500 years of protesting what?

[DeaconDean]

I am a conservative Lutheran church member yet have not read Bondage of the Will. However, the title is a misnomer...through Christ our bonds have been broken...He gives us His Spirit to throw off the chains and defeat the will. Yes, the sinful human nature remains with us on this side of eternity, and Luther may be referring to this in his book title, but we call upon the Name of Christ to overcome. The sinful nature is no longer an excuse for sinning and therefore requires repentance and a prayer for a right spirit and strong Christ-like will.
As for Luther giving us a theology, I say only in that he in effect gave us back our Bibles, the very Word of God to study and follow as God's Spirit enables us. Even Luther said he wished that all his words would perish and God's Word remain.

You really should give it a read.

Yes, before salvation the Apostle Paul said we are in bondage to sin. Jesus also said that "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free".

However, has the salvation event so eradicated sin that you cannot sin anymore?

The Bondage of the Will basically sets these principles forth.

And, its a good defense to those who truly believe in "free will".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Mountainmike]

Nothing you have said alters the fact that
1/. Sola scriptura is provably false. It is easily disprovable with simple logic, disprovable historically, and even scripture says it is false , where it says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" Not scripture.

2/ Jesus did not give us a new testament, he gave us apostles to hand down the faith "paradosis" - which is why Paul says "stay true to tradition". He also gave the church authority to decide over doctrinal disputes and - the power to bind and loose"- ( the meaning of that phrase to his Jewish audience is to settle disputes on doctrine) given to apostolic success jointly (ie councils) and successors of Peter alone, without whose authority you would have neither creed nor Canon of the new testament (ie Gods guidance through the councils - no surprise in that - you rely on God acting infallibly through men for scripture to be inspired)

Why did Jesus do that? At a guess because books were few and far between, few could read them and none could afford them.

So modern day "bible christians" like you are a product of the printing press, and the last two centuiries education and affluence allowing people like you to own a bible. Very few did in the first millenium! So doctrine was passed in the early church by paradosis "tradition" Which is why the churhc is "the pillar and foundation of truth" according to sc ritpure.

3/ Catholic doctrine and practice has changed little - other than the acorn grew into an oak. It did not change species. So we believe now what the early church provably did. eg a real presence in the eucharsit valid only if performed by bishops in successions or their appointees. Study the first century christiantity!

4/ Meanwhile YOUR protestant MAN MADE TRADITION of "sola scriptura" - nowhere mentioned in scripture - has empowered at least 5 mutually exclusive interpretations of eucharist, same of baptism, of salvation, clergy, marriage and remarriage, sacraments.. you name it, protestants DISAGREE on it and has fractured into 10000 bits all with different exclusive belief sets.. Why? Because scripture is NOT alone, it never was. YOu cannot choose any meaning you like. Only one meaning is truth. The fathers who chose your new testament, also agreed what scripture meant - the meaning handed down "paradosis" tradtion.

So catholics believe is sola dei Verbum, not sola scriptura - and the role of authority and tradition in that. Because that is what the early church believed.
So study the early church, and you like me will be drawn back to ROme.

Protestant doctrine makes no sense.
Without the catholic church, you have no new testament!
And makes no mores sense in red bold writing than it does in black and white!

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

BTW -- no church has spawned more division than the RCC -- historically speaking.

And that includes 3 popes each with their own papal army - Catholics killing Catholics... and of course Pope Clement XIV abolishing forever -- the Jesuit order.

=======================

But enough of that ... certainly the group in Germany is not trying to solve the problem of Catholic history.

Rather they are trying to "bridge the gap" between Catholicism and Protestants

 

[DeaconDean]

Nothing you have said alters the fact that
1/. Sola scriptura is provably false. It is easily disprovable with simple logic, disprovable historically, and even scripture says it is false , where it says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" Not scripture.

You Catholics still crack me up.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

3/ Catholic doctrine and practice has changed little - other than the acorn grew into an oak. It did not change species. So we believe now what the early church provably did. eg a real presence in the eucharsit valid only if performed by bishops in successions or their appointees. Study the first century christiantity!

4/ Meanwhile YOUR protestant Man made tradition of "sola scriptura" has empowered at least 5 mutually exclusive interpretations of eucharist, same of baptism, of salvation, clergy, marriage and remarriage, sacraments.. you name it, protestants DISAGREE on it and has fractured into 10000 bits.. Why? Because scripture is not alone. YOu cannot choose any meaning you like. The fathers who chose your new testament, also agreed what scripture meant - the meaning handed down "paradosis" tradtion.


So study the early church, and you like me will be drawn back to ROme.

Protestant doctrine makes no sense.
And makes no mores sense in red bold writing than it does in black and white!

And your 2000 year history of the "church" has shown nothing but blood.

The blood of martyrs.

Disagree with the church and BAM, persecution, torture, death.

A "tradition" of keeping the scriptures out of the hands of the common man.

It really is sad that the Catholic church hated a man so bad, that 40 years after they killed him, they ordered him dug back up, burned at the stake, then poured his ashes in a river.

That is truly a "tradition" to be highly regarded.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BobRyan]

Nothing you have said alters the fact that
1/. Sola scriptura is provably false. It is easily disprovable with simple logic, disprovable historically, and even scripture says it is false ,

None of that is true... as we all know.


1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself. Not the work of the RCC
2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.




Acts 17 - highlights a detail that defeats the entire argument against sola scriptura.

The Jews in Berea had as their overlords their own Rabbi's their long standing traditions of men.
The "god fearing gentiles" in those synagogues had the same domineering overlords commanding them what to think.
None of them had the RCC as their masters nor was the OT text a product of the RCC. And there was no RCC in the first century .. to even write the NT.

Notice the obvious - Paul and Silas come with a Bible-based message that is more Bible than overlord-of-the-Jews man-made-tradition.

A. Many hear would argue that "thinking outside the box" ...freeing themselves from the chains imposed by their overlords and "searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were SO" was Holy Spirit lead - and proof that even in the most UNFAVORABLE context - sola scriptura still wins!

B. Others would argue "this never should have happened since the overlords-of-tradition should always be obeyed and scripture is not all that clear in what it says anyway".

So here was a perfect demonstration in favor of position-A

 

[BobRyan]

Your problem remains the same: Sola Scriptura (as you have defined it) is taught nowhere in Scripture, so the doctrine is self-refuting.
.

Until you read the actual Bible in places like this --



Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In Isaiah 8:19 we find this "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them".

There again we have sola scriptura - being taught.


And Paul insists that he and everyone else be tested that same way -

Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

We can know what had been preached by Paul as of Gal 1... by reading the texts themselves.


Plenty of evidence in the Bible for the saints using the "sola scriptura" method to test all doctrine and tradition to "see IF those things are true"

 

[BobRyan]

2/ Jesus did not give us a new testament, he gave us apostles

if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!


Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Jesus gave us this "example" of condemning the magesterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - the church of His day.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have handed down: and many such like things do ye.

In Isaiah 8:19 we find this "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them".

 

[BobRyan]

So modern day "bible christians" like you are a product of the printing press, and the last two centuiries education and affluence allowing people like you to own a bible. Very few did in the first millenium! So doctrine was passed in the early church by paradosis "tradition" Which is why the churhc is "the pillar and foundation of truth" according to sc ritpure. !

They "studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things were true" Acts 17:11 NOT "They studied paradosis because they had no scripture -- to see if those things were true" -- the point remains.

Acts 17
"Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures"

Not " reasoned with them from paradosis because they had no scriptures"

The point remains.

irrefutable

 

[FireDragon76]

"sola scriptura" is an operating principle, not a de fide belief. Being Protestant need not involve a commitment to the absolutism that Catholic apologists presume. It is merely a rejection of the claims of papal infallibility.

 

[PeaceB]

Sola Scriptura means that it's the Bible (Alone) that is our ultimate, final authority for determining doctrine, as opposed to Papal decrees, "Holy Tradition" as used by the RCC at that time, the decisions of the historic church councils, etc.

By the way, this does not rule out using reason, archaeology, church history, etc in order to understand Scripture properly, but all these are just aides or tools to be used towards understanding the Bible. They are not the authorities in themselves.

Your problem remains the same: Sola Scriptura (as you have defined it) is taught nowhere in Scripture, so the doctrine is self-refuting.

A chapter and verse that states or otherwise teaches Sola Scriptura (as you have defined it) shall not be forthcoming, because no such verse exists.

The reason for Luther's call to reform was the tyranny of Rome. It comes down to the sacraments, Rome effectively teaches you cannot be properly baptized unless by them, so they are defacto agents of salvation rather then ministers of the gospel.

No, the Catholic Church accepts as valid Christian baptisms that were performed by Protestants, as long as it was done with water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Most converts into the Church can attest to that for you.

 

[BobRyan]

"sola scriptura" is an operating principle, not a de fide belief. Being Protestant need not involve a commitment to the absolutism that Catholic apologists presume. It is merely a rejection of the claims of papal infallibility.

It is a rejection of a great many Catholic doctrines that are not supported by the Bible... in fact they contradict what the Bible teaches.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is a rejection of a great many Catholic doctrines that are not supported by the Bible... in fact they contradict what the Bible teaches.

It means different things in different churches. In the Lutheran confessions, it is simply an insistence of biblical primacy over things such as traditions or councils. However, it need not imply inerrancy or infallibility.

 

[GingerBeer]

The Holy Spirit authored the Bible

Which bible are you talking about? My KJV has 79 books, my RSV has 73, my OSB has 76, and my NASB has 66.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your problem remains the same: Sola Scriptura (as you have defined it) is taught nowhere in Scripture, so the doctrine is self-refuting.

A chapter and verse that states or otherwise teaches Sola Scriptura (as you have defined it) shall not be forthcoming, because no such verse exists.


No, the Catholic Church accepts as valid Christian baptisms that were performed by Protestants, as long as it was done with water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Most converts into the Church can attest to that for you.

So your saying I can be saved apart from the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Phil 1:21]

It is a rejection of a great many Catholic doctrines that are not supported by the Bible... in fact they contradict what the Bible teaches.

I still recall the first time I actually decided to sit down, read, and study the Bible. I was shocked at not only how many RC beliefs I was taught that were no where in the Bible, but how many of them directly contradicted the word of God. I cannot begin to describe the gratitude I have for our Lord that He led me to a relationship with Him.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sola scriptura is easily provable as LOGICALLY false .
A man made tradition of the reformation.
Nowhere have you contested that.

And that is the reason all protestants disagree with each other and schism with alarming regularity

Indeed your first post is offensive to truth, let alone catholics!

You hold as high truth something similar to: "all necessary truth for salvation is in scripture"( you define it...none of the definitions work, which is why I dont agree with them!)

So to be logically consistent scripture must contain your "high truth" or is self refuting.
Nowhere does scripture say that, so QED Sola scriptura is false. Basic logic on which you fail. In English - where in the bible does it say it has to be in the bible? it does not!

Indeed...the bible actually contradicts it where it says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church! PROVING there is truth outside scripture, indeed the very pillar of truth is outside scripture!

You are leading everyone up the garden path!

It is also NOT how our Lord decided truth was to be passed down.
And it is NOT how the early church handed down truth.
Study the early church and you will see true doctrine.

Our Lord also gave authority to pronounce truth on doctrinal conflicts - with the power to bind and loose. THe catholic councils that decided your canon and creed
Study what those fathers believed.

If you do not accept their power in council, you threw out the new testament with that decision!

NO AMOUNT OF RED WRITING CAN FIX IT FOR YOU
Until you study the early church and accept the falasy that is sola scriptura, you are sadly lost.

They "studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things were true" Acts 17:11 NOT "They studied paradosis because they had no scripture -- to see if those things were true" -- the point remains.

Acts 17
"Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures"

Not " reasoned with them from paradosis because they had no scriptures"

The point remains.

irrefutable

 

[Albion]

Sola scriptura is easily provable as LOGICALLY false .
A man made tradition of the reformation.
Nowhere have you contested that.

It's been contested repeatedly by different people here and the posts are still available for you to read.

And that is the reason all protestants disagree with each other and schism with alarming regularity

Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone will agree, just that Scripture is where the truth lies. The same can be said of the Catholic approach which says that Tradition, Papal decrees, Councils, and etc. are definitive. There's no agreement even among the various Catholic churches on what all of those are saying.

 

[Mountainmike]

It has never been contested successfully. It cant be.Sola scriptura is a falasy

Despite the number of words protestants throw at pages trying to hide the fact that it is a provable falasy!
They cannot contest it!

And it was provably not how our Lord chose to pass down the faith.
That is history. As is what is in the doctrine of the early church, passed on by the apostles. Like real flesh in the eucharist .

Sola scriptura IS the reason you alll disagree with each other on every substantive aspect of doctrine.You name it, protestants disagree on it. THey lost the anchors of authority and tradition which carries the meaning of the faith.

Because you cannot divorce scripture from its meaning, and still have the word of God: it is also why Luther lamented in later life, that "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

You can take your pick.
Accept the wisdom of catholic councils because they were inspired by the power to "bind and loose"
So then listen to what those fathers say it meant - and the true faith they passed on.

Or accept the logical consequence of your false doctrine - that your new testament is not inspired, in which case stop quoting from it!

The horns of the protestant dilemma. Take your pickl

It's been contested repeatedly by different people here and the posts are still available for you to read.


Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone will agree, just that Scripture is where the truth lies. The same can be said of the Catholic approach which says that Tradition, Papal decrees, Councils, and etc. are definitive. There's no agreement even among the various Catholic churches on what all of those are saying.

 

[Phil 1:21]

And it was provably not how our Lord chose to pass down the faith.

The Lord didn't choose to pass down faith through scripture? Okie dokie then.

 

[Albion]

It has never been contested successfully. It cant be. It is a falasy

All you're saying there is that you are determined not to disagree with the denomination to which you belong.

Sola scriptura IS the reason you alll disagree with each other on every substantive aspect of doctrine.

As noted, all of the churches (Catholic and Orthodox) that follow some other guidance system disagree with each other on important doctrines, too, so your point is obviously incorrect. Not one of them agrees with any other.

Because you cannot divorce scripture from its meaning, and still have the word of God: it is also why Luther lamented in later life, that "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

We should all agree with Luther that disagreements on doctrine are to be regretted, but that is not the fault of the word of God! It's a consequence of sin and our resultant human nature.