About claiming scriptural authority...

[amariselle]

That has nothing to do with non-ecclesiastical interpretation of scripture.

Indeed, it was a response to your claim that "few if any" have died because they read the Bible for themselves and desired that others be able to do the same.

The safe route, but not necessarily the only route. God is the judge of souls and not bound by any limits, yet we are.

"The safe route"? God has provided One Way and One Way only to be saved, and that is by faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins. (John 14:6) Salvation does not come through any specific church denomination, its religious traditions or ordinances. The Way is narrow. (Matthew 7:13-14)

On judgement day we'll see.

Although it is true that we cannot know for certainty whether someone else is truly "saved" in this life, we can in fact have assurance in our own salvation because of our faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross, once for all.

" Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5:24

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." -1 John 5:12-13

Otherwise, it's not very "good news" if we can't trust that it's true and that we can know we are saved.

 

[amariselle]

I expected intelligent counter arguments. I'm sorry I didn't get any though...

Counter arguments to what? You personally malign people who are "Sola Scriptura" and you expect "intelligent counter arguments"?

Perhaps you should have presented your thoughts in a way that encouraged the "intelligent counter arguments" you say you desire, rather than launching accusations and expressing derision and condemnation for others who don't hold your particular viewpoint, by saying this, for example:

"So, to all you in here (and there are several of you) who seek to toss your own subjective interpretation of scripture on others and do your best to strangle discussion by claiming superior insight in scripture. You end up in that ditch, you run the errand of the world, a world who seek to undermine Christianity and shatter the faithful and spreading them around, cut of the rest of the Christian world. The world wants to see Christianity torn apart and privatised to the level where even evangelizing people will be ilegalised."

Yeah, suggesting that those who hold to "Sola Scriptura" are actually "undermining" Christianity and running "the errand of the world" and that because of this Christianity will be "torn apart" and "privatized" leading to evangelism becoming illegal? That's a whole lot of condemnation and blame going on there.

Or by suggesting that "Sola Scriptura" could even "be the end of Christianity as a cultural and moral voice in a increasingly anti Christian world."

As I said, the OP was blatantly antagonistic and it certainly does not encourage any "intelligent counter arguments" or meaningful and respectful discussion. The tone and content of it, suggests rather, that perhaps you were looking for some kind of fight.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Indeed, it was a response to your claim that "few if any" have died because they read the Bible for themselves and desired that others be able to do the same.

But Martin Luther wasn't a layman with no clue was he?
It was the ultimate theological freedom of theologians he fought for if anything.

"The safe route"? God has provided One Way and One Way only to be saved, and that is by faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins. (John 14:6) Salvation does not come through any specific church denomination, its religious traditions or ordinances. The Way is narrow. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Romans 12:4
4 For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function

One body, as in the one Catholic apostolic church built by Christ himself upon the confession of Kaifas himself.

Although it is true that we cannot know for certainty whether someone else is truly "saved" in this life, we can in fact have assurance in our own salvation because of our faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross, once for all.

" Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5:24

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." -1 John 5:12-13

Otherwise, it's not very "good news" if we can't trust that it's true and that we can know we are saved.

You're badly mistaken.

Matthew 25:31-46

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, 32 and all the nations[a] will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ 40 And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 41 [c]Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ 44 [d]Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ 45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ 46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”


There will be those who thought they were safe who'll be sent of to Gehenna. Sadly that is.

 

[Goatee]

Countless people died throughout history because they would not bow to the Roman Catholic Church or the Papacy. It is well documented history.



Are you saying that one has to be a faithful Catholic to see the kingdom of God?

Here we go again, same person on the same band wagon yet again!

 

[amariselle]

Here we go again, same person on the same band wagon yet again!

Go read what that was a response to before making assumptions. I asked an honest question in response to a comment made.

These forums are for discussion, as such I will discuss things. You are not required to respond to me (nor is anyone else)

God bless.

 

[amariselle]

But Martin Luther wasn't a layman with no clue was he?
It was the ultimate theological freedom of theologians he fought for if anything.

Who said anything about Martin Luther specifically?

Romans 12:4
4 For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function

One body, as in the one Catholic apostolic church built by Christ himself upon the confession of Kaifas himself.

These verses refer to the Church, yes, made up of all true believers in Christ for salvation. (Not one specific denomination.)

You're badly mistaken.

Matthew 25:31-46

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, 32 and all the nations[a] will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ 40 And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 41 [c]Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ 44 [d]Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ 45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ 46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”


There will be those who thought they were safe who'll be sent of to Gehenna. Sadly that is.

Read those verses carefully. When Jesus separates the "sheep" from the "goats", He already knows who the "sheep" are. He does not use the "works" He speaks of as criteria to separate the "sheep" from the "goats", He separates them and then commends them for the things they did as His children. The fact that the sheep even seem to be unaware of when they did these things Jesus speaks of also clarifies that they knew they were not doing such things in an effort to earn or merit their salvation. Otherwise, they would not have been taken off guard when Jesus spoke of what they had done for others.

Sadly these verses have caused a lot of confusion and doubt, and I used to be very troubled by them as well. The Bible is clear, we are not saved by works, but by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. And we can and should have absolute assurance of our salvation, because we can trust in Jesus. He did not fail in what He came to accomplish, and He has promised never to leave us or forsake us.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Did you know that though you consider doing so when confronted by the challenging theology of others pious, you actually undermine and falsify them by patronizing their faith and position.

This actually leads to the opposite of what you probably thought, you're helping the secularization of Christianity all together.

If theology falls into the fallpit where there's no room for challenges and/ or need for good reasons to uphold doctrine and normative theology without being ostracized, then in the end Christianity will end up as a private matter, a faith where everyone claim orthodoxy in their interpretation of scripture and no theology is open for discussion.

If all Christians saw theology this way then we'd face a completely privatised and secular, subjective religion.

The reason why this is the case?
If no-one's allowed to question any part of what constitutes your faith in God then the door into a fruitful theological discussion is forever closed.

So, to all you in here (and there are several of you) who seek to toss your own subjective interpretation of scripture on others and do your best to strangle discussion by claiming superior insight in scripture.

You end up in that ditch, you run the errand of the world, a world who seek to undermine Christianity and shatter the faithful and spreading them around, cut of the rest of the Christian world. The world wants to see Christianity torn apart and privatised to the level where even evangelizing people will be ilegalised.

Sola Scriptura with every man as interpreter can easily be the end of Christianity as a cultural and moral voice in a increasingly anti Christian world.

true you shouldn't just claim you're right becuase you have some superior spiritual insight or wisdom (was talking with an orthodox who kept doing this on a discussion forum when he couldn't address something ) but you should prove it.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'll also add this:

I for one have never "done my best to strangle discussion by claiming superior insight into Scripture."

I've actually done the opposite and tried to encourage discussion by sharing Scripture (in comparison to, for instance, what the Catholic Catechism teaches about a particular subject).

But you don't. You share YOUR interpretation of scripture , and because it is only your interpretation without reference to tradition or authority, not surprisingly you consider it contradicts the catechism.
If you looked around you would see many read the same scripture, not just catholics and they also disagree with you on meaning on many aspects of scripture.

But If I understood him correctly.
Stabat master was not making a "catholic" point. He was saying that the undignified squabble of Christians between themselves on doctrine is bound to result in the secular world thinking "even they cant agree on any of it, so it clearly cannot be truth". The nature of the debate can influence the acceptance of Christianity.

And stabat is right. Your post a good example. The way you wrote even this post I think is too confrontational.

You could temper it by saying. "this scripture appears to contradict because..." instead of saying "it does contradict". You should temper it because in simple numbers the vast majority of theologians and very learned people, came to a different conclusion. For that reason alone you could express your disagreement, but do it in a far less confronational way saying " I think it is " not "it is"

 

[dqhall]

Did you know that though you consider doing so when confronted by the challenging theology of others pious, you actually undermine and falsify them by patronizing their faith and position.

This actually leads to the opposite of what you probably thought, you're helping the secularization of Christianity all together.

If theology falls into the fallpit where there's no room for challenges and/ or need for good reasons to uphold doctrine and normative theology without being ostracized, then in the end Christianity will end up as a private matter, a faith where everyone claim orthodoxy in their interpretation of scripture and no theology is open for discussion.

If all Christians saw theology this way then we'd face a completely privatised and secular, subjective religion.

The reason why this is the case?
If no-one's allowed to question any part of what constitutes your faith in God then the door into a fruitful theological discussion is forever closed.

So, to all you in here (and there are several of you) who seek to toss your own subjective interpretation of scripture on others and do your best to strangle discussion by claiming superior insight in scripture.

You end up in that ditch, you run the errand of the world, a world who seek to undermine Christianity and shatter the faithful and spreading them around, cut of the rest of the Christian world. The world wants to see Christianity torn apart and privatised to the level where even evangelizing people will be ilegalised.

Sola Scriptura with every man as interpreter can easily be the end of Christianity as a cultural and moral voice in a increasingly anti Christian world.

It is good to learn the scripture and be able to practice Jesus' teachings in everyday life. I find it easier to memorize verses by repetitive readings than to practice them. When tempted, the one who memorized Jesus' teachings, may avoid the pitfalls of sin. I am sure I might have died, had I not sought to learn the scriptures myself rather than wait for church official to explain everything to me. I can read much faster than a preacher can talk.

 

[amariselle]

But you don't. You share YOUR interpretation of scripture , and because it is only your interpretation without reference to tradition or authority, not surprisingly you consider it contradicts the catechism.
If you looked around you would see many read the same scripture, not just catholics and they also disagree with you on meaning on many aspects of scripture.

But If I understood him correctly.
Stabat master was not making a "catholic" point. He was saying that the undignified squabble of Christians between themselves on doctrine is bound to result in the secular world thinking "even they cant agree on any of it, so it clearly cannot be truth". The nature of the debate can influence the acceptance of Christianity.

And stabat is right. Your post a good example. The way you wrote even this post I think is too confrontational.

You could temper it by saying. "this scripture appears to contradict because..." instead of saying "it does contradict". You should temper it because in simple numbers the vast majority of theologians and very learned people, came to a different conclusion. For that reason alone you could express your disagreement, but do it in a far less confronational way saying " I think it is " not "it is"

It's interesting you would mention being "confrontational". The OP was nothing if not that.

As for interpretation. The Bible is actually perfectly clear on so many things, and we are also promised the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Scriptures, to guide us in understanding them.

God bless.

 

[Rescued One]

No you didn't get it.
Did I mention Rome even once?, no I didn't.

This is a jab at those who spread the sheep and a alarm bell to those who suffer under their own insecure faith combined with a pinch of pride.

It doesn't have to be Rome, but as you can read off of my OP in order to keep total secularization of our religion from getting a flat out victory we need to entrust the theologians through the church, the professionals who actually knows what they're doing when interpreting scripture in the original language.

If our theology is rubbing you of then choose a different church, but don't fall into pride and believe yourself to be the ultimate theologian and judge.

If you don't like Rome, then seek the Methodists, the Anglicans, the Lutherans or any other church.

If you don't like non-Catholicism, we won't force you to leave your pope.

 

[amariselle]

If you don't like non-Catholicism, we won't force you to leave your pope.

Indeed, no one can or should force anyone to do anything.

 

[Rescued One]

But you don't. You share YOUR interpretation of scripture , and because it is only your interpretation without reference to tradition or authority, not surprisingly you consider it contradicts the catechism.
If you looked around you would see many read the same scripture, not just catholics and they also disagree with you on meaning on many aspects of scripture.

But If I understood him correctly.
Stabat master was not making a "catholic" point. He was saying that the undignified squabble of Christians between themselves on doctrine is bound to result in the secular world thinking "even they cant agree on any of it, so it clearly cannot be truth". The nature of the debate can influence the acceptance of Christianity.

And stabat is right. Your post a good example. The way you wrote even this post I think is too confrontational.

You could temper it by saying. "this scripture appears to contradict because..." instead of saying "it does contradict". You should temper it because in simple numbers the vast majority of theologians and very learned people, came to a different conclusion. For that reason alone you could express your disagreement, but do it in a far less confronational way saying " I think it is " not "it is"

We have never stopped a person from coming to Christ.

John 6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 17
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

 

[amariselle]

We have never stopped a person from coming to Christ.

John 6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 17
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Yes, I fail to see how holding fast to God's word would ever keep any person from coming to Christ. This is why I have repeatedly said I am glad we can read it for ourselves. It is a blessed privilege to be able to do so, one that not everyone, even today, has.

 

[Haipule]

Did you know that though you consider doing so when confronted by the challenging theology of others pious, you actually undermine and falsify them by patronizing their faith and position.

This actually leads to the opposite of what you probably thought, you're helping the secularization of Christianity all together.

If theology falls into the fallpit where there's no room for challenges and/ or need for good reasons to uphold doctrine and normative theology without being ostracized, then in the end Christianity will end up as a private matter, a faith where everyone claim orthodoxy in their interpretation of scripture and no theology is open for discussion.

If all Christians saw theology this way then we'd face a completely privatised and secular, subjective religion.

The reason why this is the case?
If no-one's allowed to question any part of what constitutes your faith in God then the door into a fruitful theological discussion is forever closed.

So, to all you in here (and there are several of you) who seek to toss your own subjective interpretation of scripture on others and do your best to strangle discussion by claiming superior insight in scripture.

You end up in that ditch, you run the errand of the world, a world who seek to undermine Christianity and shatter the faithful and spreading them around, cut of the rest of the Christian world. The world wants to see Christianity torn apart and privatised to the level where even evangelizing people will be ilegalised.

Sola Scriptura with every man as interpreter can easily be the end of Christianity as a cultural and moral voice in a increasingly anti Christian world.

I can personally affirm that the God promised zOE-life is far superior to anyone's "sola scriptura" and definitely beyond "Holy Tradition". With out life there is no understanding of Scripture. They remain but lifeless words on a page left unlived and unbreathed!

The theology of man is foolishly trying to limit thee infinite of God's Word into finite principles of systematics that cannot breath or live beyond their hierarchal limited resources of their goofy ideas.

That includes the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and all Reformisms. Which is everyone!

Thee, of God, given and promised zOE is so far beyond man's invented theology, that it runs circles around them and wonders why everyone is stuck in the lifeless filthy mud, completely useless, and going nowhere!

God didn't put you there: theology did!

Q: What unites as one? A: God's Life, God's Love, God's breathed Word.
Q: What divides, and continues to divine us? A: theology!

 

[amariselle]

I can personally affirm that the God promised zOE-life is far superior to anyone's "sola scriptura" and definitely beyond "Holy Tradition". With out life there is no understanding of Scripture. They remain but lifeless words on a page left unlived and unbreathed!

The theology of man is foolishly trying to limit thee infinite of God's Word into finite principles of systematics that cannot breath or live beyond their hierarchal limited resources of their goofy ideas.

That includes the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and all Reformisms. Which is everyone!

Thee, of God, given and promised zOE is so far beyond man's invented theology, that it runs circles around them and wonders why everyone is stuck in the lifeless filthy mud, completely useless, and going nowhere!

God didn't put you there: theology did!

Q: What unites as one? A: God's Life, God's Love, God's breathed Word.
Q: What divides, and continues to divine us? A: theology!

I can agree that we can all be wrong, and so we must carefully and diligently search the Scriptures, as the Bereans were commended for doing. (Acts 17:11)

Also significant, regarding knowing what we believe and why, are these verses:

"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." - 1 Timothy 4:16

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." - Jude 3

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

When I bite your cheese upon your catch, 'tis not your neck the hammer will be breaking. Therefore, this humble rat will do his own thinking, and not merely take whatever the greater beings have offered.

 

[Haipule]

I can agree that we can all be wrong, and so we must carefully and diligently search the Scriptures, as the Bereans were commended for doing. (Acts 17:11)

Also significant, regarding knowing what we believe and why, are these verses:

"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." - 1 Timothy 4:16

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." - Jude 3

Agreed. I am not saying there is anything wrong with Scripture. I love them so! Yet, these Scripture's are life to me, not just words on a page. Anyone can read, "We live by faith". Until that is a personal experience in God's faith, they are but unlived words.

"Doctrine" is a bad word to me because of how it was taught to me. I'm sure that that is not your concern when you say "doctrine". It was taught to me finitely since my youth. But, my life became infinite beyond words. How does one explain an infinite when everyone wants a finite?

Yet, that word "doctrine" in 1 Timothy 4:16 is didoskalia(teaching) and means the didoskalia of a didoskalos(teacher). It in no wise is referring to the 'self-evident' truth that many claim their "doctrine" to be: Church Father or not!

To me, "doctrine" will always be nothing but a fork. The food is the spaghetti of God's Word to eat. Then why don't we eat instead of admiring our fork collection and argue about which fork is best?

 

[amariselle]

When I bite your cheese upon your catch, 'tis not your neck the hammer will be breaking. Therefore, this humble rat will do his own thinking, and not merely take whatever the greater beings have offered.

Interesting, is that a quote from somewhere?

 

[scottmcc2]

As a lay person I believed that the Holy Spirit could teach me the Scriptures. (John 14:26) So I set out to study the Bible and live it as I learned. Church provides a framework so we don't have to recreate the wheel. Church also provides a family of believers to fellowship with and grow.

Learning is not only understanding. It is also being able to do what we have learned. James 1:22 NASB "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. "