John 16:12(Denys Sola Scriptura)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”

Martin Luther​

The Facts about Luther, 356​

Amen!!!


It's one of the primary reasons why I, like Luther, left the RCC.

I do not beleive that an individual (person, congregation, denomination) is the sole infallible authoritative interpreter because he/she/it so self-claims.





.

 

[Benedicta00]

You sure are hung up on the RCC truth, aren't you. Well, good for you because you chose that truth. It is you truth, not mine.

so can i take that as a yes??? truth is relative?

 

[GorrionGris]

AMEN!!! STUDY to shew YOURSELF APPROVED unto GOD (not men) a workman that needs not be ashamed who rightly divides the word of truth.

ACCOUNTABILITY GOOD WORDS!!

Peace

Fireinfolding

Now make the Bible accountable, to an atheist.

 

[GorrionGris]

[/COLOR]


Amen!!!


It's one of the primary reasons why I, like Luther, left the RCC.

I do not beleive that an individual (person, congregation, denomination) is the sole infallible authoritative interpreter because he/she/it so self-claims.





.

What about a book?

 

[Benedicta00]

He also had the guts to say the following in his sermons which no Protestant here has admitted.

"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them."
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522.


Luther remarked several years later:

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304

Told you Henry, i wasn't making it all up.

 

[mont974x4]

In regards to the Bible Can you tell me who these canonists were and what Church they belonged to?
Also, were they part of some organization that had the authority to make such a profound determination? Did they write down their determinations and decisions, and, if so, where would I be able to get a copy? What criteria did they use to pick the twenty-seven books? Why do we accept their determination as binding on us today? How do we know they were right?”

How do we know what books are inspired and therefore infallible? If so much was riding on this collection of books, why didn’t the apostles clarify it for us? John lived to almost 100 a.d. (into the reign of Trajan, 98-117 a.d.). By this time the New Testament documents had all been written and passed around for years. If the apostles understood the matter to be as crucial as sola Scriptura Protestants do, why didn’t John select the canon for the Church and leave the infallible rule (canon) before he died? John should have done so to give us assurance of the books and to do so quickly so people didn’t have to remain uncertain for another 293 years. Wasn’t it his duty. as the last living apostle—the last chance at a clear revelatory canon. Why did he leave it up the Church?
For that matter, why didn’t Jesus close the Old Testament canon when he had the opportunity, to avoid all the confusion in later years? If the Book was the final word, let’s establish its boundaries and announce its intent. Why did he leave it up to his Church? Did he trust his Church to make such a binding decision, not only of what the canon would be, but also that there would be a canon. A reading of the New Testament, and the writings of the early Church, demonstrates that Jesus never promised us an authoritative book, neither did the apostles, nor did they seem to apprehend or comprehend a canon, nor mention it. They did both promise an authoritative Church though. The canon of Scripture was not the means of combating heresy in the first centuries of the Church: apostolic tradition and succession were the means. Tertullian stated that the heretics use the Scriptures to defend their heresies, but the Church based her defense on the tradition and succession passed down from the apostles.

nope, I can't and I don't care. I never said the Lord wouldn't or couldn't use people from the RCC. I never said there weren't saved people in the RCC.

God is faithful to preserve His Word how He sees fit.




I don't trust men, I trust God.


Still, no where does the Bible say the RCC is the true church or that we need a pope or earthly priests for confession and my other concerns I posted.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Now make the Bible accountable, to an atheist.

Wheres THAT VERSE?

Gods name was BLASPHEMED among the GENTILES THROUGH THEM and what did GOD DO?

He took the GOSPEL TO THEM

Thats the kind of God we have.

He Hardened THEM and ~reached out~ to the ones who blasphemed His name (though not in truth) but because ~of those~ who CONSIDERED themselves TRUTH BEARERS

God is JUST

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[GorrionGris]

Wheres THAT VERSE?

Gods name was BLASPHEMED among the GENTILES THROUGH THEM and what did GOD DO?

He took the GOSPEL TO THEM

Thats the kind of God we have.

He Hardened THEM and ~reached out~ to the ones who blasphemed His name (though not in truth) but because ~of those~ who CONSIDERED themselves TRUTH BEARERS

God is JUST

Peace

Fireinfolding

I know, but the thing is there is no standard to measure God's Revelation, because God's Revelation is the standard. How could you make the Bible accountable? You can't; which is exactly my point.

 

[Floatingaxe]

But everyone thinks their stuff lines up with scripture.

Like Luther said, i quote him becuase he said it best.

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”

Martin Luther
The Facts about Luther, 356

God's Word says everything BEST. Therein lies your problem. You like the ear-ticklers, rather than the truth-tellers.

 

[Benedicta00]

[/COLOR]


Amen!!!


It's one of the primary reasons why I, like Luther, left the RCC.

I do not beleive that an individual (person, congregation, denomination) is the sole infallible authoritative interpreter because he/she/it so self-claims.





.

That is absurd CJ...

in light of what Luther says here.

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304

The one who was self asserting himself and his gospel was Luther and not the Church. Luther never denied it, I fail to see why you feel the need to???

He knew he was breaking up the Church Christ founded, but he thought that God wanted him to do that.

He never acted or pretended like the Church's claims were self claims. That's you doing that.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And who's reading the 'tradition'

And who's interpreting them for us?

In the RC denomination, it's the RC denomination that chooses who is and who is not an Early Church Father.

It's the RC denomination what chooses which snippet from them is and is not Tradition - depending on whether it is correct or not (ie if it agrees with the RCC or not).

It's the RC denomination that authoritatively interprets the meaning of the snippet it itself choose from the ECF it itself chose, so that it agrees with the teachings of the RC itself. It's own interpretation of it's own chosen snippet of it's own chosen author is infallible and thus unaccountable.

It's the RC denomination that is the sole arbiter for whether the RC denomination is teaching correctly; it's Rule for this process is it's own chosen Tradition as it itself so defines, chooses and interprets (those chosen guys, those chosen snippets, that interpretration so as to teach what the RC denomination teaches). It's the RCC will alone and infallibly determine if self is teaching according to the rule of the teachings of self.



I hope that helps understand the process.





.

 

[GorrionGris]

God's Word says everything BEST. Therein lies your problem. You like the ear-ticklers, rather than the truth-tellers.

You think the Pope is an ear tickler? Pope Benedict the XVI? I beg to disagree.

Good night all And please remember no thread is worth being angry.

 

[Hentenza]

he went after the abusing of indulgences and that lead him to attacking the doctrine. After he attack that one, he went after others.

Yes, started with indulgences but it also attacked papal supremacy and other RCC doctrines.

Would now be a good time to mention his mental illness and OCD? That had much to do with why he had gave up and just changed the gospel.

Sounds like your opinion. You do really hate him, don't you?

 

[Hentenza]

It was you who in the beginning of it all accused us of following the Church blindly.

You were called on it.

We do not follow the Church blindly but have come to learn that the facts of history point to the truth being Catholic and not Protestant.

You do have some preconcieved ideas. Where did I say that you follow the church blindly? What I said was that your truth is the RCC but that doesn't mean that your truth coincides with everyone else.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I know, but the thing is there is no standard to measure God's Revelation, because God's Revelation is the standard. How could you make the Bible accountable? You can't; which is exactly my point.

What do those words mean? Bible accountable?

The scriptures testify truthfully to Jesus Christ (who is the Truth) of them. They speak of Him and to the revelation of Jesus Christ (in us) given of the Father.

No man can hold God accountable, we are each accountable to Him.

Maybe Im misunderstanding your words (on how you mean a thing). But definately we are each to study to show ourselves approved unto Him. I dont think that gets praise of men but of God who sees our hearts (and who knows what it is we seek) in doing so.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Benedicta00]

God's Word says everything BEST. Therein lies your problem. You like the ear-ticklers, rather than the truth-tellers.

Oh good Lord.

We asked you a question.. "Are you infallible?"

You answered, "No, you can err."

So we asked, "Then how do you know what you intepret is correct?"

In which you answered something to the effect, "Because the Holy Spirit teaches you."

In which I answered with the words of Luther.

I can say it myself if you wish?

Every body's interpretation no matter how foolish it is claim the Holy Spirit has taught it to him,.

Now you can either respond or not, but stop telling me that I devalue the bible.

 

[Hentenza]

Here's a nice summing up of it so everyone is clear.
http://www.biblicist.org/bible/sola.shtml
Sola Scriptura


[SIZE=+3]W[/SIZE]hen in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg he was merely disputing abuses in the Roman Catholic practice of "indulgences." The dispute intensified and widened, however, until Luther and his followers found it necessary to break entirely with Rome. So began the Protestant Reformation, and the doctrinal issues which separated the Reformers from medieval Catholicism are the _same_ issues which divide Protestants and Catholics today. While the doctrine of salvation (i.e., justification) became the central issue under dispute, the underlying question of religious authority was also a major concern.
Luther was convinced that the authority structure of Catholicism (Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium or Teaching Office) was illegitimate. He maintained that the church fathers, the papacy, and church councils were fallible, and had, in fact, erred. During his debates with Catholic theologians, Luther formulated the principle of _sola scriptura_ (solely Scripture) which recognized Scripture alone as the supreme and infallible authority for the church and individual believer. All ecclesiastical authorities were to be judged by Holy Writ, and never the reverse. The principle of _sola scriptura_ rejected both the idea that the Roman church possessed revelation apart from Scripture, and that the church was the infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Since the Reformation, theologians from a wide variety of persuasions have appealed to an equally wide variety of sources as the ultimate religious authority. These include reason, experience, creeds, church consensus, and the individual conscience. While recognizing that these have importance, historic Protestantism has continued to assert that the Bible alone is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. On this point, however, some questions are often raised: How do we arrive at this principle of _sola scriptura?_ How does the Bible derive its authority? And, where does Scripture teach this principle?
To answer these questions it is important to recognize that Christian theology views authority as a chain. For the Christian, the absolute authority is God Himself. More specifically, it is the triune God who reveals Himself, for authority and revelation are correlates. While God revealed Himself in deed and in word in the Old Testament, His greatest and clearest self-disclosure is found in the incarnate _Logos_ -- the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14; 14:6-10). Jesus Christ, who both _reveals_ God and _is_ God, is the imperial authority for the church and individual believer (Heb. 1:1-3). However, Christ the _Living_ Word has delegated His authority to His apostles, who -- through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- have recorded the _written_ word (John 14:26; 2 Pet. 1:21). Thus, Scripture has become our authority because as an infallible record of God's self-revelation it perpetuates Christ's personal authority. Scripture is objectively the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16), and is therefore authoritative!
Does the Bible teach _sola scriptura?_ The best way to answer this is to examine how Christ and His apostles viewed Scripture.
The Gospels reveal that Jesus held Scripture in the highest regard. His statements speak for themselves: "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NIV); "Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law..." (Matt. 5:18); "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" (Luke 16:17). Jesus asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19), while judgment will be measured out by the same standard (John 5:45-47).
The strongest evidence for the authority of the Bible is the fact that Jesus used Scripture as the _final_ court of appeal in every matter under dispute. When disputing the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, He proclaimed, "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition..." (Mark 7:13). Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable. When Jesus was tested by the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, He retorted, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures..." (Matt. 22:29). When confronted with the devil's temptations, He responded three times with the phrase, "It is written" (Matt. 4:4-10). Clearly, Jesus accepted Scripture as the supreme authority and subjected Himself to it (Luke 24:44). And, as followers of Christ, our view of Scripture cannot be inferior to His.
What about the relationship between Scripture and the early church? While it is true that the church preceded the apostolic writings, it was the _message_ (the gospel preached) -- which was later recorded and expounded upon in the apostolic writings -- that produced the church. The New Testament became a permanent, infallible record of what was earlier an oral message. Because Scripture is identified with the gospel, it is authoritative. The church (made up of gospel-believing communities) submits to the Word (gospel) which created it. Scripture derives _none_ of its authority from the church; its authority is _inherent_ because it is the very words of God: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Tim. 3:16).
The purpose of the Scripture is to bear witness to Christ, who Himself bears witness to the integrity and authority of Scripture: "You search the Scriptures...and it is these that bear witness of Me" (John 5:39).
Does the Bible teach _sola scriptura?_ Yes! Jesus Christ speaks to us authoritatively _only_ through the objective Word of God.
Written By: Kenneth R. Samples

Thanks for posting that, mooduck.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

...

 

[Hentenza]

No one is arguing that Jesus didn't send Paul.

The apostles knew also that Paul was sent.. how did they know? Paul's gospel matched theirs.

Thus, those who "seems to be pillars" gave him the right had of fellowship. They had the authority to judge.

They confirmed that Paul's gospel came from Christ. Anybody can pop up with a gospel and say, "hey, it's from Christ, believe it."

Paul didn't write a gospel, or did I miss it. Did the RCC cannonize one that I don't know about?

 

[mont974x4]

Back on topic:


If we do need more than Scripture, then what do we need?