Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[samir]

Christ only instituted one Church. That's the Church I'm referring to.

Got it. The one Church Christ instituted must not be the Catholic Church since you said the Catholic Church wasn't founded until Pentecost.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Got it. The one Church Christ instituted must not be the Catholic Church since you said the Catholic Church wasn't founded until Pentecost.

It was instituted, though, when Christ said "On this rock I will build my Church." Note he said he WILL. Not that he did.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

They aren't BOOKS, they are LETTERS. We read from the book of the prophet Isaiah. We read from St. Paul's Letter to the Ephesians.

Then correct your own bishops (among others) who call them books, or admit that insisting on Paul's words being called "letters" is irrelevant attempted minimization of the reality that Paul wrote 13 <strike>books </strike> (14 according to Trent) letters of Scripture, versus 2 by Peter despite as you purport, being the supreme father carefully watching over the flock who looked to him above all else on earth.

Why not? I mean, I know you just simply want to say "Peter ain't it", but why? If not Peter, then Paul? Why Paul? What did Christ give Paul, other than the teaching He gave Peter and the other apostles? What Christ gave Peter, though, was the keys to the Kingdom, the authority of the Prime Minister to act in the place of the King?

How can you ask "Why not?" Are you so intent on seeing what you want that you cannot see what i have told you time and again, and thus continue to argue that the Biblical leadership of Peter, which i affirmed, translates into perpetuated infallible Roman Petrine papacy, of the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning from Rome?

Which is wanton egregious extrapolation.

How can you add to the body of one's work? We just revere more than what's been written down.

How? By autocratically channeling purported Divine Truth out of an amorphous "body" of claimed oral "revelation." The validity of which rests upon the premise of Rome's infallibility. Which she in turn invokes Tradition to defend.

...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),

I wonder how often you think of Mary, other than at Christmas when you sing Silent Night?

Which recourse to vain ad hominem is just that.

Your charges are the false ones-we don't add anything, we merely admit to everything.

Yikes! What kind of argument by admission is that? What you admit to is that your denial of adding to the word of God is based upon adding to the word of God. The Mormons do the like. For as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Imposition of hands has always been the sign of ordination.

What?! Do you even read what the Holy Spirit as well as i wrote? There simply is NO laying on of hands in Gal. 2! Unlike in Acts 9:17; 13:3 where the Spirit distinctly says believers laid hands on Paul, and in the 2nd case in commissioning him, thus showing the Spirit knows how to express such, yet Gal. 2:9 says (in the KJV; DRB, they gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of [cf. Mt. 6:3; 20:21; 22:24; 26:64; 27:29; Acts 3:7) fellowship that they should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (NAB: "right hands in partnership").

And as shown, both were called apostles before they met with those who "seemed to be somewhat" in Jerusalem.

Your reading what you want and need out of Scripture which does not teach it is typical of RCs who reduce Scripture to being an abused servant, compelled to serve Rome.

Wrong. Compelled to serve God. Protecting God's teachings, and the authority of His Church to teach what she teaches.

You can recite your fantasy to your own comfort all you want, but the plainly evident fact here is that you are the one exposed reading what you want and need out of Scripture, which simply is not there!

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. Your translation and mine differ, which doesn't surprise me. Translations often change meanings to convey what they wish. What did Paul 'confer' with Peter and James about?

There is no conferring with James in Gal. 1:18, but certainly it would be normal for Paul to finally inquire of Peter and his own experiences and for the latter to get to know this notable and manifestly Spirit-filled and anointed, persecuted preacher, who had to escape from Damascus due to his bold and powerful preaching.

But rather than remaining or being sent by Peter, Paul was directly told by the Lord to escape from Jerusalem, for He was sending Paul to the Gentiles (Act_22:17, Act_22:18) which is the very ministry the 3 leaders in Gal. 2 affirmed.

And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
(Act 22:17-18,21)

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
(Gal 2:9)

I said nothing of changing doctrine. But Paul knew who Peter was and wanted confirmation that he had it all right.

Where do you see this "Paul knew who Peter was" in the text as meaning your pope? Paul says he went to see James, Cephas and John, "who were reputed to be pillars" (NAB), with no inference a supreme papacy, let alone a uniquely infallible Peter.

Meanwhile if Paul had any or significant doubts then he could hardly stress so much that he did not receive his gospel from man, and how the Lord directly spoke to Him, commissioned and sent him on his mission. Pau's theme is not that of assurance by man, but directly from God, though not as wholly independent from man.

But he had doubts as to whether leadership was wholly with him, and was open to correction in certain things, for if leadership opposed him then that could make his labor void by overthrowing the faith of some, which is what the letter to the Galatians is about. Paul prefaces his rebuke by establishing the foundation of his manifest Divine call, and which was confirmed by those who seemed to be something.

It was important that the faith not be taught differently.

That is certainly true, and thus from football to marriage there needs to be corporate agreement, and there is also magisterial recourse, but none of which infers or requires ensured infallibility of office. That itself would be teaching differently.

The petra/petros argument is ridiculous. Jesus didn't call Peter "Peter", he called him "Cephas".

And which (Kēphas) is not what the Lord said He would build His church on (petra). Thus as the argument says, RCs must resort to using something that we don't have the Aramaic text, but the Spirit chose to record the Lord's words in Greek in Mt. 16:18 and in rare other instances.

To add to the never-ending debate, a study by C.C. Caragounis, in “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter)
carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other. More

But in any case, it is incontrovertible that, as said, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible.

"He was taught by God, and made an apostle by the laying on of hands of Peter, James and John."

/quoteWrong again! Just where do you get this wanton eisegesis?, which is not even official RC teaching, but your own personal interpretation. The only persons who are ever recorded as laying hands on Saul/Paul were a certain devout disciple (Acts 9:10; 22:12) and "at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts 13:1-3).

And Paul was called an apostle (Acts 14:6,14) and ministering as such long before he even went to see Peter at Jerusalem, and brought Titus with him, whom he had likely met in Lystra during Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 13:4-52, 14:1-25) , having chosen of his own accord to "go to the Gentiles" after being rejected by the Jews. (Acts 13:46)

Which ministry was the cause of the conflict that necessitated the Gal. 2 meeting, which some make as the same as Acts 15, but in any case it was after Paul and Barnabas were already called apostles. And which apostolic ministry Paul never cites ordination by men for, with only the unknown Ananias having conveyed power to him, but testifies to God calling him to preach. (Acts 22:1-21; 26:9-23; Gal. 1:11-23)

After his baptism Paul "spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." (Acts 9:29-30)

In Acts 11:25-26 Barnabas finds Paul at Tarsus and brought him unto Antioch.In Acts 11:29-30 the disciples at Antioch determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judæa: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11:29-30)

In Acts 12:25 Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem after they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark. (Acts 12:25)

In Acts 13 Paul (and Barnabas) is sent forth by the Holy Ghost thru certain prophets and teachers, and departs unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus where they preach word of God in the synagogues of the Jews, and during the ministry Paul binds a man to blindness.

After passing to to Antioch, the Jews there reject a powerful gospel message by Paul, they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and pronounce judgment on them as a whole, and declare they will go to the Gentiles, and go unto Iconium, where in Acts 14 they go both together into the synagogue of the Jews. "But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles." (Acts 14:4)

Then they fled unto the region of Lystra where they must fend off attempts at worship, "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,... (Acts 14:14)

Which all was done without any mention of Peter except for the initial 15 days Paul mentions in minimizing the influence of man in Gal. 1, but who before Acts 15 was as yet unenlightened as to the inclusion of the Gentiles. Thus your polemical labor here in is in vain.

More specious extrapolation, as in reality were no manifest apostolic successors voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) Nor is there any manifest preparation for a papal successor in the light of Peter's impending death.

They had no authority to do what God did not, and which you essentially charge the Holy Spirit with leaving out of Scripture.

Which is more private interpretation which RCs reject as a form when it contradicts them.

However, this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy was apparently fulfilled in the OT - as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 36;22, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later].

In addition, the text actually foretells that,

"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)

Who this refers to is irrelevant, forit means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it did not here.

However, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).

For it is Christ, not Peter, who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6)

And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7)

Yet Christ told Peter "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

But only Christ is said to have the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth,” (Rev. 3:7) and who befits the other typology, while the key to the kingdom of heaven is manifestly the gospel, and which peter was the first to use, but which the whole church also preached, and the Lord even affirmed those without the apostolic company who manifestly did ministry in his name.

Wrong. Peter, after Pentecost, went on to be confirmed by Christ "Feed my sheep, tend my lambs". He converted, condemned, and healed in the name of Christ. Exactly what was prophesied.

Wrong: if this prophecy extends beyond Eliakim, which it is never invoked as doing, then it goes along with the government being committed into his hand and being be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, inferring a universality of particular kingly devotion, which does not describe Peter as having or otherwise being looked to as their father above the rest of the apostles, despite his initial use.

The early church continued in the apostles (plural) doctrine and Peter is soon eclipsed by Paul in Acts, who is the only apostles who calls himself a a father, and as one who has personally begotten children, (1Co. 4:15; 2Co. 12:14;; Ga 4:19; Titus 1:4; Phm 1:10-12) and never points them to Peter as their supreme "papa" over the house of spiritual Israel, or acknowledges him as being so, even to the Romans (resulting in more special pleading by RC apologists)

Meanwhile it is Christ who is given "the throne of his father David" and "shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Lk. 1:32) You can try to make Peter a vice regent, but none is mentioned for Eliakim.

But if you use the concept of the keys as describing the power to bind and loose, then Peter is not uniquely described as having it, since,

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:19)

And also applying to believers in general is this example of binding and loosing;

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. 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 5:16-20)

And as said if this prophecy has a future fulfillment in the NT era after Eliakim, then it is Christ who fulfills not simply shared aspects but the glory of this prophecy as a whole, including "And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah...they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons." (v. 24)

RCs can only dream that Peter realized this, but that the holy Spirit neglected to record it, and instead has Peter living in the house of a tanner (by the sea for a reason) and having no money, and spiritually is never pointed to in instruction to the churches as their supreme head, or reminded to look to, or commended for doing, in contrast to Rome.

Furthermore, RCs invoke this even though Rome has not infallibly interpreted this verse, and the weight of Scripture itself is not the basis for RC assurance of doctrine. Thus they can only condescend to appeal to evangelicals with Scripture, with goal of converting them to implicit trust in Rome. But when we reject their fallible arguments for Rome fail, they insist we need to submit to Rome to know what the Bible means, even if their own arguments are not binding interpretations.

"Which is simply absurd extrapolation. You take a church in Scripture (Acts-Rev.) that did not:
1. teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church"

your interpretation, wrong.

Rather, it is your assertion that remain wrong, being contrary to what Scripture substantiates.

2. practice praying to created beings in Heaven

Revelation where the saints in heaven take the prayers from earth to God.

What? That is the offering up of prayer in memorial before the judgments of the end times, not a postal service, and does not even show or teach that the church or any believer in Scripture ever prayed to created beings in Heaven, which is what the charge was, nor that they even heard these prayers!

3. had a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" who went to Heaven while the rest of believers endured postmortem purifying torments in order to atone for sins and become good enough to enter Heaven.
4. offered rote prayers to obtain early release from Purgatory

no such thing

Wrong again. Rote-Memorization by repetition (WordWeb)

Recitation of the Marian rosary. "a plenary indulgence is granted [under certain other conditions], if the rosary is recited in a church or public oratory or in a family group, a religious community or pious association; a partial indulgence is granted in other circumstances. "now the rosary is a certain formula of prayer, which is made up of fifteen decades of 'hail marys' with an 'our father' before each decade.. -
The Enchiridion of Indulgences, Issued by the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, 1968

5. required clerical celibacy as the norm,

a practice, not a doctrine, could be changed.

Irrelevant. It is a law that must be obeyed, and which is contrary to the NT, as stated.

ordained men distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which was to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life;

that's not what priests do, at all.

Wrong again. "Real" is in italics for a reason, meaning,
“true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965)

Thus the statement, “Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)

Even though "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker: "Explaining Transubstantiation")

but in the Last supper the incarnated Lord refers to His body which was to be crucified ("my body which is given for you") and the blood that was to be poured out ("this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for man"). And which was not like that of a Christ who was not manifestly incarnated, but who looked and sounded like and would taste and scientifically taste as real flesh and blood.

And as Jn. 6:53 is taken literally, then it is imagined by Catholics that by this consumption of “lifegiving flesh and blood” believers thereby obtain life in themselves.

...when the minister says, "The Body of Christ" or "The Blood of Christ," the communicant's "Amen" is a profession in the presence of the saving Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, who now gives life to the believer. ...The bread and wine of the Lord's Supper his Body and Blood as broken and poured out constitute the irreplaceable food for the journey of the "pilgrim church on earth." (USCCP: "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion," paragraphs. 4,14)

however, only the metaphorical explanation easily corresponds to the totality of Scripture, both with its use of metaphorical language as well as the means of obtaining spiritual life.

7. manifested the Lord's Supper in the life of the church as being the central focus and sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

you finally got one of our beliefs right!

And which simply remains in contrast to what is revealed in the life of the NT church.

8. looked to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome.

"Which you have a problem with, meh!"

Thinking of men far above that which is written is your problem.

I can agree that the papacy became more than what it was, but primarily because Constantine moved his government, and left none in Rome proper. The only available institution was the Church.There was no such coercion. The Rulers felt it was necessary in order to maintain good order and discipline.

meaning that neither Scripture nor history supports the pre-Constatian papacy, nor what came after it, but the latter defines the former, and enjoines docile submission to it. At least on paper.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

What does "humble and contrite" mean to you? To us, it means we submit to Christ's proper authority, the Church.

For Scripture can means anything Rome wants within the bounds of what the masses will swallow. No doubt those who sat in the seat of Moses would hold that "humble and contrite" meant submission to them in all things, thus their judgment concerning some Scripture-quoting itinerant Preacher and preachers that were drawing away disciples after themselves.

Actually, we have the only valid argument.

Which mantra is more self-comforting elitist bare bombast, which has been exposed as such for all to see, by God's grace.

 

[Bible2+]

PeaceByJesus said in post 1383:

And which (Kephas) is not what the Lord said He would build His church on (petra).

That's right.

For Matthew 16:18 meant that the literal gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against the "rock" in Matthew 16:18, which is Jesus himself (Matthew 16:16b,18b), the rock/stone on whom the church/New Covenant Israel is built (Ephesians 2:20, Matthew 16:18b; 1 Peter 2:6), the rock/stone who was rejected and crucified (Romans 9:33, Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:4,8), the same rock/Christ who followed Old Covenant Israel/the church in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4-5, cf. Acts 7:38), and the same rock/Christ revered by New Covenant Israel/the church (1 Peter 2:4-10).

That is, Matthew 16:18 was prophesying of when the literal gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against Jesus (Psalms 107:16), when, after his resurrection, he went down and liberated the souls of the dead Old Testament saints from Hades (1 Peter 4:6; 1 Peter 3:18c-19, Ephesians 4:8-9, Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24).

-

Also, it is sometimes (mistakenly) claimed that Matthew 16:18 means that the church can't be overcome by deception. But while we are assured that at least some people in the church will continue in the truth until Jesus' 2nd coming, for there will be true believers who will still be "alive and remain" at that time (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), the way that they will continue in the truth won't be by replacing God himself with church leaders as their source of truth, for church leaders are fallible (e.g. Matthew 16:23, Galatians 2:11-14, Luke 22:34). It is only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16, Acts 17:11b, John 17:17) that believers can be sure not to be led astray by any church leaders who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31b, Mark 8:35-38).

Because all humans (except Jesus) are fallible, the church itself (unlike God's own Word the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4) has never been a perfect model for Christian doctrine and practice. There have always been wrong divisions (Acts 6:1; 1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4) and heresies within the church (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). For even those whom the Holy Spirit has made leaders in the church (Acts 20:28) can wrongly employ their free will to teach wrong doctrines and practices which increase their power over people in the church (Acts 20:30, cf. also 3 John 1:9-10). They and their followers can mistakenly forget the warnings of 1 Peter 5:3, Matthew 20:25-27, and Matthew 23:8-12.

Also, even Satan's ministers can transform themselves into "apostles" of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, cf. also Matthew 7:15). And even those truly appointed as apostles by Jesus can wrongly employ their free will to fall from their office (Acts 1:17,20b,25). So even the teachings of apostles must be checked against God's own Word the Bible (Acts 17:11b). So how much more must the doctrine of lesser "teachers" in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11) be checked against the Bible, to make sure that what they are teaching isn't mistaken (2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:2-4)?

PeaceByJesus said in post 1383:

[Re: Matthew 16:19]

But only Christ is said to have the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth,” (Rev. 3:7) and who befits the other typology, while the key to the kingdom of heaven is manifestly the gospel, and which peter was the first to use, but which the whole church also preached, and the Lord even affirmed those without the apostolic company who manifestly did ministry in his name.

That's right.

For the principle in Matthew 16:19 doesn't apply only to Peter, but to the entire church which Jesus would build on himself the rock (Matthew 16:18-19, Ephesians 2:20). For the same principle is repeated later in Matthew 18:18, where it is addressing plural people (see the Greek) and where it can apply to everyone in the church, just as its context principles apply to everyone in the church (Matthew 18:17-20).

In Matthew 16:19, in the original Greek, the "thee" and the two "thou" verbs are singular, while in the original Greek of Matthew 18:18, the "you" and the two "ye" verbs are plural:

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you [plural], Whatsoever ye [plural] shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye [plural] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That's right.

For Matthew 16:18 meant that the literal gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against the "rock" in Matthew 16:18, which is Jesus himself (Matthew 16:16b,18b), the rock/stone on whom the church/New Covenant Israel is built (Ephesians 2:20, Matthew 16:18b; 1 Peter 2:6), the rock/stone who was rejected and crucified (Romans 9:33, Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:4,8), the same rock/Christ who followed Old Covenant Israel/the church in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4-5, cf. Acts 7:38), and the same rock/Christ revered by New Covenant Israel/the church (1 Peter 2:4-10).

That is, Matthew 16:18 was prophesying of when the literal gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against Jesus (Psalms 107:16), when, after his resurrection, he went down and liberated the souls of the dead Old Testament saints from Hades (1 Peter 4:6; 1 Peter 3:18c-19, Ephesians 4:8-9, Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24).

-

Also, it is sometimes (mistakenly) claimed that Matthew 16:18 means that the church can't be overcome by deception. But while we are assured that at least some people in the church will continue in the truth until Jesus' 2nd coming, for there will be true believers who will still be "alive and remain" at that time (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), the way that they will continue in the truth won't be by replacing God himself with church leaders as their source of truth, for church leaders are fallible (e.g. Matthew 16:23, Galatians 2:11-14, Luke 22:34). It is only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16, Acts 17:11b, John 17:17) that believers can be sure not to be led astray by any church leaders who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31b, Mark 8:35-38).

Because all humans (except Jesus) are fallible, the church itself (unlike God's own Word the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4) has never been a perfect model for Christian doctrine and practice. There have always been wrong divisions (Acts 6:1; 1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4) and heresies within the church (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). For even those whom the Holy Spirit has made leaders in the church (Acts 20:28) can wrongly employ their free will to teach wrong doctrines and practices which increase their power over people in the church (Acts 20:30, cf. also 3 John 1:9-10). They and their followers can mistakenly forget the warnings of 1 Peter 5:3, Matthew 20:25-27, and Matthew 23:8-12.

Also, even Satan's ministers can transform themselves into "apostles" of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, cf. also Matthew 7:15). And even those truly appointed as apostles by Jesus can wrongly employ their free will to fall from their office (Acts 1:17,20b,25). So even the teachings of apostles must be checked against God's own Word the Bible (Acts 17:11b). So how much more must the doctrine of lesser "teachers" in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11) be checked against the Bible, to make sure that what they are teaching isn't mistaken (2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:2-4)?

That's right.

For the principle in Matthew 16:19 doesn't apply only to Peter, but to the entire church which Jesus would build on himself the rock (Matthew 16:18-19, Ephesians 2:20). For the same principle is repeated later in Matthew 18:18, where it is addressing plural people (see the Greek) and where it can apply to everyone in the church, just as its context principles apply to everyone in the church (Matthew 18:17-20).

In Matthew 16:19, in the original Greek, the "thee" and the two "thou" verbs are singular, while in the original Greek of Matthew 18:18, the "you" and the two "ye" verbs are plural:

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you [plural], Whatsoever ye [plural] shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye [plural] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

A worthy addition, thanks and glory be to God.

And note that as expressed before, those who sat in the seat of Moses were magisterial inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

But which not mean that the enjoined obedience to them was that of Romish "assent of faith," or "of mind and will," based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

And given their well-evidenced propensity to extrapolate an oak tree out of sunflower seed, just imagine what RCs would say to an itinerant Preacher who reproved them if Scripture affirmed that she "committed the oracles of God," to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 3:2; 9:4)

 

[Bible2+]

PeaceByJesus said in post 1386:

And note that as expressed before, those who sat in the seat of Moses were magisterial inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

But which not mean that the enjoined obedience to them was that of Romish "assent of faith," or "of mind and will," based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Also, even those who sat in Moses' seat were to be obeyed (Matthew 23:2-3a) only so long as their teachings stayed true to the Mosaic law (Isaiah 8:20). So sola scriptura was even an Old Covenant requirement.

But it should be pointed out that Matthew 23:2-3a is no longer in effect, i.e. it is not applicable to Christians, because on Jesus' Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was completely and forever abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the 2nd covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

All believers, both Jews and Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, and shouldn't keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21), or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Believers keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

The New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:12,18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23), consisting of Jesus' New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15), such as those he gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of Paul the apostle (1 Corinthians 14:37). These commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48). So there is no reason why any believer should ever want to go back under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). It was just a temporary schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25), a temporary shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after he had set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, and long before he brought that promise to fulfillment in Jesus' New Covenant (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13). For example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required an Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30), while the New Covenant replaced the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchisedechian priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required animal sacrifices for sin (e.g. Leviticus 23:19), while the New Covenant replaced these with the one-time sacrifice of Jesus (Hebrews 10).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is the Hagar to the New Covenant's Sarah (Galatians 4:21-25). So those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law are like Ishmael, Abraham's son by a bondmaid (Galatians 4:22), who was cast out (Galatians 4:30), while those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who keep the New Covenant are like Isaac (Galatians 4:28), Abraham's son by a freewoman (Galatians 4:22,31), who became his heir (Galatians 4:30b).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (including the letter of the 10 commandments) written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 27:8) was the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7,9). For example, see Leviticus 20:10, Exodus 31:14, and Numbers 15:32-36; and contrast these with the New Covenant's John 8:4-11 and Matthew 12:1-8.

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been completely and forever done away (2 Corinthians 3:11), abolished (2 Corinthians 3:13b). But it is still able to spiritually blind some people as with a veil from beholding Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:14-16), while the New Covenant is the ministration of the spirit and righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:6,8-9b) which remains (2 Corinthians 3:11b), and which permits believers to remove the veil and to behold Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:16-18, Mark 15:38, Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15-18, Colossians 2:14-17).

But a mistaken spirit of Pharisaism can still sometimes deceive even Christians into thinking that they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1,5), or in order to become perfect (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). This is a false, cursed gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). For if any believers are keeping any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law thinking that they must do so in order to be saved, or in order to become perfect, then Jesus will profit them nothing; they have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:2-8).

PeaceByJesus said in post 1386:

But which not mean that the enjoined obedience to them was that of Romish "assent of faith," or "of mind and will," based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Regarding the mistaken idea of "ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility", it could prove to be especially dangerous in our future. For the "beast" which comes up out of the earth in Revelation 13:11-16 represents the individual man who will become the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13). And he could be a secretly-apostate pope who at some point during his tenure will begin to make a great push for peace and unity between Christianity and Islam. He could say something like: "Why do we fight each other? Are we not all the spiritual children of Abraham and of his God, the one God? Can't we lay aside our foolish, man-made differences of theology, which have done us no good at all, but have only brought us hatred and violence, and unite into one religion of Abraham, one religion of peace, based on love for the one God and love for our fellow man? What is more important than this?"

He could be so skillful in elucidating what the moderate Muslims could call "the true, peaceful, loving nature of Islam", that he could be hailed by them worldwide as (in their words) "a Great Imam, come to rescue our beloved Islam from the bad reputation falsely given to it by the terrorists". In this way, a pope could come to hold high positions of power in 2 religions at the same time, which could be symbolized by the 2 horns of the False Prophet lamb (Revelation 13:11). This would be similar to how the 7 horns of the true-Jesus lamb in Revelation 5:6 could represent the true Jesus holding 7 positions of power at the same time (cf. Jesus wearing many crowns at the same time in Revelation 19:12). The False Prophet could even say that he is Jesus. (But he won't say that he is Christ, for the False Prophet and the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ, and will deny that Christ is in the flesh: 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7.)

Once the False Prophet by his amazing miracles has brought the world under his spell (Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), including many Muslims and Christians who may not care much for scriptural dogma, but could go wild over his signs and wonders, he could begin to (in his words) "restore to the world the real message which was spoken by me (Jesus) at my first coming, and by the great prophet Mohammed, but which message became corrupted by power-hungry men when they copied and changed the early manuscripts of the Bible and the Koran". He could then gradually initiate the world into the Antichrist's Gnostic Luciferianism (1 John 4:3, Revelation 13:4-6), a religion which could have existed since ancient times in some "mystery" cults, and which still exists today in the highest degree of initiation of a worldwide secret society. The False Prophet could present his miraculously calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13) as purported proof that Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist are the true God (Revelation 13:4-8, Revelation 12:9), in an inversion of how back in Old Testament times, Elijah miraculously called fire down from heaven to prove that YHWH is the true God (1 Kings 18:37-39).

--

If a secretly-apostate pope does become the Antichrist's False Prophet (of Revelation 13:11-16, Revelation 19:20, and Revelation 16:13), adherents of Catholicism will have to decide what their ultimate source of truth is: Is it the pope and the RCC, or God and the Bible? Many adherents of Catholicism who know God and the Bible well and hold to them as their ultimate source of truth will no doubt be utterly aghast at the false doctrines of a False Prophet pope. Such adherents of Catholicism could demand that he be removed for heresy and apostasy, and that the cardinals elect a new pope. But other adherents of Catholicism, including many cardinals, bishops, and priests, could be deceived (along with most of the rest of the world) into believing the False Prophet pope's false doctrines, because of his ability to perform the most amazing miracles (Revelation 13:13-14, Revelation 19:20; cf. Matthew 24:24).

And so a great schism could arise within the RCC. Compare the Akita prophecy: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops". Many adherents of Catholicism could follow the False Prophet pope, while other adherents of Catholicism could reject him and eventually even elect their own, new pope (or reinstall a former pope who is still alive), whom they could declare to be the "True pope". But this new (or reinstated) "True pope" could then be murdered, along with many of his followers, by the False Prophet pope's soldiers. Compare the 3rd Secret of Fatima: "he [the pope] was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions". Could the soldiers firing "arrows" be the Vatican's Swiss Guards, whose weapons and colorful uniforms hark back to the Middle Ages?

After this slaughter, the False Prophet pope could manage to retain the papacy and full control of the Vatican, and through his (deceived) cardinals, bishops, and priests, retain full control of all RCC cathedrals, parishes, churches, etc., throughout the world. And when the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") obtains power over all nations, he and the False Prophet will make war against true, Biblical Christians (whether they are adherents of Catholicism or not) throughout the world, and will physically overcome them and kill them (by beheading) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

It is only when the Antichrist has completely broken all the physical power of the true church (which consists of all true believers, whether they are adherents of Catholicism or not: Ephesians 4:4-6) that the future tribulation will end (Daniel 12:7b) and Jesus' 2nd coming will immediately occur, at which time he will physically resurrect and rapture (gather together) the church (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). And at his 2nd coming, Jesus will tread the winepress of God's wrath alone (Isaiah 63:3, Revelation 19:15-21), and so he/God will get all the glory for defeating the power of evil on the earth (Deuteronomy 32:39-43). For he/God won't share this glory with the church (cf. Isaiah 42:8-14, Isaiah 26:18).

PeaceByJesus said in post 1386:

And given their well-evidenced propensity to extrapolate an oak tree out of sunflower seed, just imagine what RCs would say to an itinerant Preacher who reproved them if Scripture affirmed that she "committed the oracles of God," to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 3:2; 9:4)

Note that those verses do actually now apply to the church (in its general sense of all believers), in that just as the Gentile Ruth (a genetic forbear of Israel's Messiah: Matthew 1:5-16, Luke 3:23-32) could say to the Israelite Naomi: "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16), so Gentiles in the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29).

That is, all genetic Jews in the church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all genetic Gentiles in the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29), and so have been grafted into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23). So the entire church is the 12 tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). This is necessary, for all those in the church are saved only by the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). John 10:16 refers to the "other sheep" of believers who are Gentiles being brought into "this fold" of Israel, which is the "one fold" of the church (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-6, Revelation 21:9,12). A genetic Gentile believer can pray and ask which tribe of Israel he has been grafted into, and he will receive an answer from God, if he asks in faith (cf. Matthew 21:22), without any wavering (cf. James 1:6-7).

Also, all those in the church, no matter whether they are genetic Jews (Acts 22:3) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews, if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

 

[sculleywr]

That's right.

For Matthew 16:18 meant that the literal gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against the "rock" in Matthew 16:18, which is Jesus himself (Matthew 16:16b,18b), the rock/stone on whom the church/New Covenant Israel is built (Ephesians 2:20, Matthew 16:18b; 1 Peter 2:6), the rock/stone who was rejected and crucified (Romans 9:33, Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:4,8), the same rock/Christ who followed Old Covenant Israel/the church in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4-5, cf. Acts 7:38), and the same rock/Christ revered by New Covenant Israel/the church (1 Peter 2:4-10).

That is, Matthew 16:18 was prophesying of when the literal gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against Jesus (Psalms 107:16), when, after his resurrection, he went down and liberated the souls of the dead Old Testament saints from Hades (1 Peter 4:6; 1 Peter 3:18c-19, Ephesians 4:8-9, Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24).

-

Also, it is sometimes (mistakenly) claimed that Matthew 16:18 means that the church can't be overcome by deception. But while we are assured that at least some people in the church will continue in the truth until Jesus' 2nd coming, for there will be true believers who will still be "alive and remain" at that time (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), the way that they will continue in the truth won't be by replacing God himself with church leaders as their source of truth, for church leaders are fallible (e.g. Matthew 16:23, Galatians 2:11-14, Luke 22:34). It is only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16, Acts 17:11b, John 17:17) that believers can be sure not to be led astray by any church leaders who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31b, Mark 8:35-38).

Because all humans (except Jesus) are fallible, the church itself (unlike God's own Word the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4) has never been a perfect model for Christian doctrine and practice. There have always been wrong divisions (Acts 6:1; 1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4) and heresies within the church (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). For even those whom the Holy Spirit has made leaders in the church (Acts 20:28) can wrongly employ their free will to teach wrong doctrines and practices which increase their power over people in the church (Acts 20:30, cf. also 3 John 1:9-10). They and their followers can mistakenly forget the warnings of 1 Peter 5:3, Matthew 20:25-27, and Matthew 23:8-12.

Also, even Satan's ministers can transform themselves into "apostles" of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, cf. also Matthew 7:15). And even those truly appointed as apostles by Jesus can wrongly employ their free will to fall from their office (Acts 1:17,20b,25). So even the teachings of apostles must be checked against God's own Word the Bible (Acts 17:11b). So how much more must the doctrine of lesser "teachers" in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11) be checked against the Bible, to make sure that what they are teaching isn't mistaken (2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:2-4)?



That's right.

For the principle in Matthew 16:19 doesn't apply only to Peter, but to the entire church which Jesus would build on himself the rock (Matthew 16:18-19, Ephesians 2:20). For the same principle is repeated later in Matthew 18:18, where it is addressing plural people (see the Greek) and where it can apply to everyone in the church, just as its context principles apply to everyone in the church (Matthew 18:17-20).

In Matthew 16:19, in the original Greek, the "thee" and the two "thou" verbs are singular, while in the original Greek of Matthew 18:18, the "you" and the two "ye" verbs are plural:

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you [plural], Whatsoever ye [plural] shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye [plural] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Question: If Jesus is the Chief Member of the Church, the Head thereof, how could the Church become apostate?

And finally, you assert that Sola Scriptura was the method of the Church. How is this so when the Judaizers were following Sola Scriptura methods at the time of the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts?

If Sola Scriptura was a requirement of the early Church, then at the time of the Judaizing controversy, those who followed the edicts of Scripture were the people following the Scriptural requirement that people of the Faith be circumcised and eat only certain foods. That is, at least, what Scripture prescribed. However, it was not the way in which the Church went.

See, Sola Scriptura is a nice theory when it comes to pure theological theorizing and application of modern situations to the early Church. However, when you try to apply the doctrine to the early Church, you run into several major problems:

1. There were more parishes than there were copies of Scripture. Never mind that there were many more Christians than copies of Scripture. There were more groups of Christians than there were copies of Scripture. Many gatherings had to make do with only whatever portions of Scripture their elder had memorized. When they actually did have a copy of a Scriptural text, they would have a great feast with a procession from where the Scriptures were stored to their place of gathering. This is the historical background of the portion of the Divine Liturgy called "the Little Entrance".

2. Even with access to a Scriptural text, the vast majority of Christians had no capability to read the Scriptures on their own. The literacy rate of the Roman Empire may have been relatively high, but that was relative to a very low literacy rate in comparison to the literacy rate at the time of the creation of the Sola Scriptura doctrine. In addition, since Christianity was more attractive to the lower classes than the higher classes overall, that low literacy rate drops even more. There were some places where churches were comprised entirely of people who didn't even have a written language, such as in Gaul.

3. The Scripture, however, doesn't just run into those obstacles between itself and the target audience, but also the fact that the Canon was not a known entity at the time the texts of Scripture were finished. It was not self-evident which writings of the Apostles were Scripture. Additionally, there were many forged texts claiming to be written by the Apostles which weren't actually written by them. We know, for instance, that not only did Paul write at least two letters which we don't have, because of their mention in the letters we do have, but those letters also refer to the fact that others were trying to fake Paul's letters in the hopes of misleading the people of the Church. Since the Canon is essential to the practice of Sola Scriptura, it means the doctrine was impractical until the Canon was formed. Even then, however, the results of SS doctrines can change immensely if you change the Canon, something that was proven when the Protestants altered the Canon to use a 5th century Jewish Canon instead of the Septuagint Canon used by the first 1500 years of Christians before them.

4. The final problem I will mention is the fact that even if you know what Scripture is, the interpretation you use, which is your tradition, is going to ALWAYS stand in authority over Scripture. For instance, when Scripture says "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" in answer to the thesis question of the passage, "can faith save him?", many Protestants will have some rationalization of the text saying that it is not to be taken literally. In this case, as well as many others, Protestants will put their interpretation of Scripture in authority over Scripture. Yes, many Protestants say that Scripture should correct their traditions, but in almost all cases, when the rubber meets the road, the tradition ends up correcting Scripture.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Question: If Jesus is the Chief Member of the Church, the Head thereof, how could the Church become apostate?

A like question would be, If Jesus is the Chief Member of the Church, the Head thereof, how could the Church/His Body, be an admixture of wheat and tares? "What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" (2Co. 6:14)

The answer obviously in both cases is that, as clearly seen in Scripture, the church is the body of Christ, which only always consists of true believers, and is not the same as any one distinct visible organic body/church which inevitably ends up being an amalgam of wheat and tares. Even modern Rome recognizes that the the Body of Christ transcends particular churches.

If Sola Scriptura was a requirement of the early Church, then at the time of the Judaizing controversy, those who followed the edicts of Scripture were the people following the Scriptural requirement that people of the Faith be circumcised and eat only certain foods. That is, at least, what Scripture prescribed. However, it was not the way in which the Church went.

For according to Scripture a Messiah was promised as was a new covenant, and thus believing Jews argued, "Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. (John 7:42-43)

And thus Peter appealed to Scripture in justifying the claims of the church (Acts 2) as does Paul. Thus while SS is not a guarantee that only one conclusion will be reached under it (nor does the Cath model of sola ecclesia), only Scripture remains the infallible standard and SS is the means (properly, reasonably understood) of providing and establishing what is essential, apart from men speaking infallibly as wholly inspired of God and providing new revelation as such apostles did, which we do not see Catholicism doing (and which Rome - though you are not - at least states she is not, but can only claim she is infallibly declaring what is of wholly inspired of God, the veracity of which rests upon her claim to be infallible. How this technically differs from the EOs i know not).

If there was another stream of express Divine revelation that was merely infallible, then it still would not be equal to Scripture, but which would essentially be adding to it.

But we do not see any promise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, nor oral tradition as being God's means of trustworthy preservation.
[And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24)
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)]
The rare inclusions in Scripture of what may be called ancient oral tradition (cf. 2Tim. 3:8) find verification as being of God by their inclusions in Holy Writ.

See, Sola Scriptura is a nice theory when it comes to pure theological theorizing and application of modern situations to the early Church. However, when you try to apply the doctrine to the early Church, you run into several major problems:

1. There were more parishes than there were copies of Scripture. Never mind that there were many more Christians than copies of Scripture. 2. Even with access to a Scriptural text, the vast majority of Christians had no capability to read the Scriptures on their own.

Not a problem. An SS preacher can enjoin obedience to his oral preaching even if the people have few Bibles, but only under the premise that such preaching was Scriptural. And which testing even apostolic preaching was subject to. (Acts 17:11)

But again, claiming to speak or write as wholly inspired of God today is another level than merely claiming to present sound preaching.

3. The Scripture, however, doesn't just run into those obstacles between itself and the target audience, but also the fact that the Canon was not a known entity at the time the texts of Scripture were finished...Since the Canon is essential to the practice of Sola Scriptura, it means the doctrine was impractical until the Canon was formed.

Which is another invalid objection what has already been refuted, for SS does not hold that only Scripture only provides that which expressly set down in scripture, but also what by "good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture." (Westminster) And which also must include what Scripture materially provides for.

And as said, it is clear in Scripture that even common people discerned and established both men and writing of God as being so, even in dissent from the valid magisterium, (Mk. 11:28-33) and which is how the church began.

If common people established a body of writings as being of God, and to which the Lord and His church appealed, then in principle this supports the establishment of a larger canon, consistent with SS.

Even then, however, the results of SS doctrines can change immensely if you change the Canon, something that was proven when the Protestants altered the Canon to use a 5th century Jewish Canon instead of the Septuagint Canon used by the first 1500 years of Christians before them.

Wrong, for as already substantiated,

1. Scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#2 ">continued down through the centuries </a> and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther, who had significant scholarly Catholic support for his exclusion of apocrypha as Scripture proper, but who separately included them in his Bible, as per an ancient practice. Thus Luther's exclusion of apocrypha was not one of the charges against him in the papal excommunication.

2. There is not even a standardized "Septuagint Canon," which presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence.

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)

Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,

Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

3. Certainly the results of SS doctrines would change (notable offering/prayer for those who died due to mortal sin per 2Mac. 12), if not immensely, if you include the apocrypha, that is simply not an argument against SS. The results of SS doctrines would change, and immensely so, if the canon included the Qur'an, which is irrelevant.

4. The final problem I will mention is the fact that even if you know what Scripture is, the interpretation you use, which is your tradition, is going to ALWAYS stand in authority over Scripture.

Which is also true under what the Church states being the supreme authority. For (as especially seen in the more technical Roman Catholicism), what is taught is subject to much interpretation, both as to its magisterial level and its meaning, to varying degrees. And yet a man must obey his own conscience in any case, though it does not mean he is correct.

And on the ground where it counts, surveys well attest that those who most strongly esteem Scripture are the most unified in basic beliefs.

However, SS includes the authoritative magisterial office, that "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith," as did the OT magisterium in personal disputes and hard questions, (Dt. 17:8-13) but the veracity of its judgments, if not necessarily the authority of the office, rests upon the weight of evidential warrant, as was the case in Acts 15, and not the premise of ensured veracity.

The problem with the latter that can declare a valid Truth as requiring assent as well as error (and the EOs charge Rome with doing so), while the establishment of NT claims rested upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
The problem today is that we lack the manner of manifest men of God under which the NT realized its limited unity, among its diversity.

For instance, when Scripture says "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" in answer to the thesis question of the passage, "can faith save him?", many Protestants will have some rationalization of the text saying that it is not to be taken literally.

Irrelevant, SS does not and need no claim that it will always lead to the same conclusion, or that only Scripture is to be used in so doing, but that it is under SS that the Truth is made evident for man to choose from and find assurance on.

In this case, as well as many others, Protestants will put their interpretation of Scripture in authority over Scripture.

Nonsense. What SS means is that the veracity of an interpretation must rest upon its weight of Scriptural substantiation. And thus, rather than leaving Ja. 2 to contradict both Moses and Paul as to how Abraham was justified before God, the two are reconciled by examining the context, in which Abraham was justified by the faith that was behind his works being counted for righteousness versus the actual merit of works, which is the issue of Rm. 2 (nor because he suddenly became actually righteousness enough for Heaven as in RC baptism), but was justified as concerns having saving faith by his later work of faith in offering up Isaac, versus merely an inert faith, and not as if he was not already saved.

Peter taught that God purified the heart by faith, (Acts 15:9) but it is faith which effects obedience (baptism onward) In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)

Thanks be to God.

 

[thecolorsblend]

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

How do you know that the texts you refer to are Sacred Scripture?

 

[Berean777]

Affirming Sola Scripture is no different than affirming an affidavit as being truthful or by affirming a bill as the law of the land or by affirming CF rules when engaging with one another.

The fact remains that if a universal document is not taken as sola scripture and can be trumpted by a patriarch/pope or any religious councils, then we open ourselves to a dictatorship within the religious context.

Please let me explain.......

So sola scripture is a constitutional document of the Christian religion and without this constitutional document all other agreements resulting from councils become unconstitutional bits of paper, including religious dogmas.

Everything is vitally dependant on the constitutional document, that is sola scripture.

If Christianity didn't have this constitutional document then any leader of a religious institution or the appointed bishop(s) can single handedly judge matters and do anything without the power of the people, that is the congregation, the body of Christ.

Sola scripture becomes our religious right to habeas corpus, that is
a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.
"his application for habeas corpus".

This means that before the means to habeas corpus many Christians during the inquisition would be judged by a single bishop, who was not accountable to the people/congregation, whereby it would make the bishop a dictator.

Since then we have the constitutional document sola scripture that prevents bishops or patriarchs to rule as dictators in taking matters into their hands. Since sola scripture came into affect the events of the past were a bygone.

People who want to make sola scripture less important or have something in its place without the vote of the people, are wanting to take away power from the people so to control them through the institution and thereby take away their rights to haveas corpus. As a result we will again revist the past inquisitions.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The fact remains that if a universal document is not taken as sola scripture and can be trumpted by a patriarch/pope or any religious councils, then we open ourselves to a dictatorship within the religious context.

But...

How do you know that the texts you refer to are Sacred Scripture?

Without some sort authority vouching for those texts, there's no objective way of knowing if the scriptures are inspired by God or if they're the ravings of lunatics. As a Catholic, I can point to various and sundry councils which affirm these texts to be inspired by God. But non-traditional Christians (eg, Protestants) have a more difficult time identifying those writings as Sacred Scripture because the only objective source for such is Church Tradition, which isn't authoritative for most of them.

So who do you know those writings are inspired by God?

 

[Berean777]

But...Without some sort authority vouching for those texts, there's no objective way of knowing if the scriptures are inspired by God or if they're the ravings of lunatics. As a Catholic, I can point to various and sundry councils which affirm these texts to be inspired by God. But non-traditional Christians (eg, Protestants) have a more difficult time identifying those writings as Sacred Scripture because the only objective source for such is Church Tradition, which isn't authoritative for most of them.

So who do you know those writings are inspired by God?

They were put together by Godly men who would want them to be held to the same importance if not more than any other constitutional document. 1600AD when Biblios was collated in this religious constitutional document, all authority was taken from one single judge and handed over to the people. The people being the body of Christ. Now no patriarch or bishop or council can make any laws that would be in addition, unless it be by the approval of a majority of the body of Christ. In this regard the protestant movement was born and the people took back power from the central authority.

It is simply history friend.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

How do you know that the texts you refer to are Sacred Scripture?

That horse/argument has been beat to death many posts ago. Can you add anything new or refute what was has already been said. It is not even a proof of anything. Does it disprove my points 1,2 or 3? No. Does it prove point number 4 that there is another source of incontrovertible truth today? No.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

But...Without some sort authority vouching for those texts, there's no objective way of knowing if the scriptures are inspired by God or if they're the ravings of lunatics.

How do you know that the texts you refer to are Sacred Scripture?

Which polemical question has been asked by about every Cath on this prolix thread, and answered many times, and which answer is same way common souls rightly discerned both men and writings of God as being so, essentially due to their unique enduring Divine qualities and attestation, before any church presumed it was essential for this, as Rome does, and even in dissent from the historical magisterium.

And which is how the church began, with an itinerant Preacher and preachers who were rejected by the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation, and inheritors of promises of Divine presence, etc., but who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

What is the basis for your assurance of Truth?

 

[Berean777]

Which polemical question has been asked by about every Cath on this prolix thread, and answered many times, and which answer is same way common souls rightly discerned both men and writings of God as being so, essentially due to their unique enduring Divine qualities and attestation, before any church presumed it was essential for this, as Rome does, and even in dissent from the historical magisterium.

And which is how the church began, with an itinerant Preacher and preachers who were rejected by the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation, and inheritors of promises of Divine presence, etc., but who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

What is the basis for your assurance of Truth?

Truth it seems is historically provable and you have just summed it up beautifully. Thanks

 

[thecolorsblend]

Translation- "There is no extra-scriptural authority... except for the extra-scriptural authority who told us what Sacred Scripture is."

 

[Berean777]

Translation- "There is no extra-scriptural authority... except for the extra-scriptural authority who told us what Sacred Scripture is."

That would start with the first witnesses, the disciples, then be ratified by later witnesses, now us who are the people who have vouched for it as our one and only constitutional authority, that is Sola scripture.

No present day authority can further add to or to take away from this constitutional document unless the majority of the body approves and in this regard the power remains in the hands of the people.

 

[Berean777]

In this regard we are all born as protesters by the fact that we defend our religious constitutional rights.

Sola scripture is for we the people and for the people of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Therefore help to protect it as your religious bill of rights.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That would start with the first witnesses, the disciples, then be ratified by later witnesses, now us who are the people who have vouched for it as our one and only constitutional authority, that is Sola scripture.

No present day authority can further add to or to take away from this constitutional document unless the majority of the body approves and in this regard the power remains in the hands of the people.

So now rather than being a matter of objective fact, the divine inspiration of a writing is a matter of democratic consensus???