Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[redleghunter]

Not only that but the book worshipers who like to proudly proclaim they follow the bible the most don't even follow what it teaches.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former (Matthew 23:23, NKJV)".

That's quite a broad brushed generalized judgment. I hope the straw man does not have an account here.

 

[Xalith]

Yet you used Scripture to make your point....

I never said not to use Scripture.

Where did I say that?

The only thing I said is that Scripture is not the only source of knowledge from God.

Scripture is the final say so -- if anything contradicts Scripture, then that thing is wrong, false, lie, etc. If it doesn't conflict Scripture, well... you gotta think about it.

But I've seen SS people who immediately discard everything that isn't in Scripture, even stuff that doesn't conflict with Scripture.

 

[redleghunter]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding SS then? Whenever I see someone talking about SS, they usually mean "The Bible is the one-and-only source of divine knowledge."

To the point said SS believers will instantly disbelieve anything that's not in the Bible, even if it doesn't contradict the Bible.

Now yes, if something contradicts the Bible, then that something is dead out wrong. The Bible is the final but not the only say-so in all matters.

I've come across SS people who take it to extremes and literally worship the book: they refuse to believe in anything that's not in that book. If ain't in the book, it's a lie in their eyes.

You may have missed an earlier post. This may help.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

 

[Albion]

I never said not to use Scripture.

Where did I say that?

The only thing I said is that Scripture is not the only source of knowledge from God.

I believe the point was that there's something inherently deficient in any argument that says Scripture isn't sufficient...and then quotes from Scripture to try to prove it.

Scripture is the final say so -- if anything contradicts Scripture, then that thing is wrong, false, lie, etc. If it doesn't conflict Scripture, well... you gotta think about it.

No, you don't. If it's not in Scripture, "it"may be true. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that it ought to be made into a dogma that the church imposes upon its people and teaches them that it's a sin if they do not accept it. It may be true, for instance, that Jesus travelled to India or Britain or the Sinai while he was a teenager, BUT knowing or believing any of that is not necessary for salvation and not anything that God intended that we need to affirm as truth.

All of that has to be taken in and understood if this whole issue is to be addressed correctly.

 

[JacksBratt]

How can one repent of a sin he has not yet committed? If he had truly repented completely, then he would sin no more.

Well,,,, you can try. I know it's impossible, but go ahead. Sin no more..... not humanly possible.

The fact is that Confession is obedience to James 5:16. And you do know that the word translated as healed is the same as the word translated as "saved" in other verses. This word has both meanings.

I looked at several translations. The only difference in this passage is that "sins" is translated as faults but "healed" is always "healed".

God commands us to always be repenting, not just once and done. The fact is that sin that has not yet been confessed cannot be forgiven, and since you cannot confess for what you haven't done, the logic completely falls apart that all sins are forgiven. All sins can be forgiven. But those we hide from God and from our commanded Confession before the Church are not forgiven.

When we accept Christ as our savior, we are saved. Nothing will change that. Eternal life signed sealed and delivered at the time of death.

Ask yourself, if you die mid week when you have sins that you have not been to the priest to confess, what happens to your soul?

However, if you have a direct line to God and don't need an elder for guidance, then you don't need to tell anyone else your needs either. You don't need to make prayer requests of other people. It's a paradox.

That is twisting my words. I do not need any other human being alive or dead in order to have my sins forgiven in the eyes of God.

I said nothing about not needing others from time to time to consult for guidance. These, however, can be my wife, my father, my uncle, my boss, my neighbor or a friend on the baseball team.

I do not need to have other people make prayer requests for me. This is not a prerequisite for my prayer being heard. It is certainly something I do because it is reassuring to have others praying for your needs as I pray for the needs of others.

Besides that, where did I say that one receives forgiveness from the elder in Confession. That's not the reason he is there. He is there to stand witness to the forgiveness, not grant it. That is the Orthodox teaching of Confession.

My apologies.

But there's something else here: If all of our sins are already forgiven, then we have no need to confess even directly to God, much less to a human leader put in our lives by God. They're forgiven already. You don't need to mention them. If you pay the full price of a car, do you then continue giving monthly payments to the dealership for the car you bought outright? Of course not! Sure, in God's point of view, they are forgiven, because He is out of time and has already seen every instance of your life and every action you will take. But within time, confession must be made daily in prayer and regularly before an elder who will stand witness not as a mediator, but as an intercessor.

Salvation is not a license to sin. If we are truly humble and repentant we will feel contrite and ask for forgiveness. However, once we are saved we do not have to continually asking for salvation.

You don't have to make more payments on the car but you will certainly be judged on the shape it's in at the end of your life and where you went with it.

And yes, we can pray for the forgiveness of others, as well. Stephen and Christ both did that during their executions.

Christ did for sure as He is God.... Stephen may have done so but his prayer in no way was going to admonish the killers from their guilt.

The reason for Confession is for healing, as you said, but healing is part of salvation, because they are the same word in Greek. You could literally use heal and save interchangeably in Scripture and it would be equally true for the New Testament.

Well, I couldn't find any translation that stated such a thing.

The thing is, when you go to confession the first thing you say is "forgive me Father, for I have sinned". Personally, I don't follow that view.

 

[redleghunter]

The Ecumenical Councils relied upon Tradition, not some book, to preserve the ancient Christian faith and teach the doctrines that Christians accept today.

The Councils did not use Holy Scriptures to establish truth claims? I don't know where you are in your "journey home" studies, but I would check the writings of at least Athanasius.

What did Athanasius say confirmed the teachings of the Apostles and traditions of the fathers?

 

[redleghunter]

The Ecumenical Councils relied upon Tradition

What were/are those Traditions? The Rule of Faith? Everywhere I read a church father or theologian invoke 'tradition' they are using quotations from Holy Scriptures or teaching "the tradition we hold comes from the Apostles as we see in St. Peter's words...." Which mean, today, that is the Bible and not some non-descript list of traditions recorded outside of what we have written the OT and NT today.

 

[mikpat]

The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, history, letters, songs etc. - requiring different ways understanding. Literal translation is almost impossible, since Jesus taught often in figurative language and parables.

The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8: 30 is stumped in reading the Book of Isaiah and needed St. Phillip to help him out.
These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16: 18-19, John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.

 

[redleghunter]

Laying on a hands was a common Jewish practice to confer authority or divine power. The early church was not Congregationalist.

Congregation is ekklesia.

 

[redleghunter]

John 10:16

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Wasn't you suppose to be Sola Scriptura?.....

At least you should be more learned in scriptura. We catholics say that We are Scriptura and Tradition our dutty if to know well the scripture and to understand the Traditions which the Apostles didn't write

What are those traditions the Apostles did not write? I will accept passages from early, early church theologians within context of how they viewed these traditions.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

1. NT pastors are called "priests" (“hiereus” or “archiereus," despite occurring over 280 times total).

Apocalypse 5:10 (revelation 5:10)

Fail: Rv. 5:10 does not refer to NT pastors being distinctively called "priests", which is the issue, but to all believers being so: And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:10)
1. NT pastors are called "priests" (“hiereus” or “archiereus," despite occurring over 280 times total).

Excelent go and read 1 Corinthians 10:16

You are imagining things: there is simply no mention here or anywhere of NT pastors engaging in a unique sacerdotal function, that of offering the elements the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins, or even administering the Lord's supper:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16)

But seriously, ¿Were you trully catholic? or you just went to heat the benches.

More vanity. I was raised devout, and a weekly Mass-attending RC, who served as a CCD teacher and lector before I prayerfully left for a evangelical church, after becoming manifestly born again thru tearful faith in the Lord Jesus to save me, not my works.
3. The people are instructed to confess their sins distinctively to NT priests as a normal practice (James 5 does not).

Go and read Acts 19:18

Indeed go read it:
And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. (Acts 19:18)
Where are souls instructed to confess their sins distinctively to NT priests as a normal practice, and to obtain forgiveness thereby? It is simply not there. This was public confessions as a result of apostles preaching, with no distinctive priesthood in sight. You are continually seeing what you can only wish was in the NT.

And read John 20:23

I said in the life of the church (Acts oneward, which are interpretive of the gospels) for your conclusion of John 20:23 is the very question-begging issue, for which we look to the life of the church in order to understand it.

In which we see it manifested as dealing with discipline and judicial disputes which was not new, but flowed from the OT magisterium, (Dt. 17:8-13) and was not a normal practice of hearing confessions, nor as spiritual power of binding and loosing being restricted to the magisterium.

4. NT priests are distinctively charged with regularly hearing confessions and granting forgiveness as a part of their function, like as they are with preaching the word.

Go and read 2 Corinthians 5:18 and 19
What was that ministery o Reconciliation? Not only confession but all the other Sacraments Ordered by Jesus, God Himself.

More wishful and vain imagination. Indeed read Paul And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:18,19)

"The word of reconciliation" is not a call to regularly hear confessions so as to grant forgiveness, but that of and calling a overall wayward church to repentance.

And which ministry of reconciliation we see believers in general encouraged to engage in:

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

Moreover, the forgiveness of sins in loosing one from corporate discipline by Paul was predicated upon the church doing so, that if they forgave any thing, so did Paul in the name of Christ. (1Co. 7:10) .

5. NT priests are shown regularly hearing confessions of sins by the converted, apart from judicially hearing conflicts btwn believers and declaring souls guilty or innocent, along with the church.

Go and read Acts 19:18

That no more speaks of priests regularly hearing confessions of sins by the converted than the last time you read that into the text.
So your unScriptural elitism makes you more Catholic than the pope and V2?

I have brought what you asked for, and thus you have not at all excuse to Repent in Tears and come back to the Church.

You have utterly failed to even show any NT pastors being called priests in the NT church (apart from the priesthood of all believers, which is the only one that exists), let alone any pastors regularly hearing confessions of sins so as to grant absolution (as per Catholicism), or the flock being instructed to do so distinctively to NT priests as a normal practice, and now you add insolence to your wresting of Scripture.

Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner+ trust Him to save you, then follow Him!

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, counter-reformation/counter-confusion. And also just a good time to better categorize stuff. And while God's Word can never be considered anathema, SS rightly should be.

Back to definitions. Define SS since you want to anathematize it.

 

[Albion]

The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, history, letters, songs etc. - requiring different ways understanding. Literal translation is almost impossible, since Jesus taught often in figurative language and parables.

The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8: 30 is stumped in reading the Book of Isaiah and needed St. Phillip to help him out.
These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.

There isn't any particular issue in this ^ statement which we have any reason to argue over.

The visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16: 18-19, John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.

But then you make this completely illogical jump shift. Now, THAT's an issue.

 

[Philip_B]

The Councils did not use Holy Scriptures to establish truth claims? I don't know where you are in your "journey home" studies, but I would check the writings of at least Athanasius.

The Canon of the New Testament was not established - none the less I can't imagine the Nicene Creed without the prologue to 4G. John 1:1-14

 

[PeaceByJesus]

In Opposition to all other groups who go and use The Catholic Bible, The fact is that Saint John Apostle Was Refering to the TRUE CHURCH the one founded by Christ which is the Catholic Church. Yes many groups missuse the catholic bible, But We catholics know what church comes from the apostles where they remain.

Mere bombastic argument by assertion. Fail again.

 

[redleghunter]

In those times Jesus Was Talking of the Jews and the Non Jews who would believe in him and FOLLOW HIM, not of many "denominations" There is only one true church which Christ founded. The Catholic Church.

Is what you wrote above an infallible teaching of the Catholic church? If so please point me to it.

It would also be helpful to know how much of the Bible has been infallibly interpreted by the Catholic magisterium. It would help a lot in these discussions to actually know what is truly Catholic teaching and not the strong opinions or self interpretations of Catholics.

 

[redleghunter]

The Canon of the New Testament was not established - none the less I can't imagine the Nicene Creed without the prologue to 4G. John 1:1-14

A fair statement. I believe the following post makes a similar point. If not I can explain.

 

[redleghunter]

Finally we find the Truth... You were catholic and now an apostate, well Sorry to tell you:

1 John 2:18-19

18Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
19They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

Your sin is worse than if you would have never been catholic, YET you can repent and come back again to OBEDIENCE.

By the way, Feeling conmotion is not equal to finding Jesus, Even Jehova Wittnesses Feel nice, and they say they found Jesus but deny his divinity, Mormons feel Nice and they deny divinity of Jesus and of the Father, Adventists feel nice and mix Jesus and Saint Michael Archangel, and Protestants Feel Nice and Deny Confession, Priesthood ordination, Confirmation, Indisoluble Marriage, Eucharist as True Body and True Blood of Jesus, and they all say they feel nice......

What is this Feelings as source of truth? isn't it called Pusillanimity?

You use Bible verses as if you have an infallible interpretation of them. It is mere eisegesis you promote for your church as those verses in no way confirms your church is the one true church. As the OC posters here point out they are the one true church, and you point out your church is the one true church. Who are we to believe?

 

[redleghunter]

What you said is this: "He speaks those Word to the Apostles, not any other." If that's so, then he spoke the words to his Apostles and not to any other when it comes to the other verses which are the basis for claims about the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, and all the other powers that the churches claim have been handed down through successive generations of church leaders. You can say none of it was...or all of it was...but you can't logically pick and choose.

I've seen eisegesis in using Holy Scriptures, but this may be the first time I saw it used with their tradition. Interesting.

 

[redleghunter]

http://demotywatory.pl//uploads/1247685201_by_mateo3300_600.jpg

I think making fun gives weight to void arguments, doesn't it?

So does calling another poster an apostate. Hey isn't that up to a bishop to determine in your church? Confessional is open as far as I know early tomorrow.