SOLA SCRIPTURA THE FINAL AUTHORITY AND SOLE RULE OF FAITH

[Albion]

The bible if all fine but you need God himself and his guidance for a lot more stuff that the bible doesn't talk about, or if you have doubts about the bible.

It really depends on what you have in mind.

Sola Scriptura refers to essential doctrine. It does not mean that everything in life which might be important to do properly, as God would have us do it, is going to be defined in detail by the Bible. The Bible itself says that!

 

[NBB]

It really depends on what you have in mind.

Sola Scriptura refers to essential doctrine. It does not mean that everything in life which might be important to do properly, as God would have us do it, is going to be defined in detail by the Bible. The Bible itself says that!

Ah i see, well, i'm not sure exactly yet what sola scripture means, but ok. Still it bothers me a bit since there are topics it doesn't cover like some sexual sins or driving away demons and etc.

But to clarify a bit 'the sole rule of faith' it says, but what about Gods guidance?

 

[Albion]

Hard to say for sure on the most accurate number even the 40,000 estimate was many years ago now so it would possibly be much higher now. I see all this as a fulfuillment of God's Word.

Yes, but the figures--whichever one of those we use--have always been inflated.

As has been explained on these forums before, those figures count the same denomination over again for each different country in which it has a presence. The Methodist, Catholic, or Seventh-day Adventist churches, for example, which are worldwide organizations, are counted probably more than a hundred times each. But it's really one denomination, a single organization!

And on top of that, different auxiliaries of any such church--a religious order of sisters, for instance, or an evangelistic/missionary association--is counted as another church (!) for each country (!) in which it operates.

To use just a single example of this ridiculousness, consider this. We all know that there are a lot of Baptist churches and take it for granted, but the survey we are talking about here counts (thanks to some of the stuff mentioned above) over 300 Roman Catholic denominations. That's not over 300 different kinds of split-offs from the Catholic church or churches similar to the RCC, but allegedly more than 300 different Roman Catholic Church denominations.

 

[Albion]

Ah i see, well, i'm not sure exactly yet what sola scripture means, but ok. Still it bothers me a bit since there are topics it doesn't cover like some sexual sins or driving away demons and etc.

But to clarify a bit 'the sole rule of faith' it says, but what about Gods guidance?

Well, the subject here is Sola Scriptura, so I don't want to confuse the issue by talking about the whole gamut of Christian information, beliefs, practices, morals, and so on.

Sola Scriptura means that when it comes to essential doctrine, what we must know in order to be Christian, the Bible is adequate and unequalled by any human opinions, customs, pronouncements of church leaders, any of that. That's it.

But you are concerned about the wider issue of living a Godly life, not just having the essential dogmas available in Scripture and the assurance of salvation.

I understand. Depending on which church you belong to, the answer to that could be direct revelation (so called), or the guidance of the pastors, etc., or something else. But that is a separate issue from Sola Scriptura.

 

[concretecamper]

1. How different denominations disagree with each other on interpreting the Bible has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

sure it does. So God's intention is that we have scripture as the sole and complete rule of faith, but He makes it so confusing that what results is 70,000 different protestant denominations becasue they cant agree on what scripture teaches. That may be your thought of God but I think He wouldnt make it so complicated.

2. Most denominations disagree with the other ones for more mundane reasons, such as a non-doctrinal issue of some sort, the choice of the leader, or even ethnicity or nationality (in which case, the doctrines are not affected).

wrong! Most disagree on matters directly associated with Salvation.

 

[concretecamper]

so I don't want to confuse the issue by talking about the whole gamut of Christian information, beliefs, practices, morals, and so on.

of course not. That's becasue the Anglican teaching of 1900 would consider dammed the Anglicans of the 2020 becasue the latter's teaching on morals have changed so much as to condone same sex marraige and sodomizing.

Oh wait, sodomizing is ok becasue scripture says it is ok. Oh wait, the Anglicans of 1900 were right becasue scripture said it is a sin that cries to the heavens. Oh wait, will we have another version soon?

The application of SS is an utter failure

 

[Fidelibus]

Your response here...


You did not answer or address anything or respond to the content in the post you are quoting from.

Sure I did, you just didn't agree with the answer and just waved them off because they did't comform to your unbiblical belief in Sola Scriptura and your fallible, non-authoritative, personal onterpretation/opinion of Scripture, that is subject to error. Sorry

I did ask you this question.

I know you did

[/quote]If God's Word says that this faith that we are saved by comes by hearing and this hearing comes by the Word of God then I believe that we are to believe the Word of God to have faith. Now how are you going to have faith and God's salvation when you do not have God's Word if our faith and salvation comes by the Word of God?[/quote]


And my responce was.....

"Catholics believe God has been revealed to humanity through the person of Jesus Christ and his life, death and resurrection. Catholics also believe that God has been revealed in the Bible, and that God self-reveals through other means such as the traditions of the church as well as the natural order. Revelation, then, is the source of the rule of faith.

Catholics also believe all truth comes from God. God alone is truth to the Catholic. Catholics describe God's nature, attributes and knowledge as the "remote" rule of faith. God self-reveals to humanity, and that revelation itself is the remote rule of faith. It is considered remote because, as fallible creatures, human beings cannot directly interact with this perfect knowledge without some outside assistance. That assistance comes through the proximate rule of faith.

Both the written books of the Bible and the unwritten traditions of the Church make up part of the proximate rules of faith, according to Catholics. This is the part of God's truth that human beings can interact with. Catholics read the scriptures and participate in the traditions of the church and thereby interact with the rules of faith. These are considered "inanimate" rules of faith, however. The Bible and the traditions of the church can't give themselves interpretation; they necessitate something living or animate to be fully understood.

The Catholic Church, and the magisterium or leadership in particular, has the duty to properly interpret the rule of faith for the Catholic Christian. The teachers of the Church, including theologians of the past, current priests and bishops and of course the Pope provide Catholics with an infallible understanding of the Bible and the church's traditions. Catholics refer to this role as the "proximate and animate" rule of faith because this is a dynamic, living interpretation of the rule of faith."


And........


"Rule of Faith in Protestantism:
The Protestant Reformation broke away from the Catholic Church over a number of different doctrinal issues. One of the core issues that separates these two strains of Christianity is the rule of faith. Protestants teach that the rule of faith is simply God's self-revelation through the scriptures, and that it is the duty of every believer to read and interpret the scriptures without interposition from the church. The Catholic Church has argued strongly against this position, fully rejecting private judgment as the rule of faith."


Now maybe you would like to answer some of my questions that I've asked of another poster that went unanswered


1. Where does the Bible say we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior?

2. The Altar Call. Where is that in the Bible? (how many Non-Catholic churches actually have altars?)

3.The Sinner's prayer. Where is that in the bible?

4.Separating young people during church services, Where is that in the Bible?

5.Grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), Where is that in the Bible?

6. Agreeing on “essential” or “primary” doctrines. Where is that in the Bible?

7. Same sex marriage: Where is that in the Bible? You are an Anglican Albion....right? Is it not true that in early 2015, the Episcopal Church (the U.S. branch of the Anglican Church) voted to formally allow same-sex marriage? Where is that in the Bible? And are you good with that? (same sex marriage?)


Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

1. Where does the Bible say we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior?

Romans 10:9-10 among others.

2. The Altar Call. Where is that in the Bible? (how many Non-Catholic churches actually have altars?)

'Altar call' is only an expression. In few of the churches which utilize altar calls is there even an altar. The Bible gives copious references to the importance of preaching the Gospel and of the need for repentance. That, in fact, is the theme of the "Great Commission" by which Jesus sent his Apostles forth to make disciples of all nations.

3.The Sinner's prayer.

Same thing. It's a common theme in the New Testament. It's also not typical of most Protestant churches, just as the Altar Call is similarly not utilized.

4.Separating young people during church services, Where is that in the Bible?

Is that supposed to be a doctrinal issue? Someone else might ask where in the Bible your church finds a command to have stained glass windows. This kind of inquiry is nonsense.

5.Grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), Where is that in the Bible?

We'd never use grape juice.

6. Agreeing on “essential” or “primary” doctrines. Where is that in the Bible?

Isn't it rather the Catholic Church that nit-picks sins and classifies some as mortal and others as venial and then assigns different consequences in the afterlife on that basis? Yes. Most Protestants take the view that any falling short of the perfection of God is sin, that we are in sin without a Savior, etc.

7. Same sex marriage: Where is that in the Bible? You are an Anglican Albion....right? Is it not true that in early 2015, the Episcopal Church (the U.S. branch of the Anglican Church) voted to formally allow same-sex marriage? Where is that in the Bible? And are you good with that? (same sex marriage?)

First, The Episcopal Church is only one Anglican church body. That one is not the Anglican church to which I belong.

Second, same sex marriage is not practiced or authorized in my church. I know this is disappointing to you.

 

[rturner76]

Besides that, the idea that "Protestants read the Bible as laymen" is patently false. Check with almost every Protestant denomination and you will find a carefully written statement of belief. That's the church/denomination itself standing on a set of doctrines. It's not that everyone is supposed to decide for himself.

Then too, a leading issue during the Reformation was that the sermons should be more thorough and teach the Bible!

Today, as then, Protestant worship services generally feature the Sermon, while Catholic ones make it of secondary importance to the liturgy. And it is not for nothing that preaching by Catholic priests is even yet considered by most people to be of lesser quality than what you'd find in the average Protestant church.

I made an overreaching generalization about Protestant as laymen making up doctrine as they go, I apologize for that. There are denominations that have been established for hundreds of years with associations all over the world and clearly written and organized doctrine based on their interpretation of the Bible.

What I was talking about with everyone having their own interpretation is for example Lutheranism at first was basically Catholicism without all the hierarchy and corruption. Next, someone else had some different ideas than Luther, didn't trust Rome and they split off and use another interpretation of doctrine like Calvinism and so on. So it's not that every Protestant DOES have their own interpretation, but any individual CAN have their own interpretation and there is a church somewhere that will accommodate that view. If not, they can start one with no oversight or accountability. Us Catholics are sheep, we don't go for all that independent thinking.

I know what you mean by Protestants having higher quality sermons. It's something I miss from the AME church I used to go to, and they have much better hymnals too. I think every denomination if not every church focuses on different things. Some are focused on the Bible, some sacramental, some evangelical, some Apostolic, and so on. They all use the Bible but emphasize different areas of discipleship. I used to go to my AME and Luthern churches mostly to hear the sermon. As a Catholic, I look forward to the Eucharist the most. I want them to hurry up and get to the body and blood. IMO, the first Christians congregated for the purpose of communion and they made the most of the time by reading something from an Apostle and having an elder speak, either about the writing or just living as a disciple of Christ. I have no proof of that, it's just my feeling.

How many times does this have to be said--Sola Scriptura is concerned with what IS the authority to follow when it comes to setting doctrine, NOT how to interpret it?

Ok, I don't think I have heard it explained so concisely. This is the crux of the whole debate where I see what Sola Scriptura is apart from interpretation. Since becoming Catholic, I do not separate the two. I believe the Bible is better understood with "proper" interpretation. Of course, as a Catholic, I believe the Church has the most reliable interpretation. The next person would say I obviously have the wrong interpretation because my Parish is not Sola Scriptura so the interpretation must be flawed before opening the book. I disagree but that is the blessing of having more choices that Roman or Orthodox. We can believe what makes sense to us and we can even just choose with our hearts and do whatever "floats our boats"

Sorry for the 18 chapter log posts, I always feel like I need to add one more thing and I don't know what to cut. I need to learn how to say more with less words

 

[rturner76]

Your response here...


No one said it is one of the other. If no one said it is faith or works why are you trying to pretend that they are and making arguments no one is talking about?

My mistake then, apologies. When you were saying something about the Bible being the sole rule of faith, I guess I didn't understand what that meant fully. I thought you were saying something like all that matters is the Bible and nothing else. I think the Bible is there to tell us what to do AND we need to do what it says, not just believe what it says.

I'm glad you agree

 

[Albion]

What I was talking about with everyone having their own interpretation is for example Lutheranism at first was basically Catholicism without all the hierarchy and corruption. Next, someone else had some different ideas than Luther, didn't trust Rome and they split off and use another interpretation of doctrine like Calvinism and so on.

I don't know that we can say that, since Calvinism began in another part of Europe and wasn't a split-off from Lutheranism. It would be more correct to say that once Luther took his stand, it encouraged other would-be Reformers to take theirs also, and this produced rival religious movements although agreed on certain basics.

So it's not that every Protestant DOES have their own interpretation, but any individual CAN have their own interpretation and there is a church somewhere that will accommodate that view.

Sure, but these are different churches with different histories, just as the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Copts or Nestorians or Armenians are.

The tendency of non-Protestants to talk as though 'Protestantism' refers to some unified movement that in time fell into squabbling pieces isn't correct. If a Baptist, for instance, decides to become a Lutheran, it's hardly any different from a Roman Catholic deciding to become an Episcopalian.

If not, they can start one with no oversight or accountability. Us Catholics are sheep, we don't go for all that independent thinking.

There is something of a point there, i agree. Catholics are typically so afraid of leaving what they've so often heard described as "the one true church" that they will separate themselves in their own minds and in their beliefs, choosing to believe whatever they want, but not formally leaving the RCC. Is that a more ethical or correct approach than to switch to another Christian denomination?

I know what you mean by Protestants having higher quality sermons...I used to go to my AME and Luthern churches mostly to hear the sermon. As a Catholic, I look forward to the Eucharist the most. I want them to hurry up and get to the body and blood.

Makes perfect sense. Indeed, this is why Protestant churches generally have a prominent pulpit, even if the denomination is liturgical and sacramental, while Catholic churches have a prominent and centered altar with the pulpit off to the side. Orthodox Eastern churches, for all their splendor, usually don't have a pulpit at all.

Ok, I don't think I have heard it explained so concisely. This is the crux of the whole debate where I see what Sola Scriptura is apart from interpretation. Since becoming Catholic, I do not separate the two. I believe the Bible is better understood with "proper" interpretation.

Of course it is, and a Protestant pastor is at least as intent upon explaining it as a Catholic pastor is.

Of course, as a Catholic, I believe the Church has the most reliable interpretation. The next person would say I obviously have the wrong interpretation because my Parish is not Sola Scriptura so the interpretation must be flawed before opening the book.

I don't quite get why you'd say that UNLESS you are saying that your church stipulates up front that Tradition is as good as Scripture.

Sorry for the 18 chapter log posts, I always feel like I need to add one more thing and I don't know what to cut. I need to learn how to say more with less words

I know. Do I ever!

How many times have I started out to say something I think is compact and then am startled at the length of the thing when I'm finished.

 

[rturner76]

The tendency of non-Protestants to talk as though 'Protestantism' refers to some unified movement that in time fell into squabbling pieces isn't correct. If a Baptist, for instance, decides to become a Lutheran, it's hardly any different from a Roman Catholic deciding to become an Episcopalian.

Many of us are guilty of that. Anything that is not Catholic is just considered "not us." Many couldn't tell a Pentecostal from a Methodist and don't want to know. I was Protestant longer than I've been Catholic. I know first hand how different churches can be. What we all do have in common is "Jesus saves." The RCC admitted that at Vatican II.

There is something of a point there, i agree. Catholics are typically so afraid of leaving what they've so often heard described as "the one true church" that they will separate themselves in their own minds and in their beliefs, choosing to believe whatever they want, but not formally leaving the RCC. Is that a more ethical or correct approach than to switch to another Christian denomination?

I don't buy into the "one true church" notion. It is supposed to be a thing of the past but traditions don't go away easily. I think both approaches are valid. The RCC scenario you mentioned seems more hypocritical but Catholicism has almost turned into an ethnicity as much as a religion. So it's kind of like Judaism that way. You can do what you want but you better marry another Catholic or your parents aren't having it. I think most people don't agree with 100% of what their church tells them but I can't count how many gay, cohabitating, and birth control using Catholics there are. Back in the day, you would get denied communion until you change your ways. Only the most strict conservative parishes deny people for their sinful acts. It's pretty much a thing of the past so even the Church itself doesn't believe everything she teaches.

I don't quite get why you'd say that UNLESS you are saying that your church stipulates up front that Tradition is as good as Scripture.

I said that because I was under the impression that Sola Scriptura meant you interpret the Bible for yourself and accepting the Church's take on scripture was leaning on "traditions of men." I now assume that is incorrect?

Question......Do you see the Catechism as man-made traditions? If not, how do you see it? Is it useful? Is it something like keep what you want out of it and scrap the rest? I ask because it's supposed to be mostly if not all according to the scripture but many many (most?) Catholics look to the Catechism for church doctrine/rules before the Bible but maybe I got the wrong impression from the importance of it for confirmation.

 

[Albion]

Hello again.

t

Many of us are guilty of that. Anything that is not Catholic is just considered "not us." Many couldn't tell a Pentecostal from a Methodist and don't want to know. I was Protestant longer than I've been Catholic. I know first hand how different churches can be. What we all do have in common is "Jesus saves." The RCC admitted that at Vatican II.

I don't buy into the "one true church" notion. It is supposed to be a thing of the past but traditions don't go away easily. I think both approaches are valid. The RCC scenario you mentioned seems more hypocritical but Catholicism has almost turned into an ethnicity as much as a religion. So it's kind of like Judaism that way. You can do what you want but you better marry another Catholic or your parents aren't having it. I think most people don't agree with 100% of what their church tells them but I can't count how many gay, cohabitating, and birth control using Catholics there are. Back in the day, you would get denied communion until you change your ways. Only the most strict conservative parishes deny people for their sinful acts. It's pretty much a thing of the past so even the Church itself doesn't believe everything she teaches.

I said that because I was under the impression that Sola Scriptura meant you interpret the Bible for yourself and accepting the Church's take on scripture was leaning on "traditions of men." I now assume that is incorrect?

If there are no nuances there that I missed, yes. What you wrote there was incorrect.

Question......Do you see the Catechism as man-made traditions?

Honestly, I have not taken more than a quick glance at the RC Catechism in years, and that was to reference a particular issue. I don't think that I can critique the whole thing now, but I do know that the entries are simple summaries intended for the layperson.

When it comes to establishing the Church's stance on anything complicated, it's not the final word, although I get the impression from what gets posted on CF that many people think it is.

I wouldn't say that the contents are man-made traditions, however. We cannot make a label like that fit everything in the Catechism.

Is it useful? Is it something like keep what you want out of it and scrap the rest? I ask because it's supposed to be mostly if not all according to the scripture but many many (most?) Catholics look to the Catechism for church doctrine/rules before the Bible but maybe I got the wrong impression from the importance of it for confirmation.

Isn't it more correctly described as a simplified version of what the Church teaches, arranged by topic? Scripture is not excluded, but Traditions are also involved.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes, but the figures--whichever one of those we use--have always been inflated.

As has been explained on these forums before, those figures count the same denomination over again for each different country in which it has a presence. The Methodist, Catholic, or Seventh-day Adventist churches, for example, which are worldwide organizations, are counted probably more than a hundred times each. But it's really one denomination, a single organization!

And on top of that, different auxiliaries of any such church--a religious order of sisters, for instance, or an evangelistic/missionary association--is counted as another church (!) for each country (!) in which it operates.

To use just a single example of this ridiculousness, consider this. We all know that there are a lot of Baptist churches and take it for granted, but the survey we are talking about here counts (thanks to some of the stuff mentioned above) over 300 Roman Catholic denominations. That's not over 300 different kinds of split-offs from the Catholic church or churches similar to the RCC, but allegedly more than 300 different Roman Catholic Church denominations.

Hi Albion, if the figure is inflated or not for 40,000 chritian denominations around the world I do not know but even if there were 40 only we must agree that even 40 is too many right? I am sure you would agree there is many fringe movements and beliefs within all the major churchs of the world. To me I only see this as a fulfillment of the scriptures and signs of the last days before the second coming so I do not have a problem with it.

God bless

 

[LoveGodsWord]

My mistake then, apologies. When you were saying something about the Bible being the sole rule of faith, I guess I didn't understand what that meant fully. I thought you were saying something like all that matters is the Bible and nothing else. I think the Bible is there to tell us what to do AND we need to do what it says, not just believe what it says.

I'm glad you agree

I was saying all that matters is the bible as the sole rule of faith and God's salvation. I was not saying that faith was without works as works are the fruit of faith in God's Word.

God bless.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

sure it does. So God's intention is that we have scripture as the sole and complete rule of faith, but He makes it so confusing that what results is 70,000 different protestant denominations becasue they cant agree on what scripture teaches. That may be your thought of God but I think He wouldnt make it so complicated.
wrong! Most disagree on matters directly associated with Salvation.

I think every church has fringe movements. Even in the catholic church this is the same. That does not mean that there is no true Church of God. I believe God's true church is defined and revealed through the scriptures and their fruits which either align to the definition of the scriptures or do not. However it is my belief through the scriptures that God's people are in every church who are living up to all the light that God has revealed to them. However the time is coming and now is that the true worshippers will whorship God in Spirit and in truth as God is a Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth. There is only one defintion of what truth is according to the scriptures and that is the Word of God (JOHN 17:17). Finding God's true church or his truth is not difficult if one seeks God for it and claims God's promises that he will reveal it to them. Let me know if you want scripture references to anything posted here as I will be happy to share them with you.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Sure I did, you just didn't agree with the answer and just waved them off because they did't comform to your unbiblical belief in Sola Scriptura and your fallible, non-authoritative, personal onterpretation/opinion of Scripture, that is subject to error. Sorry

I know you did

And my responce was.....

"Catholics believe God has been revealed to humanity through the person of Jesus Christ and his life, death and resurrection. Catholics also believe that God has been revealed in the Bible, and that God self-reveals through other means such as the traditions of the church as well as the natural order. Revelation, then, is the source of the rule of faith.

Catholics also believe all truth comes from God. God alone is truth to the Catholic. Catholics describe God's nature, attributes and knowledge as the "remote" rule of faith. God self-reveals to humanity, and that revelation itself is the remote rule of faith. It is considered remote because, as fallible creatures, human beings cannot directly interact with this perfect knowledge without some outside assistance. That assistance comes through the proximate rule of faith.

Both the written books of the Bible and the unwritten traditions of the Church make up part of the proximate rules of faith, according to Catholics. This is the part of God's truth that human beings can interact with. Catholics read the scriptures and participate in the traditions of the church and thereby interact with the rules of faith. These are considered "inanimate" rules of faith, however. The Bible and the traditions of the church can't give themselves interpretation; they necessitate something living or animate to be fully understood.

The Catholic Church, and the magisterium or leadership in particular, has the duty to properly interpret the rule of faith for the Catholic Christian. The teachers of the Church, including theologians of the past, current priests and bishops and of course the Pope provide Catholics with an infallible understanding of the Bible and the church's traditions. Catholics refer to this role as the "proximate and animate" rule of faith because this is a dynamic, living interpretation of the rule of faith."


And........


"Rule of Faith in Protestantism:
The Protestant Reformation broke away from the Catholic Church over a number of different doctrinal issues. One of the core issues that separates these two strains of Christianity is the rule of faith. Protestants teach that the rule of faith is simply God's self-revelation through the scriptures, and that it is the duty of every believer to read and interpret the scriptures without interposition from the church. The Catholic Church has argued strongly against this position, fully rejecting private judgment as the rule of faith."


Now maybe you would like to answer some of my questions that I've asked of another poster that went unanswered


1. Where does the Bible say we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior?

2. The Altar Call. Where is that in the Bible? (how many Non-Catholic churches actually have altars?)

3.The Sinner's prayer. Where is that in the bible?

4.Separating young people during church services, Where is that in the Bible?

5.Grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), Where is that in the Bible?

6. Agreeing on “essential” or “primary” doctrines. Where is that in the Bible?

7. Same sex marriage: Where is that in the Bible? You are an Anglican Albion....right? Is it not true that in early 2015, the Episcopal Church (the U.S. branch of the Anglican Church) voted to formally allow same-sex marriage? Where is that in the Bible? And are you good with that? (same sex marriage?)

Have a Blessed Day!

You did not answer or address anything or respond to the content in the post you are quoting from. I did ask you a question in post 192 and previous posts you keep ignoring. If you do not want to answer it just say so.

I asked you if God's Word says that our salvation is by God's grace THROUGH FAITH *EPHESIANS 2:8-9 and that this faith that we are saved by comes by hearing and this hearing COMES BY THE WORD OF GOD *ROMANS 10:17, how are you going to have faith and God's salvation when you do not have God's Word if our faith and salvation comes by the Word of God?

The above question is based on the teachings of the scriptures alone in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:17. You did not answer it in your post here. You simply told me Catholics believe something different to what scripture teaches. Did you wish to have another go at answering this question? If you do not just say so as you do not have to answer the question if you do not want to. I can understand your reluctance here. My prayer is that if you cannot answer this question here perhaps you can pray about it further at home. I wish only the best for you dear friend and that you might be blessed with much love in the Lord Jesus.

May you receive God's Word and be blessed.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Ah i see, well, i'm not sure exactly yet what sola scripture means, but ok.

Hi NBB, the way that we use it here is that the scriptures are the inspired (God breathed) living Words of God. They are the sole rule of faith and God's salvation and the final authority of what is right and what is wrong as well as what is true and what is not true. They are also the very standard that we are to test the Spirits to see if they are from God or not from God. An understanding of God's Word however, can only be known as we prayerfully seek God through his Word and revealed to us by His Spirit guiding us and teachings us.

God bless

 

[Fidelibus]

You did not answer or address anything or respond to the content in the post you are quoting from. I did ask you a question in post 192 and previous posts you keep ignoring. If you do not want to answer it just say so.

Sure I did, you just didn't like the answer because it didn't agree with your fallible, non-authoritve, personal interpretation of Scripture, that is subject to error. Sorry

I asked you if God's Word says that our salvation is by God's grace THROUGH FAITH *EPHESIANS 2:8-9 and that this faith that we are saved by comes by hearing and this hearing COMES BY THE WORD OF GOD *ROMANS 10:17, how are you going to have faith and God's salvation when you do not have God's Word if our faith and salvation comes by the Word of God?

The above question is based on the teachings of the scriptures alone in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:17. You did not answer it in your post here.

Sure I did.... see post #207

You simply told me Catholics believe something different to what scripture teaches.

And how did you get the authority to determine what the Catholic Church teaches is different than what scripture teaches, or what your fallible and/or personal interpretation "thinks" scripture teaches?

Did you wish to have another go at answering this question?

Nope

If you do not just say so as you do not have to answer the question if you do not want to.

Thank you for giving me permission not having to answer! Ha-ha!

I can understand your reluctance here.

Now that's funny! Lol!

My prayer is that if you cannot answer this question here perhaps you can pray about it further at home.

Again, it's been answered. My prayer for you is that you'll accept it, even though your fallible, non-auhoritive, personal interpretation of scripture that is subject to error disagrees with it.

I wish only the best for you dear friend and that you might be blessed with much love in the Lord Jesus.

And I wish the same to you. Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Romans 10:9-10 among others.

Thanks, but no where in this passage does it mention having a "personal relationship" with Jesus.
If one was to do some research on the term, you'd see that the expression "personal relationship" comes neither from the language of the Bible nor from the history of Christian faith. The expression comes from the humanist psychology of the last hundred years, principally that of Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Eric Fromm.

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but having a personal relationship with Jesus should be more than just a one-time event; instead it is a daily act of love and gratitude for our Lord's sacrifice on the Cross.

'Altar call' is only an expression. In few of the churches which utilize altar calls is there even an altar. The Bible gives copious references to the importance of preaching the Gospel and of the need for repentance. That, in fact, is the theme of the "Great Commission" by which Jesus sent his Apostles forth to make disciples of all nations.

Here is a excerpt from a Protestant web-site of Victory Baptist Church in Kansas City, MO. titled: "Why We Don't Use The Altar Call" that explains why the "altar call" as being unbiblical.

Because God's Word Does Not Teach the Altar Call

It is vitally important in this practice as in all others that we look closely at the scriptures to find what they teach about this practice. As we do we find that the invitation is never commanded in God’s word. Search the scriptures as you will, there is no command in any scripture for us to use this method. Not only this, there is no precedent in scripture for using the altar call. The Lord Jesus never in his earthly ministry gave an invitation. The apostles of our Lord never in all their ministries used the altar call.

In Acts 2:36-37 we are told that at Pentecost 3,000 people were saved but no altar call was used. The saving of those 3,000 was the work of the Holy Spirit of God and not of clever emotional appeals to come to the front of the meeting place. Whatever reasons one may give for using the altar call, it is a fact that it cannot be supported from the word of God.

As we have already pointed out, some people believe and teach that if one does not give an invitation in connection with his sermon he is not evangelistic. But we cannot be more evangelistic than the New Testament and the altar call or invitation system is not to be found in the pages of the New Testament. Actually having an altar call is a departure from scriptural requirements and practice.

In the New Testament and in Christian history up until the year 1820 AD sinners were invited to Christ, not to decide at the end of a sermon whether to perform some physical action. You will search Christian history in vain for an altar call or invitation before about 1820. George Whitefield, the greatest evangelist perhaps of all time never used the altar call. Charles Spurgeon under whose preaching more people were saved than perhaps any other pastor over the centuries never gave an invitation.

Well, where did the altar call come from if God’s word doesn’t teach it? The answer is that the altar call is a human invention that is less than 200 years old.

It is generally recognized that the altar call was invented by a Presbyterian evangelist named Charles G. Finney who lived from 1792-1875. Finney referred to the altar call as coming to the anxious seat or to the inquiry room and began using it in his evangelistic services in about 1820. Did the churches do it all wrong in the matter of evangelism until Finney came along in 1820 with his new system? How were people saved during the 1800 years of Christian history before the advent of Charles G. Finney? Evangelist D.L. Moody took Finney’s altar call and refined it and in turn it was passed on to its modern champion, Billy Graham.

In a paper he wrote called "The Christian," Billy Graham defends his use of the invitation system by resorting, not to the scriptures but to psychology when he says concerning the invitation, "Many psychologists would say it is psychologically sound." Biblical practices do not need the endorsement of psychology! There is absolutely no biblical authority for this practice! Yet today virtually all evangelists and pastors and churches use the altar call or invitation system.

Same thing. It's a common theme in the New Testament. It's also not typical of most Protestant churches, just as the Altar Call is similarly not utilized.

But you must agree, the “Sinner’s Prayer” (“Dear Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I trust and follow you as my Lord and Savior”), is not in the bible. Even Protestant apologists Matt Slick and Tony Miano note, “There is not a single verse or passage in Scripture, whether in a narrative account or in prescriptive or descriptive texts, regarding the use of a ‘Sinner’s Prayer’ in evangelism. Not one”.

Is that supposed to be a doctrinal issue? Someone else might ask where in the Bible your church finds a command to have stained glass windows. This kind of inquiry is nonsense.

Can't help but notice no Scripture passage on "separating young people during church services."
So you agree, it is a man-made, unbiblical Protestant tradition?

We'd never use grape juice.

But many Protestant/ non Denominational churches and sects that are adhereants of Sola Scriptura do.

Isn't it rather the Catholic Church that nit-picks sins and classifies some as mortal and others as venial and then assigns different consequences in the afterlife on that basis?

Nothing to do with the question. Sorry

Yes. Most Protestants take the view that any falling short of the perfection of God is sin, that we are in sin without a Savior, etc.

In other words, nowhere in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, and others not.
You can not deny that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such as baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the process of justification?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible). You all claim to be ‘Bible-only Christians,’ but which group is right?”

First, The Episcopal Church is only one Anglican church body. That one is not the Anglican church to which I belong.

But both are adhereants of Sola Scriptura, correct? Why such a huge gap reguarding same sex marriage? Are you saying there is no central authority in the Anglican church?

Second, same sex marriage is not practiced or authorized in my church.

Okay!

I know this is disappointing to you.

This is a very odd statement to make, for a few reasons.

First off, for you to make this claim would require to to read my mind. And to be able to read my mind would make you omniscient. Do you consider yourself omniscient?

And lastly...... you would be wrong claiming I would be "disappointed."


Have a Blessed day