Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[BobRyan]

Thank you for making my point

You are right - I have corrected my prior post to show that agreement

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
1. Their own magisterium was on record as condemning the teaching of Paul -- yet STILL they chose to "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul were so" - rather than "listen to your own magesterium and your own traditions and let that guide you to ignore whatever scripture says that confirms Paul's teaching".

Their own magisterium? Paul was the magisterium, part of that group, that church, that held and conveyed the truth that the Bereans could not discern on their own, with Scripture.

In Acts 17:11 it is non-Christian Jews and gentiles -- under the leadership of non-Christian Jews as their "magesterium" --- listening to a Christian Apostle (Paul) who had been condemned by the non-Christian Jewish leadership.

And instead of using the "sola tradition" method - condemned by Christ in Mark 7:7-13 they used the "sola scriptura testing" method of Acts 17:11 to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO".

They were engaged in doing the VERY thing that some here claim is not approved of in scripture.

The RCC says, believe our interpretation-or understanding-which is based on experience, on the faith as it was received at the beginning, as was Paul's, before the NT was written, incidentally.

In Acts 17:11 they are not using the NT text to test Paul - but rather the OT -- not at all written for them by the RCC.

What is more - IF the RCC is to do an about face and approve of that sort of Acts 17:11 sola scriptura testing of all teaching and doctrine - they need to inform their members that this is an approved practice to follow the Acts 17:11 example approved of by the writer of the book of Acts.

 

[BobRyan]

IF you are indeed taught all truth by God and your brother is also taught all truth you would think there would be no disputes to resolve.

You assume all Christians are at the same level of understanding if they are taught truth by the Bible. That seems like an odd assumption.

Clearly not all Christians are at the same level of understanding.

Now see? - we do agree on something.

Point was, if Scripture was both sufficient and clear, eventually the differences various Christians have would tend to minimize.

True. The tendency over time is that more and more error is washed out and the doctrine begins to return to the pure first-century form -- for those who continue that path of sola scriptura testing.

Less prayers to the dead and for the dead, less purgatory, less emphasis on traditional compromises brought in at the time of Constantine - more emphasis on testing all things by the Word of God. Less LATERAN IV style "extermination of heretics" and more of the religious liberty and "turn the other cheek" teaching of Christ - over time.

Rom 14:5" Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind." -- hmm do you see "torture, inquisition, extermination, stealing property and all possessions" etc in Rom 14:5? -- Do you not see much more toleration of varying POV today than in the Holy Roman Empire golden age?

either Scripture is clear and sufficient but almost nobody can understand it

Not true. A lot of the reforms still embraced and continued even among different protestant groups following the steps of those protesting-catholics.

And we have a lot of evidence of Orthodox and Catholic posts in recent weeks showing strong schism between the two groups that is over 1000 years old. How then could they have had a pure system using your "test" of "all back in harmony" as you state it above?.

 

[fhansen]

1. Their own magisterium was on record as condemning the teaching of Paul -- yet STILL they chose to "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul were so" - rather than "listen to your own magesterium and your own traditions and let that guide you to ignore whatever scripture says that confirms Paul's teaching".

Really don't know where you're coming from on this. Did the Bereans claim to have or be or act as a teaching authority?? It appears they were seekers, and conscientious and noble ones at that, but I don't see them teaching someone else as Paul did as an external human source presenting them with truth-claims which they were assessing.

In Acts 17:11 it is non-Christian Jews and gentiles -- under the leadership of non-Christian Jews as their "magesterium" --- listening to a Christian Apostle (Paul) who had been condemned by the non-Christian Jewish leadership.

And instead of using the "sola tradition" method - condemned by Christ in Mark 7:7-13 they used the "sola scriptura testing" method of Acts 17:11 to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO".

They were engaged in doing the VERY thing that some here claim is not approved of in scripture.

This still isn't sensible. The RCC is not sola tradition; it recognizes both scripture and tradition as two streams of revelation. consistent with 2 Thess 2:15 that teaches that the brethren should hold fast to both and consistent with the common sense that tells us that we weren't there whereas the early church was. The magisterium is simply that God-designated and guided authority necessary to receive and preserve the faith intact. The magisterium, IOW, interprets revelation: Scripture and Tradition.

 

[fhansen]

In Acts 17:11 they are not using the NT text to test Paul - but rather the OT -- not at all written for them by the RCC.

What is more - IF the RCC is to do an about face and approve of that sort of Acts 17:11 sola scriptura testing of all teaching and doctrine - they need to inform their members that this is an approved practice to follow the Acts 17:11 example approved of by the writer of the book of Acts.

Um, no, they were testing Paul to see if his teachings fit; presumably they already believed that the OT was the word of God-but they needed understanding of that revelation. We're all called to test whoever makes claims for being authorities: the SDA church, the RCC, JWs, Joe Blow... anyone.

 

[The Liturgist]

And instead of using the "sola tradition" method

I can verify, as can my Lutheran and Orthodox friends @prodromos and @MarkRohfrietsch , that the Roman Catholic Church is not Sola Tradition, not by any means.

 

[BobRyan]

I can verify, as can my Lutheran and Orthodox friends @prodromos and @MarkRohfrietsch , that the Roman Catholic Church is not Sola Tradition, not by any means.

I am glad each time someone affirms that position

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
1. Their own magisterium was on record as condemning the teaching of Paul -- yet STILL they chose to "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul were so" - rather than "listen to your own magesterium and your own traditions and let that guide you to ignore whatever scripture says that confirms Paul's teaching".

Their own magisterium? Paul was the magisterium, part of that group, that church, that held and conveyed the truth that the Bereans could not discern on their own, with Scripture.

In Acts 17:11 it is non-Christian Jews and gentiles -- under the leadership of non-Christian Jews as their "magesterium" --- listening to a Christian Apostle (Paul) who had been condemned by the non-Christian Jewish leadership.

And instead of using the "sola tradition" method - condemned by Christ in Mark 7:7-13 they used the "sola scriptura testing" method of Acts 17:11 to "SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO".

They were engaged in doing the VERY thing that some here claim is not approved of in scripture.

The RCC says, believe our interpretation-or understanding-which is based on experience, on the faith as it was received at the beginning, as was Paul's, before the NT was written, incidentally.

In Acts 17:11 they are not using the NT text to test Paul - but rather the OT -- not at all written for them by the RCC.

What is more - IF the RCC is to do an about face and approve of that sort of Acts 17:11 sola scriptura testing of all teaching and doctrine - they need to inform their members that this is an approved practice to follow the Acts 17:11 example approved of by the writer of the book of Acts.

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

Um, no, they were testing Paul to see if his teachings fit; presumably they already believed that the OT was the word of God

Indeed - as I already stated above.

 

[BobRyan]

Really don't know where you're coming from on this. Did the Bereans claim to have or be or act as a teaching authority?? It appears they were seekers, and conscientious and noble ones at that, but I don't see them teaching someone else as Paul did as an external human source presenting them with truth-claims which they were assessing.

Well - start by reading the text you appear to not be reading.

Acts 17
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore, many of them believed, along with a significant number of prominent Greek women and men.

so then it is "in the synagogue of the Jews" that Paul finds his audience. People already worshipping the one true God in the "synagogue of the Jews" -- prior to becoming christians or ever hearing a Christian preach the Gospel - are under the magisterium of.... "the Jews" ... in that "synagogue of the Jews".

So then "yes" -- they DO have a magesterium. It is the one for the Jews that is in leadership over "the synagogues of the Jews".

And it is that magesterium that had already condemned Christians - starting in Jerusalem and fanning out to all of that region.

So then we have worshippers of the One True God - in a Jewish Synagogue hearing Paul preach the Gospel and INSTEAD of running to their own magesterium to be reminded of just how "condemned" that Christian sect (known as "the Way") was viewd by their magisterium - they turn to scripture to 'see if' those things spoken by Paul -- WERE SO. The very thing some here have chosen to condemn. It is a "sola scriptura" test that totally side steps the magisterium for that Jewish Synagogue.

This is irrefutable.

I think we can ALL see why the sola-scriptura-testing promoters here on CF , like this Acts 17:11 so much . This part is not even a little bit confusing.

This still isn't sensible. The RCC is not sola tradition; it recognizes both scripture and tradition

I frankly don't see the reason for RCC members to object to the example of Acts 17:11 if one is really ok with the sola scriptura test that sets aside the magesterium to first see IF "those things are so" as we see in Acts 17:11 -- since some RCC members claim their doctrines would not fail a sola-scriptura test.

And YET we get strong push back on this very Bible example of it - each time it is mentioned..

 

[chevyontheriver]

Now see? - we do agree on something.

This flash in the pan agreement should be recorded as a rarity. May it happen again some day.

True. The tendency over time is that more and more error is washed out and the doctrine begins to return to the pure first-century form -- for those who continue that path of sola scriptura testing.

Not in evidence that agreement is increasing. If anything the various groups are having their own now internal schisms. Pretty much all of them, except for those who are now trashcanning Scripture entirely, claim they are more loyal to Scripture than all of the others. Errors do not 'wash out' but breed more errors. All because the method of Sola Scriptura just does not lead to harmony as it would if Scripture was clear and sufficient. Because Scripture by itself is neither clear nor sufficient. It's truly God's word, but not clear and not sufficient.

Less prayers to the dead and for the dead, less purgatory, less emphasis on traditional compromises brought in at the time of Constantine - more emphasis on testing all things by the Word of God. Less LATERAN IV style "extermination of heretics" and more of the religious liberty and "turn the other cheek" teaching of Christ - over time.

Prayers for the dead were a Christian original. Because they were a Jewish original. So was asking the saints to pray for people. Archaeology confirms this. Going back to original Christianity would include both of these. There is enough of pre-Constantinian Christianity that doesn't look like the various kinds of Protestants Misreading Scripture to rule these things out means that you may think you have early Christianity figured out but you don't.

And as to exterminations, the SDA has a fine track record supporting the Nazis in Germany. Great endorsements of the party that killed millions. As if Hitler should be supported because he didn't drink and didn't smoke and was vegan. I hope you are over that now, but it was less than a hundred years ago.

You might be interested in this about Lateran IV: Did the Church change its position on the punishment of heretics?

And we have a lot of evidence of Orthodox and Catholic posts in recent weeks showing strong schism between the two groups that is over 1000 years old. How then could they have had a pure system using your "test" of "all back in harmony" as you state it above?.

The Orthodox and the Catholics share the same sacraments and a chunk of the same Church Fathers and the same canon of Scripture. So while not being very agreeable to each other there is huge real agreement. The theological agreement does not yet make for personal agreement. That's just human stubbornness. Underneath that, though the Orthodox would hate to admit it, is a whole lot of agreement. But the children of the Reformation go off in all directions. If Scripture were so obvious there wouldn't have been thousands of denominations but maybe only a dozen. And more all the time.

 

[fhansen]

Well - start by reading the text you appear to not be reading.

Acts 17
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore, many of them believed, along with a significant number of prominent Greek women and men.

so then it is "in the synagogue of the Jews" that Paul finds his audience. People already worshipping the one true God in the "synagogue of the Jews" -- prior to becoming christians or ever hearing a Christian preach the Gospel - are under the magisterium of.... "the Jews" ... in that "synagogue of the Jews".

So then "yes" -- they DO have a magesterium. It is the one for the Jews that is in leadership over "the synagogues of the Jews".

And it is that magesterium that had already condemned Christians - starting in Jerusalem and fanning out to all of that region.

So then we have worshippers of the One True God - in a Jewish Synagogue hearing Paul preach the Gospel and INSTEAD of running to their own magesterium to be reminded of just how "condemned" that Christian sect (known as "the Way") was viewd by their magisterium - they turn to scripture to 'see if' those things spoken by Paul -- WERE SO. The very thing some here have chosen to condemn. It is a "sola scriptura" test that totally side steps the magisterium for that Jewish Synagogue.

This is irrefutable.

I think we can ALL see why the sola-scriptura-testing promoters here on CF , like this Acts 17:11 so much . This part is not even a little bit confusing.

Sure, irrefutable. So why did they need the revelation that Christ brings to the plate??? Since they already had their magisterium from which to judge (even though there was apparently no such thing as Jewish leaders disagreed with each other over many relevant points of faith). Either way with your logic the Bereans should've needed no further input or authority; they already should've had everything they needed.

I frankly don't see the reason for RCC members to object to the example of Acts 17:11 if one is really ok with the sola scriptura test that sets aside the magesterium to first see IF "those things are so" as we see in Acts 17:11 -- since some RCC members claim their doctrines would not fail a sola-scriptura test.

And YET we get strong push back on this very Bible example of it - each time it is mentioned..

There's strong push back on Sola Scriptura-because it isn't workable as these very forums prove over and over. Again, if Scripture was all they needed then they wouldn't need to hear from Paul to begin with. I can hear from the RCC and swear that it's consistent with Scripture. The next guy hears from the Watchtower and determines that it's consistent with Scripture. The next guy hears from Ellen or Martin or John and decide they've got it right. But the ones who should have it right are not the late-comers. And if one reads scripture and studies history objectively and with reasonable care they'll end up EO or Catholic or nothing.

And either way there's more than Scripture required:
Then Jesus said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him.” John 6:65

Grace is required in order to believe the gospel.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am glad each time someone affirms that position

Frankly such attestations are unwarranted, for on your own, if you consider the importance scripture has always played in the Roman church, including the first vernacular translation of the entire Bible in the 2nd century, the Vetus Latina, and later the Vulgate, which along with the Syriac Peshitta is one of the most respected translations, and still later several other important translations, including one of the first English translations, the Douai-Rheims Bible, and more recent English translations, of which the Jerusalem Bible and the Knox Bible are particularly good (but there is also the NASB which if I recall is officially endorsed by them), and their role in ensuring the adoption of the 27-book New Testament canon of St. Athanasius of Alexandria as finalized in his 39th Paschal Encyclical, for once Rome adopted this canon, the other autonomous churches in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Cyprus and Antioch, the latter having something of a rivalry with Alexandria, and finally, the truly massive amount of Bible scholarship Rome has conducted, and the work they have done in preserving historic manuscripts of the Bible, and also their development of various approaches for the study of Scripture, such as lectio divina, the suggestion that Rome is Sola Traditione, to use the correct Latin, can be seen to be obviously untrue.

On the other hand, the Adventist definition of Sola Scriptura does not agree with the traditional Lutheran and other liturgical Protestant understanding of the term.

Specifically Adventism seems to use the term Sola Scriptura to refer to a combination of Sufficiency of Scripture and Perspicuity of Scripture, which is not what Luther understood Sola Scriptura to mean when he coined the phrase, or what Calvin, Cranmer or Wesley understood when they used the phrase.

This new definition of Sola Scriptura, sometimes referred to by more traditional theologians as Nuda Scriptura, is not unique to Adventism but is common among other Restorationist denominations, and also among some Fundamentalist Baptists and Calvinists, and among some Evangelical and Pentecostal groups. What is unique to the Adventist definition is that Adventist doctrine is influenced to a very substantial degree by the writings of Ellen G. White, which are regarded as inspired prophecy, however, Adventists insist these writings agree with what they regard as the obvious interpretation of scripture and so their interpretation of Sola Scriptura can be considered self-consistent, but it is not externally consistent even with the similiar definition adopted by other churches which regard Sola Scriptura as meaning Sufficiency and Perspicuity of Scripture, since members of those churches contend that the writings of Ellen G. White do represent an external authority and that what Adventists claim are the obvious meanings of scripture, which agree with her writings, are in fact not obvious, but rather the Adventists regard them as obvious in all sincerity because of the extent to which they have been influenced by Ellen G. White.

This is not unlike how some traditional Christian laity, not realizing that their denominations do not believe in perspicuity of Scripture, might argue that a specific scriptural interpretation which agrees with the doctrine of their church is also the obvious one. In fact, there are very few passages in Scripture which are uncontroversial among Christians, and even fewer the meaning of which is not disputed between Christians and Jews (indeed, as far as Orthodox Rabinnical Judaism is concerned, I am not convinced that there are any scriptural verses understood by both the Rabinnical Jews, given their embrace of the mystical system of Kabbalah, and the Christians, where the interpretation is shared between them and all Christian denominations, and there are many cases where only Messianic Jews and similar denominations, such as the Molokans (Russian Sabbatarians) would agree with their Orthodox Jewish counterparts on the interpretation of certain verses).

Rather, Sola Scriptura as understood by Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley regards Scripture as the source of all doctrine, but does not regard Scripture as being self-explanatory, but rather, postulates the use of the tradition of the Early Church, what Calvinist theologians call the Consensus Patrum, and also the use of Reason, and in the case of John Wesley and the Methodists, the use of Experience, to guide the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Indeed part of the reason why Karl Barth caused such a stir with his astonishingly voluminous work of systematic theology, Church Dogmatics, is that unlike earlier systematic theologians (namely, John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas), he discounted the importance of tradition and relied more on reason in interpreting it, and the movement of Protestants, predominantly Reformed Protestants, who adopted his Church Dogmatics became known as “Neo-Orthodoxy.” Thus I would argue that Karl Barth was actually a crypto-Restorationist, having a good deal in common with other Restorationists such as James Fox, John Nelson Darby and Ellen G. White, and on the other hand, Stone and Campbell, while technically Restorationists, insofar as they did embrace tradition, particularly by stressing the importance of a weekly Eucharist and making some use of Calvinist theology and accepting its Patristic basis, conversely, can be regarded as closer to Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley; they might be regarded as crypto-Protestants; of course, a great many people do not bother to differentiate between Protestants and Restorationists, but I feel the difference matters a great deal, except in the very specific cases of the Evangelical Quakers who do engage in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, rather than relying exclusively on unprogrammed “Waiting Worship” and the Stone/Campbell Movement, which is to say, the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, where there is not much difference.

But in all other cases, there is a substantial difference between Restorationist churches such as the Adventists, the Plymouth Brethren and the Quakers, and the Protestant churches, in that Restorationist churches tend to pose a radical departure from the practices of traditional churches (with the exception of the Stone/Campbell movement, which actually managed to revive certain practices of the Early Church).

Now, concerning Sola Scriptura as understood in its original meaning by Martin Luther, and by John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley, the doctrine is not hugely different from the Orthodox, Catholic and Assyrian approach (which was also the approach of the Czech Utraquists led by St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who are venerated as martyrs by the Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church), which could I suppose be called, with a high degree of accuracy, prima scriptura, since in Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox and Assyrian churches, Scripture is regarded as the primary and most important source of Revelation, and within Sacred Scripture, the four canonical Gospels are regarded as the most important books, followed by the rest of the New Testament, the Psalms, which remain the primary hymns in most of the liturgical churches, and also those Old Testament texts which are the clearest prophecies of our Lord, although the entire Old Testament is regarded in Orthodoxy as holy and important insofar as the entire Old Testament is, most importantly, Christological prophecy based on what Christ our True God asserted about it at the end of the Gospel of Luke, when he showed the Eleven Faithful Disciples how the Scriptures of what we now call the Old Testament were in fact all about Him.** It is of course also other things, such as accounts of the histories of creation and of Noah and Abraham and the Hebrews and the Jews, and certain other persons of note, and sage advice, , and beautiful poetry and song, but its chief function is as a prophecy for the coming of Christ. It also includes those laws enacted for the regulation of the Hebrew people including the Jews which are now no longer in effect, but these laws themselves have a prophetic character, insofar as no one other than Christ and according to most traditional Christians, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and perhaps a few others such as St. Elijah the Holy Prophet, who is widely venerated by the Orthodox, actually abided by them in their entirety, and even in the case of our most glorious lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, she still required the salvation provided by our Lord, since keeping the whole law, or rather, not sinning, would not, prior to the passion of our Lord, be sufficient to obtain salvation except in a few cases where it was necessary to take the person up into Heaven before death in a chariot of fire (specifically, St. Elijah), or in other cases, such as Moses, who did sin, but was assumed bodily after death, but following our Lord, death is no longer something to be feared, since through faith in Him and membership in His church, the Body of Christ according to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, to which we are grafted on through Baptism and partake of through the aptly named Eucharistic sacrament of Holy Communion, we have a hope of rising from the dead as he did. Indeed this is the most probable explanation as to why the Theotokos was taken up into Heaven after she reposed rather than before, for since our Lord, God and Savior died on the cross, He defeated death, and by herself dying and then being taken into heaven, His mother demonstrated to us that we ourselves should not fear it but rather should fear our sins, for even if we lived an eternity in this life our sins would still damn us, because if you think about it, existing perpetually in this reality in our present fallen state would be the most extreme form of torture.

*Specifically, the Gospel according to St. Luke the Evangelist declares:

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

And the Only Begotten Son and Incarnate Word of God then said, when the rest of the Apostles were gathered after dinner:

44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48“You are witnesses of these things.”

Thus based on this we can assert that the Old Testament in its entirety is Christological, and this is the belief of the Orthodox Church and as far as I am aware the Roman Catholic church and the other traditional liturgical churches.

This I suspect is why many Adventist members get adverse reactions when they assert that a given verse has a specific and incontrovertible meaning, which disagrees with what the early church, the Orthodox, the Catholics and most other Protestants say that it has.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Orthodox and the Catholics share the same sacraments and a chunk of the same Church Fathers and the same canon of Scripture. So while not being very agreeable to each other there is huge real agreement. The theological agreement does not yet make for personal agreement. That's just human stubbornness. Underneath that, though the Orthodox would hate to admit it, is a whole lot of agreement. But the children of the Reformation go off in all directions. If Scripture were so obvious there wouldn't have been thousands of denominations but maybe only a dozen. And more all the time.

That really depends on the Orthodox in question. A number of Orthodox Christians, Eastern and Oriental, are very much in favor of reconciliation, in particular the Syriac Orthodox Church, which is believed to have given the Eucharist to Roman Catholics in Turkey and elsewhere. I have also been advised by a monastic of that church to seek out a Roman Catholic church if ever I could not find an Orthodox church. Interestingly, at the turn of the century, due to the failed union of the Episcopal Church with the Eastern Orthodox, even after it became evident that the union would be impossible, St. Raphael of Brooklyn continued to direct ethnically Antiochian members* to receive the Eucharist in Episcopalian churches.

In addition, the Assyrian Church of the East has very close ties with the Roman Catholic Church and routinely gives communion to Chaldean Catholics (they will in fact give the Eucharist to anyone who believes in the Real Presence).

Indeed the Antiochian Orthodox church has developed good relations with the Melkite Greek Catholics, and a few years ago an over-enthusiastic Melkite Patriarch proposed the two churches merge, which prompted a flurry of communications from other Catholic bishops and Orthodox bishops on the numerous problems with that proposal. Likewise the Assyrian Church of the East politely turned down a request from the Chaldean Catholic Church to merge the two denominations. The main issue in both cases would of course be the loss of autocephalous status.

However I regard it as a sign of immense progress to quote the mere fact that such proposals have been seriously made and have been seriously replied to rather than being laughed off or dismissed outright as might have happened in, for instance, the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, when the Christians of the former Byzantine Empire were now entirely subjugated under Turkocratia, this being largely due to the action and inaction of the Venetian Republic, but the blame for this was attributed to the Roman church (perhaps unfairly, or perhaps not; this was a period of time when there were many problems which would not be fixed until the mid sixteenth century at the Council of Trent under Pope St. Pius V, as well as the terribly corrupt Borgias, such as Pope Alexander VI, who most Catholics I think would agree was not a particularly good Pope, and his somewhat better successor, Pope Julius II, who still nonetheless engaged in military actions which would later result in Rome being sacked during the reign of Pope Leo X.

To quote Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, addressing Catholic bishops in Detroit on the subject of ecumenical reconciliation, who in turn quoted Winston Churchill, in saying, “We are not at the end, or the beginning of the end, but we have reached the end of the beginning.”**

* at the time, in the US, were still a part of the Russian Orthodox Church - the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America along with the breakup of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America into the conservative ROCOR based on the instruction of St. Tikhon to ignore any further communications coming from Moscow due to coercion of clergy, the moderate Metropolia, now known as the OCA, which retained dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate and was granted autocephaly, that is to say, full ecclesiastical independence, by them, around 1970, and the handful of Patriarchal Parishes that remain to this day under the MP, as well as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of North America which is a part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

**My wording is not precise but from memory, but this is the substance of what both Winston Churchill and Metropolitan Kallistos said.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I sympathize with your point of view since I also believe we have free will -- but I think it adds confusion to call that "we also believe in once-saved-always saved" since all Christians (both Calvinists and non-Calvinists) agree that once people get to heaven they don't become lost at a later point in time.

I see your point Bob. We do not want to be associated with an unbiblical doctrine.
Perhaps this should involve a discussion over free will.

While we are here, we do have the choice to accept or reject God. The parable of the seeds shows us that there are some that accept the Word, which is the seed, but later reject it

Jesus warns us to count the cost before we start to follow Him. Satan offers us the path of riches, vain glory, and pride. Jesus calls us to poverty, contempt, and humility.
I chose my screen name to remind me of those facts. You are not your own, you are bought with a price.
Poverty, because although we may appear to be wealthy, everything that we have belongs to God. It is not ours, and we much detach our hearts from material things.
Contempt, because Jesus says you will be hated for His name’s sake. Not just from pagans and unbelievers but Jesus warns that our greatest enemies will be of our own household. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. We much detach our hearts from the esteem of men
Humility we tend to think of ourselves as good and everyone else is bad. God will reward us and punish others, but the word tells us to esteem all others as better than ourselves.

The Calvinists are right in that there is an elect, but they are wrong in thinking we can know who they are. If one proclaims to be part of the elect without special knowledge given to him by God, it is evidence that he is not. Presumption and arrogance are not evidence of godly behavior. This is why Paul warns us to make our calling and election sure and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling

We are not to judge others but we can judge ourselves. We read God’s law and look at our behavior. If we fall short, we ask for the grace to overcome, and patiently yet confidently expect to receive it.

Too many people rely and a few words they once said. “I said the sinners prayer, so I know I am saved”, because I am not saved by works, isn’t relying on a sinners prayer relying on a work?

Yes God knows those that are His, but are you one of them? The elect are virtuous, do we teach people to pursue virtue? The virtues of faith, hope and charity are given to us by God when we are born again and baptized. Jesus commanded baptism and underwent it Himself, so a born again person would not refuse baptism nor challenge its effectiveness. The other virtues of justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude come to us from God as we put them into practice, yet we can only do them by the grace of God. As Paul says it is no longer I that liveth but Christ liveth in me.
Our desires remain with us when we are born again, but we can get them under control by mortification. As Paul tells us to mortify the deeds of the flesh. That is a life long process and it take the first step of humility. As Jesus said to enter the kingdom of heaven, we must become as little children. When born again, we are babes in Christ.
We cannot speak the name of Jesus, yet refuse to completely obey Him. The word says, if any man claims to know Christ, yet hates his brother, he is a liar and the truth is not in him.
The works of the flesh are the seven deadly sins, Pride, lust, envy, wrath, greed, gluttony and sloth. A born again person will work to mortify those and turn them around 180 degrees to virtue. The seven virtues are Humility, Chastity, kindness, patience, generosity, temperance and fortitude(courage). We take the example of our Blessed Mother, behold the handmaid/servant of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word. When we pray the Our Father and say thy will be done, it is not a fantasy about some future time when the evil of the world is gone, rather it is said along with the attitude of Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane when He humbled Himself, not my will Father, but yours be done.

Go ahead, call the Catholic faith a works based religion, but you will find that the accusations are false. Those that accuse us of works salvation are relying on the very thing they accuse us of doing. The sinners prayer is a work, the day on which you worship is a work. Where is the humility?

Christ chose Peter above the other Apostles. Christ breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins. Christ gave the Apostles the great commission and told them to go into the world and preach the Gospel and baptize all nations. The Apostolic Church chose the day of Christian worship, yet still honors the Sabbath. Who am I to go against God and His Church? I have not received a divine commission from God, nor claim to be a prophet. I can tell you that when I humbled myself before Christ and submitted to the full authority of His Church, the sin that so easily beset me was gone. That cannot be from Satan because Our Lord says Satan does not cast out Satan, someone that gives up sin is not committing evil.

The born again believer never says that he is saved until he reaches heaven, as it is not an act of humility to do so. We do not have the knowledge to judge ourselves good, nor to judge our neighbor evil. Christ commands us to love our enemies, the extent that we obey Him shows how much we love Him.

The word of God is to be used for training in righteousness. If we sin, we do not make excuses and say God only sees Jesus’ don’t worry about your sin remaining. No, we say God will condemn sin and we cannot say that we love Him if we remain in sin, yet God has promised to cleanse us of all unrighteousness, and he is faithful and true

 

[boughtwithaprice]

2. Paul was not telling them what scripture is or redefining scripture or saying "don't believe scripture - believe me instead" or anything of that sort. So they only had scripture and their own magesterium guiding them when the Holy Spirit lead them to hear Paul. They decided to let the Holy Spirit guide their understanding of their own scriptures and "see if" those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were so.

Your ascertain here is correct, but the same thing can be said of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Where does it contradict scripture?
Does it really contradict scripture or just your interpretation of it? Does history show that Christ founded your Church, or do you presume it to be so? What is the basis of that presumption?

Mine is based on scripture and sabbath reasoning. On the Sabbath, God rested and His work of creation was done, which is why we have the natural law of “matter can neither be created nor destroyed” why?, God is done for now, as I do not presume Him to be done for eternity unless He says so.

The sabbath reasoning of the New Testament is that when Christ founded His Church, no new churches were created. As Paul says, Is Christ divided? God forbid!! That is true Sabbath reasoning. Unless you can trace the origins of your group to the actual Apostles and their teaching, then that is an act against humility.
It’s just like my driver’s ed teacher would tell me. You may see another driver breaking a traffic law and you may feel justified in continuing on your course, as you are in the right, but unless you humble yourself and yeild to that truck running a red light at high speed, you are just as dead as if you were wrong.
How does this apply to Sabbath reasoning? Who is in charge of God’s Church? The Holy Spirit. Ok, so what gives you the right to lift your hand against God’s anointed? Your reasoning? Your sense of righteousness? Well God did not give you that authority. You took it for yourself.
How have you maintained humility? What gives you the right to judge another man’s servant?

Our sense of righteousness is faulty, as some of my Baptist friends like to quote Isaiah, “Our righteousness is as filthy rags”. If so then why rely on it? Then what do we do?

It is better to act out of humility than judgement. The word tells us to test the spirits to see whether they are from God. When we act with humility, we find the truth in patience. As Elijah found the voice God in the still small voice. God was not in the earthquake, He was not in the thunder, but we find Him, if we search with all our hearts.

but I am right and those people are wrong. I know it. Ok are you claiming to speak for God and your words are His words? Have you endured injustice or have you returned evil for evil?

But why should we endure injustice? Should we not righteously destroy? No, God commands you to love your enemies, bless and do not curse. Return not evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. But why? We know they are wrong and I cannot endure injustice?

Really? Do you not know that every drop of spittle, every blow across the face, every word of mockery, all the indignity of the crown of thorns, every crash of the whip, the nails to His hands and feet, the hours of agony on the cross, were unjustified. Who are you? Your master shows patience and meekness, as He says Father forgive them, they know not what they do.
Jesus says a servant is not greater than his master. If you are not willing to endure injustice for the sake of the body of Christ, is He really your master, or do you claim that title for yourself?

Iraneus wrote in the second century between 170 and 190 the list of the Apostolic successors of Peter. These were the Bishops of Rome. It is fascinating reading. No the Catholic Church was not founded by the Roman Empire in the fourth century. It was established long before Constantine.

Many have raised there hands against her since that time, and claimed the right to do so, yet if the Catholic Church was not of God, would she still be here after 2,000 years? She has gone through turmoil to be sure, but the Church remains, and though the voices be loud and the cries severe, the gates of hell will not prevail

 

[Clare73]

I see your point Bob. We do not want to be associated with an unbiblical doctrine.
Perhaps this should involve a discussion over free will.

While we are here, we do have the choice to accept or reject God. The parable of the seeds shows us that there are some that accept the Word, which is the seed, but later reject it

Jesus warns us to count the cost before we start to follow Him. Satan offers us the path of riches, vain glory, and pride. Jesus calls us to poverty, contempt, and humility.
I chose my screen name to remind me of those facts. You are not your own, you are bought with a price.
Poverty, because although we may appear to be wealthy, everything that we have belongs to God. It is not ours, and we much detach our hearts from material things.
Contempt, because Jesus says you will be hated for His name’s sake. Not just from pagans and unbelievers but Jesus warns that our greatest enemies will be of our own household. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. We much detach our hearts from the esteem of men
Humility we tend to think of ourselves as good and everyone else is bad. God will reward us and punish others, but the word tells us to esteem all others as better than ourselves.

The Calvinists are right in that there is an elect, but they are wrong in thinking we can know who they are. If one proclaims to be part of the elect without special knowledge given to him by God, it is evidence that he is not. Presumption and arrogance are not evidence of godly behavior.

Is it presumption and arrogance, or is it belief of the NT word of God in 1 Jn 3:10-4:13, where
1) we know who the children of God are (3:10),
2) we know we have passed from eternal death to eternal life (3:14),
3) we know what love is (3:16),
4) we know we belong to the truth (3:19),
5) we know Christ lives in us (3:24),
6) we know who the elect are (4:6),
7) we know we live in him and he in us (4:13)

This is why Paul warns us to make our calling and election sure and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling

We make our calling and election sure (2 Pe 1:10) in working out with fear and trembling (Php 1:12) what God has worked in us to do (Php 1:13).

We are not to judge others but we can judge ourselves. We read God’s law and look at our behavior. If we fall short, we ask for the grace to overcome, and patiently yet confidently expect to receive it.
Too many people rely and a few words they once said. “I said the sinners prayer, so I know I am saved”, because I am not saved by works, isn’t relying on a sinners prayer relying on a work?
Yes God knows those that are His, but are you one of them? The elect are virtuous, do we teach people to pursue virtue? The virtues of faith, hope and charity are given to us by God when we are born again and baptized. Jesus commanded baptism and underwent it Himself, so a born again person would not refuse baptism nor challenge its effectiveness. The other virtues of justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude come to us from God as we put them into practice, yet we can only do them by the grace of God. As Paul says it is no longer I that liveth but Christ liveth in me.
Our desires remain with us when we are born again, but we can get them under control by mortification. As Paul tells us to mortify the deeds of the flesh. That is a life long process and it take the first step of humility. As Jesus said to enter the kingdom of heaven, we must become as little children. When born again, we are babes in Christ.
We cannot speak the name of Jesus, yet refuse to completely obey Him. The word says, if any man claims to know Christ, yet hates his brother, he is a liar and the truth is not in him.
The works of the flesh are the seven deadly sins, Pride, lust, envy, wrath, greed, gluttony and sloth. A born again person will work to mortify those and turn them around 180 degrees to virtue. The seven virtues are Humility, Chastity, kindness, patience, generosity, temperance and fortitude(courage). We take the example of our Blessed Mother, behold the handmaid/servant of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word. When we pray the Our Father and say thy will be done, it is not a fantasy about some future time when the evil of the world is gone, rather it is said along with the attitude of Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane when He humbled Himself, not my will Father, but yours be done.
Go ahead, call the Catholic faith a works based religion, but you will find that the accusations are false. Those that accuse us of works salvation are relying on the very thing they accuse us of doing. The sinners prayer is a work, the day on which you worship is a work. Where is the humility?
Christ chose Peter above the other Apostles. Christ breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins. Christ gave the Apostles the great commission and told them to go into the world and preach the Gospel and baptize all nations. The Apostolic Church chose the day of Christian worship, yet still honors the Sabbath. Who am I to go against God and His Church? I have not received a divine commission from God, nor claim to be a prophet. I can tell you that when I humbled myself before Christ and submitted to the full authority of His Church, the sin that so easily beset me was gone. That cannot be from Satan because Our Lord says Satan does not cast out Satan, someone that gives up sin is not committing evil.

The born again believer never says that he is saved until he reaches heaven, as it is not an act of humility to do so. We do not have the knowledge to judge ourselves good, nor to judge our neighbor evil. Christ commands us to love our enemies, the extent that we obey Him shows how much we love Him.
The word of God is to be used for training in righteousness. If we sin, we do not make excuses and say God only sees Jesus’ don’t worry about your sin remaining. No, we say God will condemn sin and we cannot say that we love Him if we remain in sin, yet God has promised to cleanse us of all unrighteousness, and he is faithful and true

Who made that rule?

The apostle John, for one, disagrees with you.

 

[BobRyan]

Your ascertain here is correct, but the same thing can be said of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Where does it contradict scripture?
Does it really contradict scripture

This is exactly the sort of questions to be asked in the "sola scriptura" example given in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:7-13

In both examples the scriptures are the standard and in both cases the established POV/Tradition/teaching of the nation-church magesterium started by God at Sinai - was found to be in error

or just your interpretation of it?

In Acts 17:11 it is the case of NonChristian Bible students applying the test - correctly

Does history show that Christ founded your Church

amen

 

[BobRyan]

Mine is based on scripture and sabbath reasoning. On the Sabbath, God rested and His work of creation was done

The sabbath reasoning of the New Testament is that when Christ founded His Church, no new churches were created.

Just the Christian church

As Paul says, Is Christ divided? God forbid!! That is true Sabbath reasoning.

Some Sabbath details found in the Bible are so obvious - BOTH sides admit to them.
=======================================================
The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues two key points.
1965 -- first published 1959
(from "The Faith Explained" by Leo Trese page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...​

​

"The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...​

​

"nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"​

 

[The Liturgist]

Just the Christian church

Technically that denomination was not founded until the 19th century as part of the Stone/Campbell movement, along with the Disciples of Christ, with the more conservative parishes becoming the Churches of Christ. The Stone/Campbell movement is the only Restorationist movement I particularly like because they managed to restore weekly communion, a Patristic practice, which except perhaps among some Methodists or Anglicans and also the Roman Catholics, the Russian Orthodox churches serving the native Alaskan people and the sole Greek Orthodox church founded in the 18th century Colonies, was not otherwise available, and what is more, they encouraged weekly reception which at the time, while allowed, was unusual, outside of Greece (Mount Athos especially) where the Kollyvades Movement had emphasized it - John Wesley had also promoted it in the 18th century Church of England, but I am not sure if that particular Methodist teaching survived his death.

The original church founded by our Lord was either called simply the Church, or in the Nicene Creed the “one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” and also took on the epithets Catholic, meaning universal, and Orthodox, meaning right-believing, to distinguish it from the heretical Arian, Marcionite, Docetic, and other cults that called themselves churches. All presently existing denominations including yours are in some way descended from that ancient church, which was entirely united until the Nestorian-related schisms in the 5th century such as the one that occurred in the aftermath of Chalcedon, and later the East-West Schism or Great Schism of 1054, and the Protestant Reformation, and later the emergence of Restorationist movements in the West.

Meanwhile, the single church we confess in the creed is now interpreted according to competing ecclesiologies, such as those who argue it still exists in a unified way, perhaps defining it based on communion with one church or a group of churches, those who define it as being an invisible union of all Christians, those who base it on the idea of branches of the early church, sometimes with the requirement of Apostolic succession, and those who define it as being synonymous with each individual local church, and those who define it as every church that meets certain criteria. Scholars of theology like myself usually call this entity, however we define it (I am ambivalent on this point as I am somewhat sympathetic to each of these models, to a point) as the Church Catholic, the catholic church with a small c, or the Universal Church or as the Christian Church, a phrase I sometimes use, but also regard as redundant since any right-believing church must be Christian by definition.

The Western church is now highly fragmented but ecumenical reconciliation between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and in the West, between various Protestant churches, is helping to reduce schisms, so that in the future, denominations will largely be jurisdictions of one unified communion celebrating a particular liturgical rite, much like the relationship between the Oriental Orthodox churches or between the different Sui Juris churches of the Roman Catholic church, such as the Maronites, Chaldeans, Byzantine Catholics, Melkites, Ukrainian Greek Catholics, etc, each of which is basically a separate denomination united in communion with Rome and nominally under the Pope (I do believe that at this point an Eastern Catholic church from a secular legal perspective might have a reasonable chance of severing ties with Rome if they really wanted, but the reality is almost all of these churches exist in parallel to various Orthodox churches, and thus people will simply move between an Eastern Catholic Church and its Orthodox counterpart depending on their respective preferences.

 

[BobRyan]

Technically that denomination was not founded until the 19th century as part of the Stone/Campbell movement

If someone belongs to a denomination started by Stone/Campbell please feel free to speak to it.
If someone thinks Christianity began with Stone/Campbell instead of the NT writers - feel free to speak up on that point.

Schism from the OT church in the first century began with a sect of Judaism called "the Way" according to Paul.
But this does not mean that the Christian bible does not start with Genesis or that Christians believe in a "different Moses" or a "different Messiah" than the one found in the Bible, or that the OT calls for worship of a "different God" other than the one of the NT.

Matt 17 Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory. The same religion, the same God the same Gospel saving mankind.