sins were already forgiven by God at the moment that you were saved? Why is it that you pray for what you believe you have already received?

The Catholic Answers site actually answers this question quite well.

I am saved--Justification
I am being saved---Sanctification
I will be saved----Resurrection

Jesus explained as much to Peter:

John 13: NKJV
2 And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, 4 rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. 5 After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6 Then He came to Simon Peter. And Peter said to Him, “Lord, are You washing my feet?”

7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this.”

8 Peter said to Him, “You shall never wash my feet!”

Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.”

9 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!”

10 Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, “You are not all clean.”

redleghunter · Jul 31, 2017

Mountainmike said:
Give me your definition.
And I will point out the logical flaw in it.

Not hard to find:

Westminster Confession of Faith

Part of a good Jesuit education is to actually read Reformation creeds to fully understand what we debate or discuss.

redleghunter · Jul 31, 2017

Mountainmike said:
But there is the problem. YOU cannot interpret scripture, how you like, which is quite clear that nothing impure can enter " the new Jerusalem" . Revelations 21

That's quite humorous as you just provided your own personal interpretation!

This is what your NABRE study Bible says:

Revelation 21:

242 [ 21: 24 – 27 ] All men and women of good will are welcome in the church; cf. Is 60: 1 , 3 , 5 , 11 . The… book of life: see note on Rev 3: 5 .

From: Fireside New American Bible Revised Edition E-Book THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE REVISED EDITION Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONFRATERNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND THE UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

ViaCrucis · Jul 31, 2017

amariselle said:
Such is the "unbroken apostolic succession".

Unbroken apostolic succession involves all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome. Further, the Papal Schism didn't interrupt that succession.

The Papal Schism was significant and telling for a lot of reasons; but this isn't one of them.

-CryptoLutheran

amariselle · Jul 31, 2017

PeaceB said:
23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Are you having difficulty answering my question? You wrote a lot of things, but you did not answer the question.

Why are "better" sacrifices (plural) applied to the heavenly things?

I have no issue with the plural, as I know that all of those verses are foreshadowing Christ's perfect sacrifice, once for all. His sacrifice alone is "better." The only sacrifice sufficient for sin in fact.

PeaceB said:
23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Exactly! We draw near to God through Christ by faith. And He indeed saves us completely, nothing else required.

PeaceB said:
The text does not state that Jesus intercedes lives to make intercession for you so that you can "ask for help in time of need" or "cast all of your cares on him". It states that "he is able to save to the uttermost . . . since he always lives to make intercession for them." What is Jesus saving you from? And if you do not lose your salvation when you sin, why is it that Jesus needs to intercede to save you?

Do you see how your theology makes no sense?

Jesus saves all those who believe on Him. It's that simple. It really is all about faith. Once we are saved, we grow in His grace and in spiritual maturity, which of course includes taking our sins to God. Not to be saved, but because we are saved. His dearly loved children.

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:14-18

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

"Then said they unto him, 'What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?'"

Jesus answered and said unto them, 'This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. - John 6:27-29

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."- John 6:37-40

Read Romans 5, Romans 7, Romans 8, Galatians 5, Hebrews 4 and Hebrews 11 for more clarification that our salvation is entirely about faith (believing) on the Son and His sacrifice.

PeaceB said:
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Read the verses in context. What is being taught here is that if, once we have received the "knowledge of the truth" (that Christ alone saves us, and His sacrifice is what is needed to wash away sins) we "trample the Son of God underfoot" and "profane the blood of the covenant," if we set that aside and say it is not enough or that we must add to it.

If we do so we reject the sacrifice of Christ and there is no more sacrifice for sin.

It really is Jesus or nothing and Jesus plus nothing. He by Himself purged our sins.

PeaceB said:
Yes, but the merits from our Lord's passion are not are not applied to sins that you have not yet committed and repented of. You seem to think that by making a sincere profession of faith, the merits from our Lord's passion are instantly applied to future sins that you have not even committed yet. But such a view cannot make sense of the the Scripture verses that I cited above. If what you seem to believe were true, there would be no need for Jesus to live to intercede before the father to save us. And there would be no need for the (plural) heavenly sacrifices referred to in Hebrews 9:23.

When Jesus died on the cross for our sins we hadn't even been born yet, thus all our sins were "future." So, yes, His sacrifice is sufficient to purge/wash away all our sins.

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. - Hebrews 10:1-10

amariselle · Jul 31, 2017

ViaCrucis said:
Unbroken apostolic succession involves all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome. Further, the Papal Schism didn't interrupt that succession.

The Papal Schism was significant and telling for a lot of reasons; but this isn't one of them.

-CryptoLutheran

I would think having 3 Popes at one time kind of throws a wrench in the claim that there is an unbroken line of apostolic succession back to Peter.

redleghunter · Jul 31, 2017

Mountainmike said:
It is also reasonable to conclude that Luther himself believed in purgatory, he questioned aspects of indulgencies, not the state. Luther's core beliefs remained very catholic.

I do find it interesting many Catholic posters assume Luther is some sort of "pope" for the Reformation. But alas, it is always good to revisit what he actually said in full context. As we should Pope Francis as the claim is he is grossly misquoted by the media daily. So I agree let's be precise.

He may have held to it based on tradition, but strongly spoke there was no Scriptural substantiation and those unconvinced should not be labeled heretics:

Plass shows Luther still maintained a belief in purgatory even after the debate with Eck. Plass though didn't go far enough. The texts he cites to substantiate his assertion (WA 7:451; 454] are not from 1520, but are from the March 1521 treatise Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind. But also in 1521, Luther published his Defense and Explanations of all the Articles. Luther states,

THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ARTICLE
That there is a purgatory cannot be proved by those Scriptures which are authentic and trustworthy.

The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory, and it seems not beyond belief that some of the dead suffer in like manner. Tauler has much to say about it, and, in short, I myself have come to the conclusion that there is a purgatory, but I cannot force anybody else to come to the same result.

There is only one thing that I have criticized, namely, the way in which my opponents refer to purgatory passages in Scripture which are so inapplicable that it is shameful. For example, they apply Ps. 66[:12], “We went through fire and through water,” though the whole psalm sings of the sufferings of the saints, whom no one places in purgatory. And they quote St. Paul in I Cor. 3[:13–15] when he says of the fire of the last day that it will test the good works, and by it some will be saved because they keep the faith, though their work may suffer loss. They turn this fire also into a purgatory, according to their custom of twisting Scripture and making it mean whatever they want.

And similarly they have arbitrarily dragged in the passage in Matt. 12[:32] in which Christ says, “Whoever speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.” Christ means here that he shall never be forgiven, as Mark 3[:29] explains, saying, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” To be sure, even St.Gregory interprets the passage in Matthew 12 to mean that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come, but St. Mark does not permit such an interpretation, and he counts for more than all the doctors.

I have discussed all this in order to show that no one is bound to believe more than what is based on Scripture, and those who do not believe in purgatory are not to be called heretics, if otherwise they accept Scripture in its entirety, as the Greek church does. The gospel compels me to believe that St. Peter and St. James are saints, but at the same time it is not necessary to believe that St. Peter is buried in Home and St. James at Compostella and that their bodies are still there, for Scripture does not report it. Again, there is no sin in holding that none of the saints whom the pope canonizes are saints, and no saint will be offended, for, as a matter of fact, there are many saints in heaven of whom we know nothing, and certainly not that they are saints, yet they are not offended, and do not consider us heretics because we do not know of them. The pope and his partisans play this game only in order to fabricate many wild articles of faith and thus make it possible to silence and suppress the true articles of the Scripture.

But their use of the passage in II Macc. 12[:43], which tells how Judas Maceabeus sent money to Jerusalem for prayers to be offered for those who fell in battle, proves nothing, for that book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written. In other respects, too, this book deserves little authority, for it contradicts the first Book of Maccabees in its description of King Antiochus, and contains many other fables which destroy its credibility. But even were the book authoritative, it would still be necessary in the case of so important an article that at least one passage out of the chief books [of the Bible] should support it, in order that every word might be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses. It must give rise to suspicion that in order to substantiate this doctrine no more than one passage could be discovered in the entire Bible; moreover this passage is in the least important and most despised book. Especially since so much depends on this doctrine which is so important that, indeed, the papacy and the whole hierarchy are all but built upon it, and derive all their wealth and honor from it. Surely, the majority of the priests would starve to death if there were no purgatory. Well, they should not offer such vague and feeble grounds for our faith! [LW 32:94-96]

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther and Purgatory, Revisited

redleghunter · Jul 31, 2017

Mountainmike said:
Which is easily disproven

You say this of your highest and so you deem necessary truth:

" all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."

Since scripture nowhere contains your highest truth, by your own definitiin , it does not contain ALL ecessary truth, it omits the one you hold highest!

QED I have proven your definition logically false.

Worse still, scripture is not silent. It actively disagrees.

It says " the foundation of truth is the church" - so is outside scripture.
So proving your definition wrong again.

Protestants don't seem to get simple logic.

The statements A " all that is in scripture is ( choose your own adjective ) truth"

And B " all ( choose your own adjective) truth is in scripture"

Are not a logical equivalence,

I say choose your own adjective, e.g. Necessary because however you do that creates even more logically disprovable problems for B

As a scientist I cannot accept the cognitive dissonance and logical falsehood implied in sola scriptura, it is part of what led me back from Protestant to evangelical to Rome.

Your assertion fails. Why? Because Christ and His apostles proved truth claims on the very Scriptures in both Word and Power.

We can start with 2Tim. 3:14-17: “things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of” refers to the general body of Scriptural Truth that was conveyed by his example and words, and which statement is followed by the affirmation of the Scripture as being wholly inspired and able to make one “perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

It is by Scripture that Truth claims are to be examined and established by, as Scripture is the only transcendent, substantive body of Truth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God.

But don't take my word but the facts:

Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, substantiating the claim that as they were written, the written word became the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims. In full, the New Testament is stated to have approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations and more than 1,000 if one includes indirect or partial quotations, while another counts 275 direct quotes and at least 600 allusions to the Old (view many of both here. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary reports "the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2, 309 allusions and verbal parallels. (Old Testament in the New Testament, the - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Online)

Many of which tabulations may count those in duplicate accounts. The following list does not include all of the quotations and rarely includes simple allusions to Scripture (versus clear references such as to the law), but supplies a multiplicity of viewable (place mouse over reference, and if you cannot see them use a different browser, like Firefox) references to what was written or quotes thereof, including internal references within each Testament to Scripture (not just the New referencing the Old):

Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3;8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8;34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56;27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24;3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33;10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19

Mountainmike · Jul 31, 2017

And your mountain of words cannot conceal the obvious fact that what I said is provably true.

Sola scriptura ( any version of it) is easily provable false, just as I did, and there are other proofs too. Simple logic.

And that sola scriptura ( any version of it) and enabling all to interpret it " their way" is why reformationist Christianity has fractured into 10000 pieces, and continues to fracture. So we can know it is not the truth, our Lord said his church will be one, and a house divided cannot stand.

Go back to early times, and New Testament scripture is provably not the mechanism our Lord gave to hand on the truth , he gave us apostles and succession not a book, a process called paradosis " tradition" , and gave authority to councils and Peter to decide matters of doctrine.

Without that authority of councils you would neither have a New Testament or a creed.

Your haze of words and scriptural references can change it not a jot.

redleghunter said:
Your assertion fails. Why? Because Christ and His apostles proved truth claims on the very Scriptures in both Word and Power.

We can start with 2Tim. 3:14-17: “things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of” refers to the general body of Scriptural Truth that was conveyed by his example and words, and which statement is followed by the affirmation of the Scripture as being wholly inspired and able to make one “perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

It is by Scripture that Truth claims are to be examined and established by, as Scripture is the only transcendent, substantive body of Truth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God.

But don't take my word but the facts:

Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, substantiating the claim that as they were written, the written word became the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims. In full, the New Testament is stated to have approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations and more than 1,000 if one includes indirect or partial quotations, while another counts 275 direct quotes and at least 600 allusions to the Old (view many of both here. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary reports "the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2, 309 allusions and verbal parallels. (Old Testament in the New Testament, the - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Online)

Many of which tabulations may count those in duplicate accounts. The following list does not include all of the quotations and rarely includes simple allusions to Scripture (versus clear references such as to the law), but supplies a multiplicity of viewable (place mouse over reference, and if you cannot see them use a different browser, like Firefox) references to what was written or quotes thereof, including internal references within each Testament to Scripture (not just the New referencing the Old):

Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3;8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8;34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56;27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24;3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33;10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19

Mountainmike · Jul 31, 2017

Amen to that, and God bless.
Although, as you know, I might express a few " caveats " on that, now is not the time.

amariselle said:
I guess, what I'm most concerned about is the Gospel and how we are saved and can know we are secure in our salvation. By grace, through faith, not of works. Saved by believing on Jesus Christ, (the will of the Father), Who by Himself purged our sins and now sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. Our Great High Priest and only Mediator.

God bless

Catherineanne · Jul 31, 2017

Monk Brendan said:
No! There were ALWAYS vegetables! The Rule of St. Augustine says,
Fasting and abstinence are recommended only in proportion to the physical strength of the individual, and when the saint speaks of obligatory fasting he specifies that such as are unable to wait for the evening or ninth hour meal may eat at noon. The nuns partook of very frugal fare and, in all probability, abstained from meat. The sick and infirm are objects of the most tender care and solicitude, and certain concessions are made in favor of those who, before entering religion, led a life of luxury. During meals some instructive matter is to be read aloud to the nuns. Although the Rule of St. Augustine contains but a few precepts, it dwells at great length upon religious virtues and the ascetic life, this being characteristic of all primitive Rules.

You are assuming that monasteries in Tudor times were run as monasteries today are run.

That is one huge assumption.

You are also assuming that in Tudor times a monk who showed aversion to fish would not be put on obedience to eat it for the good of his soul and to overcome the frailties of the flesh.

Even bigger assumption.

Luther vs Catholic Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

that your faith might rest in the power of God

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Jesus Never Fails

Jesus Never Fails

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Confessional Lutheran

Jesus Never Fails

Jesus Never Fails

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads