Is scripture the highest authority?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.

Col 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

2 Corinthians 12:15
And for the sake of your souls, I will most gladly spend my money and myself. If I love you more, will you love me less?

Even with the scriptures it talking out of term to apply that to something that God would accept as part payment for remission of sins

 

[Thursday]

Even with the scriptures it talking out of term to apply that to something that God would accept as part payment for remission of sins

I think you need to reread the definition of indulgences. It has nothing to do with the remission of sins.

 

[amariselle]

True.

However, Jesus used his Church, the Catholic Church, to select the books of the New Testament.

I don't disagree that Jesus has worked through the church. However, the church is made up of all true believers, not one specific denomination.

And those who were inspired to write the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) were certainly not Catholic. With the exception of Luke, they were all most certainly Jewish.

Every denomination has issues, and not one is perfect, as people are not perfect. The true church of Christ are all those who have turned from their sins, repented and called upon Him to be saved.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think you need to reread the definition of indulgences. It has nothing to do with the remission of sins.

What does it mean to make remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven?

Not the act itself

 

[amariselle]

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.

Col 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

2 Corinthians 12:15
And for the sake of your souls, I will most gladly spend my money and myself. If I love you more, will you love me less?

Paul willingly suffered for Christ and was a witness to Him by his sufferings, but what Paul did and taught were not the same as the Catholic doctrines and teachings of indulgences (and the related doctrines of penance and purgatory).

Where in Scripture is it recorded that Jesus, Paul or any of the apostles taught that indulgences are necessary for the remission of temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven?

"The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sin has a double consequence. For a member of the Catholic Church, committing a mortal sin causes “eternal punishment,” involving eternal separation from God and suffering in hell. (The Catholic Church also teaches that under normal circumstances those who have not been baptized by either the Roman Catholic Church or another church teaching baptismal regeneration are also condemned to hell because the stain of original sin remains upon their souls.) Venial (minor) sin, in contrast, does not cause “eternal punishment” but does cause “temporal punishment.” Roman Catholic teachings sometimes refer to these “temporal punishments” given by God as a means of purifying His children (either in this life or in Purgatory). But the Roman Catholic Church also sees venial sins as creating a debt to God’s justice that must be atoned for in a way that is distinct from Christ’s atonement for eternal punishment. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that because of the unity of the Body of Christ (the Communion of the Saints, including living believers, believers in heaven, Roman Catholic saints in heaven, Christ, Mary, and the imperfect believers in Purgatory), it is possible for the merit generated by the good works, prayers, almsgiving, sufferings, etc., of one or more of these members of the Body to be applied to the temporal debt of another. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the combined merit of Christ, the saints, and godly believers is stored in a place referred to as the Treasury of Merit (it is also sometimes called the Treasury of Satisfaction, the Church’s Treasury, or the Thesaurus Ecclesiae). And through apostolic succession from Peter, it is the Roman Catholic Church alone that has the authority to withdraw merit from this treasury and dispense it to believers in this life or in Purgatory to atone for some or all of their venial sin. This it does through the granting of Catholic indulgences."

"Again, indulgences pertain only to temporal, not eternal, punishment and can only be distributed through a Roman Catholic Church leader to someone who is either in Purgatory or is still living and whose soul is in the state of sanctifying grace (i.e., he/she would go to Purgatory, not hell, if he/she were to die at that moment). An indulgence can be obtained through a good deed done, a Mass being offered on behalf of someone, prayer, abstinence, giving to the poor, or some other meritorious act performed in accordance with requirements set by a Pope or bishop having jurisdiction over that individual. The offering of a Mass for someone is seen as one of the most effective means of reducing the temporal punishment of that person in Purgatory. A partial indulgence will reduce the temporal punishment a person has. A plenary indulgence will remove all temporal punishment."

http://www.gotquestions.org/plenary-indulgences.html

Where is the Scriptural basis for ANY of this?

Where is it taught in Scripture that there is a place called the "Treasury of Merit" where "the combined merit of Christ, the saints, and godly believers is stored"? And where in Scripture is it taught that "it is possible for the merit generated by the good works, prayers, almsgiving, sufferings, etc., of one or more of these members of the Body to be applied to the temporal debt of another?"

Where is the Biblical basis for the belief that there is some kind of bank account where the merit/good deeds and works of Christians is stored, to be dispensed to other Christians? (In as sense suggesting that not only can we make atonement to reduce our own "temporal punishment", but we can also make atonement for someone else's temporal punishment.)

Also, where in Scripture is the distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins made, along with their resulting consequences?

There is simply NO Biblical basis for any of this.

 

[civilwarbuff]

True.

However, Jesus used his Church, the Catholic Church, to select the books of the New Testament.

Actually, it was the Holy Spirit, not men, who did that.....probably so that none may boast (guess that part did not work so well).

 

[civilwarbuff]

You don't understand indulgences or purgatory.

Purgatory is ONLY for the saved.

In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, an indulgence is "a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins"[1] which may reduce either or both of the penance required after a sin has been forgiven, or after death, the temporal punishment, (not "time," as Purgatory like Heaven and Hell is said to exist "outside of time,") in the state or process of purification called Purgatory. wiki

You need to brush up on your catechisms.....
BTW Purgatory does not exist except in the minds of the men who made it up.....maybe in an effort to wring more money from the sale of indulgences to the unknowing.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Derek is right and we don't disagree. The Church teaches truth. A person alone in a room with scripture could very easily reach the wrong conclusions. That's why protestantism is full of multiple contradictory, and therefore false, doctrines.

False doctrines like Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary?......Guess you don't have to be alone in a room with a bible to do that, huh? BTW since none of those are in the bible, that alone person would not come up with them....

 

[Wolf_Says]

False doctrines like Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary?......Guess you don't have to be alone in a room with a bible to do that, huh? BTW since none of those are in the bible, that alone person would not come up with them....

How are these false doctrines? Purgatory is most definitely in the bible, as is referenced in I Corinthians 3:11-15 which states "For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

Also, please point out to me where it states in the Bible that it needs to be in the Bible. I will give you a hint, it is nowhere in there.

It was the Catholic Church, the Church that was started by Jesus himself in Matthew 16:18-19, that gave the world the Holy Bible, ALL 73 BOOKS, in the 4th century AD. It is even stated that not everything that Jesus said or did was written down in John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

 

[Propianotuner]

How are these false doctrines? Purgatory is most definitely in the bible, as is referenced in I Corinthians 3:11-15 which states "For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

And this directly implies Purgatory how? Seems to me that Catholics need to brush up on their exegesis and hermeneutics if they think that constitutes support. This is an exceedingly vague reference at best, and no where in the text is an actual place mentioned.

It was the Catholic Church, the Church that was started by Jesus himself in Matthew 16:18-19, that gave the world the Holy Bible, ALL 73 BOOKS, in the 4th century AD.

That Jesus started the Church is not a direct endorsement of the Catholic Church. "We have existed since the beginning" has to be demonstrated with a genuine continuity of belief. Not question begging and endless appeals to authority. The authority isn't there merely because someone says so, something this momentous can't be satisfied with mere hearsay. There is every reason in the world that if it really did exist in the form stated by the Catholic Church, that they would be able to dredge up all manner of explicit statements.

What we get instead is a series of exercises in mental gymnastics.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Being scripture is God breathed it would be the highest authority that leads the believers to the words of God. And as a consequence, able to discern the spirit of God in personal relationship.

I would not be overly concerned about a vested body invalidating the authority of scripture in the past. It would have been a necessary evil wouldn't it? In order to make a doctrine that is from that precedent able to repeal all else that Jesus ordained as truth of the Father during his ministry. And therein empower man as god by usurping God's authority through the process of invalidating the message he breathed to life with his spirit into the world of his making.

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” John 10:27

The first whisper that such a voice exists is given in the Bible.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” Revelation 22:18-19

 

[Wolf_Says]

And this directly implies Purgatory how? Seems to me that Catholics need to brush up on their exegesis and hermeneutics if they think that constitutes support. This is an exceedingly vague reference at best, and no where in the text is an actual place mentioned.



That Jesus started the Church is not a direct endorsement of the Catholic Church. "We have existed since the beginning" has to be demonstrated with a genuine continuity of belief. Not question begging and endless appeals to authority. The authority isn't there merely because someone says so, something this momentous can't be satisfied with mere hearsay. There is every reason in the world that if it really did exist in the form stated by the Catholic Church, that they would be able to dredge up all manner of explicit statements.

What we get instead is a series of exercises in mental gymnastics.

Actually (your 2nd point) it is, as the Catholic Church is the only that can can trace themselves all the way back to Peter.

And if THAT does not constitute support, then please explain to me what it does mean. Is the word Purgatory used? No, but this verse along with Revelations 21:27, Habakkuk 1:13, Matthew 5:24-26, 2 Maccabees 40-45
(which the KJV does not have, so I will paste) "Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin"
And yes 2 Maccabees is divinely inspired, because it was in the original Bible, the one that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to making. It was Martin Luther in the 1500s who took out both 1 and 2 Maccabees as well as 5 other books from the old testament.

There are no mental gymnastics, but please point one out to me.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Also, please point out to me where it states in the Bible that it needs to be in the Bible. I will give you a hint, it is nowhere in there.

If you want a guarantee that something is true, it has to be in the Bible. If you don't care about that, it doesn't have to be in the Bible.

Your comment is so hypocritical. The Catholics try to "prove" what they believe based on scripture, but when asked to defend with scripture they go back to
1) We wrote scripture, we know how to interpret it
2) We have authority to speak God's word, the truth doesn't have to be in scripture.

This is the whole point of my thread, to establish the source of highest authority of truth that we now have on earth. If that can't be established, there is no hope in consensus on interpretation of God's word.

Please note, the SS people don't have to prove they are the only source of truth. It is you that think there is another source of incontrovertible truth that must prove it so. I have asked for this and not gotten it, because it does not exist.

It was the Catholic Church, the Church that was started by Jesus himself in Matthew 16:18-19, that gave the world the Holy Bible, ALL 73 BOOKS, in the 4th century AD.

The RCC didn't write the Bible. It was written hundreds of years before and was circulated. It was the truth of scripture the instant it was spoken/written.

It is even stated that not everything that Jesus said or did was written down in John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

You don't understand the meaning of this verse. Does the RCC claim to know all the truths of God? Not, even they are not so arrogant as to claim such. So the truths that we need on earth are the ones sufficient for salvation. Do you claim that the Bible is insufficient for this. You would then have to assert that all the churches that follow SS are also insufficient for salvation.

 

[pescador]

It is literal. That's why the majority of Christians have always believed it as literal.

I challenge you to find a single Christian in the first 1200 years of Christianity who didn't believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. Good Luck!

So Christians are cannibals?? In John's gospel Jesus was telling them to eat his body and drink his blood and they took it literally -- John 6:60: "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” -- which is why so many disciples left at that point. If they had understood it as symbolic they wouldn't have called it a "hard teaching". If somebody literally told you to eat his body and drink his blood would you do it or recoil in horror?

Regarding the Eucharist Jesus said to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of him. He put it in a way that his disciples would understand; they wouldn't climb over the table and literally start devouring him. That is why the concept of substantiation is incorrect.

BTW, the first celebrations of the bread and wine were at celebratory agape feasts. The churches have turned the wonderful celebration into time of somber ritual. Personally I happily rejoice in what my Savior has done for me, regularly sharing bread and wine with my friends and family.

 

[Wolf_Says]

If you want a guarantee that something is true, it has to be in the Bible. If you don't care about that, it doesn't have to be in the Bible.
Your comment is so hypocritical. The Catholics try to "prove" what they believe based on scripture, but when asked to defend with scripture they go back to
1) We wrote scripture, we know how to interpret it
2) We have authority to speak God's word, the truth doesn't have to be in scripture.
This is the whole point of my thread, to establish the source of highest authority of truth that we now have on earth. If that can't be established, there is no hope in consensus on interpretation of God's word.
Please note, the SS people don't have to prove they are the only source of truth. It is you that think there is another source of incontrovertible truth that must prove it so. I have asked for this and not gotten it, because it does not exist.
The RCC didn't write the Bible. It was written hundreds of years before and was circulated. It was the truth of scripture the instant it was spoken/written.

You don't understand the meaning of this verse. Does the RCC claim to know all the truths of God? Not, even they are not so arrogant as to claim such. So the truths that we need on earth are the ones sufficient for salvation. Do you claim that the Bible is insufficient for this. You would then have to assert that all the churches that follow SS are also insufficient for salvation.

I fail to see how my comment is hypocritical. I asked you to show me in the Bible where it says it needs to be in the Bible, you failed to do so. If you could back up your concept of Sola Scriptura, then by all means. Sola Scriptura says "Scripture Alone", but how can you come to that conclusion if it does not state that in the Bible itself?

The mass is in the Bible, everything we Catholics believe is in the Bible. Would you go up to J R R Tolkien and say "hey, I read your books! I can totally understand what you are trying to say in this part.", and if he answered you are wrong go "No, you don't know your own book. I told you that you mean this."

Also, "all the churches that follow Sola Scriptura" all happen to disagree on major things in the Bible. Hence there being close to 40k different denominations of Christianity.

Case in point, there are denominations that believe Baptism is symbolic, while others view it as a sacrament. Some do not believe in the Trinity, while others do. Some believe Jesus had biological siblings, whiles others believe that He did not.

By stating Sola Scriptura, you cannot tell me that I "do not understand that verse" because you have rejected all authority in terms of understanding scripture and place authority on the individual.

I never said the Catholic Church WROTE the Bible, I said that it PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER. Those are 2 very different statements.

History Lesson: The NT of the Holy Bible was beginning to be wrote around 30 years after Christs death, however there was no telling the difference between divinely inspired books and false books. Did you know there was a Gospel of James? How about the Gospel of Peter? Acts of Pilot? Gospel of Barnabas?

There were roughly 25 different gospels going around all claiming to be divinely inspired. How was anyone to know which were and which were not?

It wasn't until the 4th century that the Catholic Church got together in councils and started to piece together which books were divinely inspired. This started in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and later the Bible was out as 1 book, and the Church declared that these were the divinely inspired books.

The Highest point of Authority on earth about God is His Church, the 1 Church that he started. The Catholic Church. Jesus did not come down and give us a Bible, He gave us a Church. And that Church is His Bride and faithfully follows the teachings of her Husband.

Actually yes they do need to prove it. The burden of proof lays of the ones making the claim. That claim is Sola Scriptura.

I will tell you this, search the Bible for the words "foundation/bulwark of truth" and see what the Bible itself says. Hint, it is in 1 Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

History Lesson: the word church in this passage is actually a term for a congregation of people. Would you like to know why? Because the historical context is that Christianity was an illegal religion at the time. You would be killed for openly practicing it. There were no large cathedrals or church buildings for Christianity. It wasn't until the early 300s that Christianity was finally a legal religion, and shortly after that became adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire and was called the Roman Catholic Church (catholic meaning universal) because unlike Judaism, Christianity was not a culture and could be adopted by all cultures. It was not strictly Roman.

That last statement is mental gymnastics.

 

[pescador]

How are these false doctrines? Purgatory is most definitely in the bible, as is referenced in I Corinthians 3:11-15 which states "For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

Also, please point out to me where it states in the Bible that it needs to be in the Bible. I will give you a hint, it is nowhere in there.

It was the Catholic Church, the Church that was started by Jesus himself in Matthew 16:18-19, that gave the world the Holy Bible, ALL 73 BOOKS, in the 4th century AD. It is even stated that not everything that Jesus said or did was written down in John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Why does Jesus then refer to Peter as Satan only five verses later? Peter was a fallible human being whom Jesus knew correctly. Not only did he call him Satan but told him later that he would deny him three times. Is the Catholic church founded on a single person who is called Satan and denies the Lord in front of others?? Jesus did not found the Catholic church on Peter the man, but founded his body of believers on Peter's confession that "you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God".

Romans 10:8-10 states it clearly: "But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."

 

[Wolf_Says]

So Christians are cannibals?? In John's gospel Jesus was telling them to eat his body and drink his blood and they took it literally -- John 6:60: "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” -- which is why so many disciples left at that point. If they had understood it as symbolic they wouldn't have called it a "hard teaching". If somebody literally told you to eat his body and drink his blood would you do it or recoil in horror?

Regarding the Eucharist Jesus said to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of him. He put it in a way that his disciples would understand; they wouldn't climb over the table and literally start devouring him. That is why the concept of substantiation is incorrect.

BTW, the first celebrations of the bread and wine were at celebratory agape feasts. The churches have turned the wonderful celebration into time of somber ritual. Personally I happily rejoice in what my Savior has done for me, regularly sharing bread and wine with my friends and family.

Are you saying that you now know better than the Jews who were THERE and HEARD Jesus speak? Don't you think that Jesus himself would have told them he was speaking symbolically? This is the ONLY point in the Bible where Jesus LOSES followers.

Jesus let them go, because He knew that He was speaking literally. Also, if it is symbolic, then why in John 6:53-57 does Jesus tell us that we need to eat his flesh to abide in him? Where is this term used before? Ah, also in John 15:4-7. In fact, Jesus tells us that those who do not abide in Him will be thrown into the fire. That is a scary thought.

 

[civilwarbuff]

though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

And that is what you hang your purgatory hat on, huh?......you know, I got a bridge in NYC for sale.......

Also, please point out to me where it states in the Bible that it needs to be in the Bible. I will give you a hint, it is nowhere in there.

If it is not scriptural (God breathed/inspired) then it is a man made doctrine because it originates with man.

It was the Catholic Church, the Church that was started by Jesus himself in Matthew 16:18-19, that gave the world the Holy Bible, ALL 73 BOOKS, in the 4th century AD.

One more time, the Catholic Church did not exist in the 4th century; the Church catholic existed at that time. Now I understand you don't want to take the word of a protestant so why don't you talk with and get the POV from Oriental/Eastern Orthodox and ask them if they were part of the Roman Catholic Church back in the 4th century or any time since.......

It is even stated that not everything that Jesus said or did was written down in John 21:25

The rest is not even worth re-re-re-re-hashing...

 

[Thursday]

Actually, it was the Holy Spirit, not men, who did that.....probably so that none may boast (guess that part did not work so well).

The Holy Spirit used the Church built by Jesus. The Church is the body of Christ.

Jesus only built one Church and it does not have competing leaders.

 

[Thursday]

False doctrines like Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary?......Guess you don't have to be alone in a room with a bible to do that, huh? BTW since none of those are in the bible, that alone person would not come up with them....

Purgatory is in the bible. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are inferred from scripture.