Sola Scriptura defined....

[tulipbee]

why does the Roman denomination believe the Apocrypha is Inspired of God?

 

[thecolorsblend]

You are welcome to your opinions.

As for a poll, the results would not make a bit of a difference to me my friend.

I do not and have and never will operate on the basis of what others think or believe.

That doesn’t really change the fact that there’s virtually no consensus on how best to properly define (and apply) sola scriptura.

And even among those who profess a belief in sola scriptura as a doctrine, there is widespread disagreement over other doctrinal issues. More and more my struggle with sola scriptura has become the disconnect between the supposed “self-evident” truth of sola scriptura over and against the total disunity it engenders.

Still, I do find your citation of Wikipedia a little amusing inasmuch as I can log on to Wiki right now and change the definition as I see fit.

 

[Fidelibus]

what a bomb ! if I were the last man on earth and no one to preach to then the bible would be alone. protestants don't mean sola scriptura to be what you think.

So.....As a Protestant, you don't believe that Sola Scriptura (the bible alone) is sufficient as a sole rule of faith? If not, what is your belief?

protestants do obey elders and pastors and sacraments.

When you say "protestants obey their elders,pastors and sacraments" are you suggesting all Protestants are doing so equally and in full unity?

are you that upset we don't obey your pope ?

No.

he isn't my local church.

????

FYI. For Catholics, the Pope is the Supreme Pastor. of Christ's Church. (John 21,15-17) That means that he represents Christ's love and concern for every single individual. Including you.

 

[Phil 1:21]

When you say "protestants obey their elders,pastors and sacraments" are you suggesting all Protestants are doing so equally and in full unity?

Probably about as much as Catholics do.

 

[Albion]

That doesn’t really change the fact that there’s virtually no consensus on how best to properly define (and apply) sola scriptura.

Of course, there is. The problem you're thinking of owes to one or more of three other things--1) people who simply refuse to accept it, 2) some people and churches that have, on their own, "improved" upon it (as with Solo Scriptura, for example), and 3) the definitions that have been given, wrongly, by innumerable people who think they know what it means but do not.

 

[Major1]

That doesn’t really change the fact that there’s virtually no consensus on how best to properly define (and apply) sola scriptura.

And even among those who profess a belief in sola scriptura as a doctrine, there is widespread disagreement over other doctrinal issues. More and more my struggle with sola scriptura has become the disconnect between the supposed “self-evident” truth of sola scriptura over and against the total disunity it engenders.

Still, I do find your citation of Wikipedia a little amusing inasmuch as I can log on to Wiki right now and change the definition as I see fit.

I have given you the definition of Sola Scriptura now about 3 times. I have to ask you now why is it that you keep asking for it?

My thought was that sense you do not seem to be able to grasp all the other definitions I have given you, Wikipedia might be one that you could understand as it is more informational based than religion based.

Yes, I agree that even among those who ascribe to Sola Scriptura there are some who argue over doctrinal issues.

BUT, that is true of the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant church and ALL Christian denominations. To use that thinking to support your idea that Sola Scriptura is not a sound method is just wrong my friend because Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

That does not mean that every single person who ascribes to Sola Scriptura will agree on every single doctrine. No one will agree on everything found in the Bible but..........
what is necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is found in the bible and only the Bible.

Now with all due respect to you as a learned man and a Christian, may I say to you that most people who reject Sola Scriptura do so because they practice things which ARE NOT found in the Bible. So then, to feel not guilty of those things, they simply reject the method of learning which says the opposite.

You are welcome to disagree with me because I am not the expert. I am only posting here what the Bible says to me.

 

[Major1]

Probably about as much as Catholics do.

Love it!

 

[Major1]

why does the Roman denomination believe the Apocrypha is Inspired of God?

It seems that you are asking an opened question to anyone so I will give you my thoughts.

It is because the RCC has some doctrines that are NOT found in the Bible but are found in one or some of the apocrypha books.

Example:
Purgatory is NOT found in the Bible anywhere neither is it suggested.
Purgatory originated with Greek and pagan philosophy, in particular Plato, and was introduced into the church through Origen in the 3rd Century, who is considered a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church. In addition, the teaching of purgatory is contradictory to Scripture for it undermines its clear teaching of the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and is not taught in the Old and New Testaments.

That lead to the selling of "indulgence" and is the idea that by contributing some money to the Roman Catholic Church, you could "indulge" in a certain sin and not have to worry about the punishment for that sin.

Anyone who accepts the idea of Purgatory has rejected the Bible fact that what Jesus did on the cross was not enough to save men.

 

[Albion]

I have given you the definition of Sola Scriptura now about 3 times. I have to ask you now why is it that you keep asking fother it?.

To tell the truth, he appears not to be asking for the definition so much as saying that there is none. Notice how it was worded--

That doesn’t really change the fact that there’s virtually no consensus on how best to properly define (and apply) sola scriptura.

So long as it is possible to say that there is no consensus there is wiggle room for saying that there is no definition, and it is possible to say there is no consensus so long as the comments of people who have no idea what the term means are taken to be as meaningful as those who know the answer and have given the definition when asked for it.

But if we were discussing the meaning of Holy Communion, for example, it would not for a moment be allowed by the same speaker that no one knows what the answer is merely because there are people who have defined the sacrament as purely symbolic or purely spiritual or as consubstantiation or something else in addition to Catholics who believe it to be as the RCC defines it.

 

[Major1]

To tell the truth, he appears not to be asking for the definition so much as saying that there is none. Notice how it was worded--



So long as it is possible to say that there is no consensus there is wiggle room for saying that there is no definition, and it is possible to say there is no consensus so long as the comments of people who have no idea what the term means are taken to be as meaningful as those who know the answer and have given the definition when asked for it.

But if we were discussing the meaning of Holy Communion, for example, it would not for a moment be allowed by the same speaker that no one knows what the answer is merely because there are people who have defined the sacrament as purely symbolic or purely spiritual or as consubstantiation or something else in addition to Catholics who believe it to be as the RCC defines it.

That makes perfect sense.

 

[Major1]

I used prayer, reasoning, the Bible, and the guidance of the HS when I was first evaluating the Catholic Church back when I was an evangelical. But becoming a Catholic meant giving up that freedom and submitting to the authority of the Church. And it was a good thing, because in the past, I have made far too many mistakes that I've had to correct later on.

My dear, I have no argument with you. You seem like a wonderful person.

However, when you were a Protestant believer, who in the world ever told you that you were not supposed to submit to the authority of the Protestant church?

Every Protestant denomination has a requirement to an authority just as does the RCC.

Who said that you had "freedom" which you would LOOSE????
Are you suggesting that the freedom you are implying was the freedom to sin as you which to?

I must say to you that I do not understand what you are saying.

 

[Major1]

The one called the Church is promised by Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

But the one called a Church is made up of a bunch of people my dear.

The Christian church is a body of people who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and HE, Jesus is the head of that body.

 

[Major1]

I didn't use "church" with a small c, but 'Church" with a Capital C. Meaning the entire body of Christ. When we speak as a group, there is a truth about our interpretations. When we are divided, who knows what the truth is?

We will know what the truth is by the understanding of God's Word.

John 17:17..........
"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth."

Proverbs 30:5-6 ...........
"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."

 

[Major1]

Em, the Catholic Church also teaches grace alone, a free gift.

Are you sure about that?????

Rome says that Christ made an atonement for sin, meriting the grace by which a person is justified but that the work of Christ is not the exclusive cause of an individual’s justification and salvation. Ludwig Ott makes this statement:

Christ’s redemptive activity finds its apogee in the death of sacrifice on the cross. On this account it is by excellence but not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption....No one can be just to whom the merits of Christ’s passion have not been communicated. It is a fundamental doctrine of St. Paul that salvation can be acquired only by the grace merited by Christ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 185, 190).

According to the Church of Rome, Christ did not accomplish a full, finished and completed salvation in his work of atonement. His death on the cross did not deal with the full penalty of man's sin. It merited grace for man which is then channeled to the individual through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments.

This grace then enables man to do works of righteousness in order to merit justification and eternal life. Robert Sungenis expresses the Roman Catholic perspective in these words:

"What did Christ's suffering and death actually accomplish that allowed the Father to provide the human race with salvation? Did Christ take within himself the sin and guilt of mankind and suffer the specific punishment for that sin and guilt, as Protestants contend? The answer is no...Christ did not take upon himself the entire punishment required of man for sin. Rather, Scripture teaches only that Christ became a 'propitiation,' a 'sin offering,' or a 'sacrifice' for sins...Essentially, this means that Christ, because he was guiltless, sin-free and in favor with God, could offer himself up as a means of persuading God to relent of his angry wrath against the sins of mankind. Sin destroys God's creation. God, who is a passionate and sensitive being, is angry against man for harming the creation. Anger against sin shows the personal side of God, for sin is a personal offense against him. We must not picture God as an unemotional courtroom judge who is personally unharmed by the sin of the offender brought before him. God is personally offended by sin and thus he needs to be personally appeased in order to offer a personal forgiveness. In keeping with his divine principles, his personal nature, and the magnitude of the sins of man, the only thing that God would allow to appease him was the suffering and death of the sinless representative of mankind, namely, Christ (Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), pp. 107-108

 

[Major1]

theomatics and Ivan pain proved the extra books were not inspired. it was your Roman denomination that told you they were inspired. what are you going to do about that?

Do not forget Prov. 23:9 my friend.

 

[Meowzltov]

Are you sure about that?????

Rome says that Christ made an atonement for sin, meriting the grace by which a person is justified but that the work of Christ is not the exclusive cause of an individual’s justification and salvation.

The Catechism directly says:
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life

Grace is normally made available to us through the sacraments, especially baptism and Eucharist. HOWEVER, this is the ideal. God is not confined to this. There are those Christians who have been raised apart from the truth of the Eucharist and God does not hold it against them that they do not receive. Similarly, there are those who believe, but for various reasons are unable to be baptized, such as the thief on the cross. The church refers to this as the baptism of desire. It is not as if these are not able to receive the grace of God. As I said, although God prefers to work through the sacraments, He has never been limited in how He chooses to bestow grace.

 

[Meowzltov]

We will know what the truth is by the understanding of God's Word.

You are simply begging the question. We all read God's word, but we have different interpretations of it. That's what started this whole discussion. It's like you haven't been paying attention. I ignored, like I've been talking with you for the last umpteen posts and you haven't been reading a thing I've been saying. That's not very nice of you. When we read God's word, and have different opinions, how do we know whose opinion is right? How do we know which of us is truly guided by the HS and who just really really thinks they are but isn't?

 

[Meowzltov]

But the one called a Church is made up of a bunch of people my dear.

The Christian church is a body of people who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and HE, Jesus is the head of that body.

I don't disagree with anything you just said.

It's what we think that MEANS that we are struggling with.

I say that when the Church functions together AS A GROUP, it doesn't make the kinds of mistakes that we as Christian individuals make.

 

[Meowzltov]

However, when you were a Protestant believer, who in the world ever told you that you were not supposed to submit to the authority of the Protestant church?

There is no such thing as Protestant authority. In Protestantism, there is Sola Scriptura. IOW Scripture is the only authority. Yes, there the elders or the denominational heads, but if I were a true protestant, if I believed that my denomination went against scripture, I would be morally bound to disobey my denomination.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes, there the elders or the denominational heads, but if I were a true protestant, if I believed that my denomination went against scripture, I would be morally bound to disobey my denomination.

If you believe the RCC went against the word of God, would you not make the same decision?