St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

Standing Up said:

There's examples in scripture of Timothy, Jude, etc. But what's Paul say? "teach the same". A council that doesn't teach the same needs an enforcer to make it come about in that group.

Click to expand...

The Ecumenical Councils don't teach a different faith than the Apostles do. The Five Solas, on the other hand, lead to THOUSANDS of different faiths.

Standing Up said:

Since I'm a member of the Body of Christ, I don't think it was.

Click to expand...

You don't think it was broken? So apparently the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, leading people equally into Calvinism and Arminianism and Pelagianism.

sculleywr said:

You don't think it was broken? So apparently the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, leading people equally into Calvinism and Arminianism and Pelagianism.

Click to expand...

The three things that Traditionalists, Lutherans and Arminians have in common is the total disregard of rewards that leads to misinterpretion of Scriptures like:

Matthew 5:20; 7:21-23; 16:24-27; 19:23-30; 24:46-51; 25:11-13, 21, 23, 26-30; Luke 12:42-48; 19:17, 19, 22-27; Romans 14:10, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:8, 13-15; 4:5; 9:24-27; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:7-8; Hebrews 2:3; 4:1, 9, 11; 6:4-8; 10:26-31, 35-39; 12:16-17, 28-29; and Revelation 2:7, 10-11, 17, 26-27; 3:4-5, 11-12, 20; 22:12.

~Cassia~ said:

The three things that Traditionalists, Lutherans and Arminians have in common is the total disregard of rewards that leads to misinterpretion of Scriptures like:

Matthew 5:20; 7:21-23; 16:24-27; 19:23-30; 24:46-51; 25:11-13, 21, 23, 26-30; Luke 12:42-48; 19:17, 19, 22-27; Romans 14:10, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:8, 13-15; 4:5; 9:24-27; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:7-8; Hebrews 2:3; 4:1, 9, 11; 6:4-8; 10:26-31, 35-39; 12:16-17, 28-29; and Revelation 2:7, 10-11, 17, 26-27; 3:4-5, 11-12, 20; 22:12.

Click to expand...

Again, it is your claim that they are misinterpreted. There are dozens of other interpretations of them. I will be very frank, you're only bolstering the argument that Scripture is not truly preserved if the proper interpretation of Scripture isn't preserved alongside it.

sculleywr said:

Again, it is your claim that they are misinterpreted. There are dozens of other interpretations of them. I will be very frank, you're only bolstering the argument that Scripture is not truly preserved if the proper interpretation of Scripture isn't preserved alongside it.

Click to expand...

it is only as good as it is ALL used in context which says nothing for religions that deliberately leave out portions of scripture in support of their own doctrine (commonly called dirty pool doctrine)

~Cassia~ said:

it is only as good as it is ALL used in context which says nothing for religions that deliberately leave out portions of scripture in support of their own doctrine (commonly called dirty pool doctrine)

Click to expand...

You mean like James 2? Where James asks about whether or not faith will save apart from works, identifying the works that do save?

There is a reason that reading early theology reveals that Synergism is the earliest soteriology on the books. It's the first and only Apostolic message of salvation that exists.

Again, I will be frank, your claim is that Scripture is clear. My claim is that every text requires interpretation and the lack of clarity is the reason behind multiple theologies coming from one book. The evidence of the obvious supports the latter claim, as prior to Sola Scriptura, there was only one view that was considered Christian. Now, considering a view to be not Christian if it falls under the broad definitions of Sola Scriptura is liable to get one banned from this very website.

sculleywr said:

You mean like James 2? Where James asks about whether or not faith will save apart from works, identifying the works that do save?

There is a reason that reading early theology reveals that Synergism is the earliest soteriology on the books. It's the first and only Apostolic message of salvation that exists.

Again, I will be frank, your claim is that Scripture is clear. My claim is that every text requires interpretation and the lack of clarity is the reason behind multiple theologies coming from one book. The evidence of the obvious supports the latter claim, as prior to Sola Scriptura, there was only one view that was considered Christian. Now, considering a view to be not Christian if it falls under the broad definitions of Sola Scriptura is liable to get one banned from this very website.

Click to expand...

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one.”

~Cassia~ said:

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one.”

Click to expand...

Would it be a surprise that the Church did that? That is what the Orthodox Church teaches. The Church is unchangeable in the faith. That is the error that has resulted in every schism: rejecting the unchangeable nature of the Faith. Every Protestant denomination owes its existence to changing faiths. How, then, can they be part of the unchangeable faith?

The Faith was delivered once for all the Saints. It was not missing. It did not disappear. And it did not get hidden away.

sculleywr said:

Would it be a surprise that the Church did that? That is what the Orthodox Church teaches. The Church is unchangeable in the faith. That is the error that has resulted in every schism: rejecting the unchangeable nature of the Faith. Every Protestant denomination owes its existence to changing faiths. How, then, can they be part of the unchangeable faith?

The Faith was delivered once for all the Saints. It was not missing. It did not disappear. And it did not get hidden away.

Click to expand...

Funny that a disciple of a disciple saying what I said is acceptable but my post is not.

Rick Otto said:

I had to Google a sample to see if you were quoting someone. Nope. Your post was the first result.
Good form. I liked a bunch of your earlier posts for content, thinking maybe you came off as indiscriminately zealous or something, I dunno... now all of a sudden it sounds like I'm reading a routinely published author.
Are you an english major or something? I don't want to get all off topic, but your talent regardless of your position on the issue, deserves recognition, I think. So, just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Need more input to see who is being responded to here.

~Cassia~ said:

Funny that a disciple of a disciple saying what I said is acceptable but my post is not.

Click to expand...

Well, if your posts didn't leave so much room for interpretation, you wouldn't have this problem. Problem is that not accepting my answer is believing that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.

sculleywr said:

Well, if your posts didn't leave so much room for interpretation, you wouldn't have this problem. Problem is that not accepting my answer is believing that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that a bigoted interpretation is the problem

~Cassia~ said:

Seems to me that a bigoted interpretation is the problem

Click to expand...

Do not be fooled by the specious polemics posted by the Catholic apologists, who has blocked me after his arguments were refuted, but continues with the same. He imagines and argues that NT books not being called Scripture within the NT, and a lack of a table of contents of Scriptural books in Scripture negates SS, as if SS means Scripture must formally explicitly provide all things. And thus he argues for an alternative, that of an infallible church (in his case the Eastern one) to surely tell us what Scripture consists of and means (though significantly at odds with the Western "one true church" and its slightly different canon, as well as other cultic claimants to being the one true church) .

Yet as he has been told, the fact is that OT writings (which were foundational for the NT church) testify to souls correctly discerning and holding as authoritative certain men (prophets) and writings as being of God, even if opposed to the powers that be. And thus if believers could discern and hold such as authoritative, then they could do so with men like John the baptizer and other itinerant preachers who established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. And likewise additional writings in conflation with and complimentary to what had previously been established were recognized as being of God.

Thus consistent with this precedent and principle Scripture materially provides for the development of a canon, as well as for enjoining obedience to the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, though even Catholicism does not presume that its declarations are spoken under inspiration of the Holy Spirit as with Scripture, nor consist of new public revelation, both of which men as the apostles preached, yet where subject to examination by Scripture.

As for the the problem of variant interpretations, this is not a new problem, and is one that was an issue in the founding of the church, and after it, of which i shall speak. But first note again that the Catholic premise and solution is that an infallible church is necessary to resolve such, as it alone can assuredly determine what Scripture and the word of God consists of and means, and thereby they can declare that, as the historical magisterial church, they are the one true church (again, in competition with other claimants to that title) which can authoritatively declare such extraScriptural and contrary teachings as prayer to created beings in Heaven.

Thus all who dissent from her are in rebellion to God.

However, the idea of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is a novel one, unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, contrary to how the NT church began. Which, as said, was actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, (Rm. 3:2;9:4) and of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected, and whom they reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Therefore unity of the NT church was not based upon the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility, or ecclesiastical veracity, but rested upon scriptural substantiation. And the unity of the NT was under clearly manifest men of God, while the so-called apostolic successors of Catholicism fail of both the qualifications and credentials of these Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)

True SS Prots look for men such as Peter and Paul, which certainly are contrary to the deformation of the NT church.

But while the Catholic leadership is contrary to the NT church (in which is pastors were never ever even titled "priests" except as being part of the general priesthood of all believers), yet a central magisterium is the Scriptural ideal, not as possessing ensured infallibility as per Rome in particular, but as in Scripture, having judicial authority, but being subject to examination by Scripture, with the possibility of just dissent.

It is this which Catholicism, as with cults, seeks to disallow, and with the veracity of their judgments resting upon Scriptural substantiation, but this is how the church began.

Meanwhile, the problem of different interpretations exists both under the Catholic model for determining the veracity of teaching as well as under Scripture being the supreme standard, yet while your Cath. opponent resorts to defining SS Protestantism as including Unitarians, Scientologists, Swedenborgians and Episcopalian, it remains that belief consists of what one does and effects, and those who hold most strongly to Scripture as the wholly inspired accurate word of God testify and evidence greater unity in basic values and beliefs then the overall fruit of Catholicism.

sculleywr said:

You mean like James 2? Where James asks about whether or not faith will save apart from works, identifying the works that do save?

There is a reason that reading early theology reveals that Synergism is the earliest soteriology on the books. It's the first and only Apostolic message of salvation that exists.

Again, I will be frank, your claim is that Scripture is clear. My claim is that every text requires interpretation and the lack of clarity is the reason behind multiple theologies coming from one book. The evidence of the obvious supports the latter claim, as prior to Sola Scriptura, there was only one view that was considered Christian. Now, considering a view to be not Christian if it falls under the broad definitions of Sola Scriptura is liable to get one banned from this very website.

Click to expand...

Does the EOC have an interpretation of the book of Revelation? How much of the NT book do they view as fulfilled? Just curious. Thks.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/allusions-in-revelation-from-old-testament.7588850/

LittleLambofJesus said:

I find this person's view concerning the "allusions" found in the book of Revelation that are found in the Old Testament/Covenant rather fascinating.
Would anyone like to put down verses from Revelation and the verses from the OT/OC that are alluded to this? I think that would be fun. Thanks

THE SYMBOLISM IN BOOK OF REVELATION

One man studied and found 348 allusions (not illusions, Light) in Revelation from the Old Testament. You see the similarity in wording and the context mirrored in Revelation and the particular Old Testament story, and immediately can recognize the reference source! That’s, IF you know the bible well enough to even notice that.

95 of the 348 plain references used in Revelation as taken from the Old Testament are repeated in Revelation.
That makes about 250 Old Testament passages are cited. How many chapters are in Revelation? 22. That makes about TEN OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES FOR EVERY CHAPTER!

Click to expand...

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/tablecontents.htm

The mark of the beast. Armageddon. The Four Horsemen. The false prophet. Babylon the great. Falling stars, stinging locusts, and giant hailstones. The seven last plagues. The bottomless pit. The lake of fire. These images of terror and catastrophe from the book of Revelation have greatly influenced the thinking of millions of Christians through the ages. Even the secular press uses images such as "Armageddon" and "four horsemen of the Apocalypse" to describe calamities in our world. Despite 1900 years of fascination with the book of Revelation, John’s letter to the seven Churches of Asia continues to be misunderstood. And badly misinterpreted!

One misconception shared by some is that the Revelation has nothing of importance to say to us. It’s considered to be merely a bizarre piece of first-century writing with no relevance for today. Another wrong idea is that the Revelation is a code book describing a specific outline of history written in advance. Countless interpreters have tried to "decode" the book from a historical perspective to find all the major world events of the past 1900 years. Others interpret it more literally as a handbook for predicting the cataclysmic events that will bring the final wrath of God and the end of the world. The claims of Christian groups from the early church to the present — that the Revelation pinpoints the events, personalities, and time periods of "the end" — have all failed. This should be a caution to believers for using the book of Revelation as a predictive handbook. Other people’s interpretation of the book of Revelation is based on the "Pan Theory" — it’s all going to pan out in the end! Beloved brethren, the fact is, it’s not panning out the way the end-time prognosticators are projecting!.......................







.

PeaceByJesus said:

.....it remains that belief consists of what one does and effects, and those who hold most strongly to Scripture as the wholly inspired accurate word of God testify and evidence greater unity in basic values and beliefs then the overall fruit of Catholicism.

Click to expand...

Basic values and beliefs are a source of wonderful fellowship. Most of what you say I can heartily agree with except for your insistance on magisterium because I see Jesus dying outside of that for us while claiming a new priesthood. Gathering together is the criteria called for in Hebrews (which gives the heavenly view of where we as believers are now seated with Him). What does remain is the command for those who live and love scripture to rightfully divide the word from milk and meat. Catholicism allows for none of that.

Hebrews 12:12-14
Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
13 So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.
14 For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.

Thursday said:

So you don't think the apostles appointed successors? You know that they did, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Here's Pope Clement writing in about 80 AD about this process:

Pope Clement I



"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Click to expand...

"Administration" not "ministry" and not "Apostleship".

Proof that there is no such thing as Apostolic succession is found in the fact that in the book of Acts when the Apostle James is killed - no one is appointed as a new Apostle to take his place.

There is only 1 case of Apostolic succession and that is in the case of Judas in Acts 1- where the rules for a successor are laid out - it must be one who was a disciple of Christ. The only way around this was the case of Paul where God Himself comes down and makes Paul and Apostle -- not claiming any succession to anyone.

Thursday said:

Your opinion is wrong and it is directly contradicted by Catholic teaching.

If anyone wants to know what Catholics teach and believe, read the catechism. DON'T accept the opinions of anti Catholic bigots who don't know or care to learn the truth.

Click to expand...

By contrast - if anyone wants to know what the Word of God teaches - and how that affirms SS -- read the texts that speak to the point -- Wednesday at 10:45 PM #1033

~Cassia~ said:

Basic values and beliefs are a source of wonderful fellowship. Most of what you say I can heartily agree with except for your insistance on magisterium because I see Jesus dying outside of that for us while claiming a new priesthood.

Click to expand...

No, the fact that the Biblical or any magisterial power can err does not negate that judicial office, then or now, though the officials can be replaced with others. Like SCOTUS, the judges of Dt. 17:8-13, which came about to help alleviate Moses, had judicial power to bind or loose, to settle disputes which could not be settled personally or on lower levels, and dissent from which was a capital crime, yet they did not possess ensured magisterial infallibility.

The Scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses, to whom the Lord enjoined general obedience, (Mt. 23:2) as Scripture also does of civil authorities. (Rm. 13:4-7; 1Pet. 2:13-15) But which manifestly does not require or infer that such possess ensured magisterial infallibility, thus excluding the possibility of dissent based upon a supreme source of Truth, which as said, is how the church began.

The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)

While the magisterial powers challenged the Lord's authority, in response to which He invoked that of John whom they also rejected, yet the common people knew that John was a prophet indeed, (Mk. 11:27-33) and heard the Lord gladly. (Mk. 12:37)

And as in Dt. 17:8-13, the church is to judicially deal with disputes which could not not be settled personally despite attempts, even with assistance, and with the church rendering judgment which judicially binds or looses. (Mt. 18:15-18)

The spiritual power of binding and loosing however is also provided as seen in James 5:14,15, with God having regard to the intercession of the elders (not distinctively titled "priests") in removing His hand of chastisement for sin, (cf. Mk. 2:9) but which power is also afforded to all believers of Elijah type faith and fervent prayer, (Mt. 18:18-20; Ja. 5:16-20) who bound the heavens for 3.5 years and loosed them again.

But in judicially dealing with settling personal disputes, in 1Co. 6 Paul cites the need for a wise man among them that shall be able to judge between his brethren in settling disputes in civil matters, and, rather than going before those without the church. (1Co. 6:5) (And when it does not judge righteous judgment, and the State must stand where it ought not, then that is a sad day for the church.)

And yet though Mt. 18:15-18 1Co. 6: 1-7 directly pertain magisterially settling personal disputes, in principle this could deal with doctrinal ones btwn opposing parties. (In the civil realm there is also appeal to higher courts, and thus Paul appealed to Caesar.)

We see this operation in Acts 15 to deal with doctrinal disputes btwn opposing parties, and in which Peter, as the first to use the keys of the kingdom, the gospel by faith in which souls are placed in it, (Col. 1:13) for the Gentiles, gives his brief testimony of how souls responded to the evangelical gospel that , To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43) "that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:7-9)

To which Paul and Barnabas, preaching the same salvation by grace, added their testimony, after which James provided the Scripturally substantiated final disciplinary judgment, to which all concurred. However, the basis for the veracity of this did not rest upon some premise that they and the church would always be right in judging such matters, which would be the mistake those who sat in the seat of Moses evidenced. But instead it was the level and manner of Scriptural warrant that this new covenant revelation had which was persuasive, "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2) testifying to "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:1-2;16:26)

Rick Otto said:

I had to Google a sample to see if you were quoting someone. Nope. Your post was the first result....Are you an english major or something?

Click to expand...

Actually, you are likely to find a few posts by me by my handle or similar in a few forums, or in Yahoo Answers (mostly years ago) but mostly as Daniel1212 on Free Republic, by the grace of God. But prove all things, and as said, the veracity of any Truth claims rests upon the degree of Scriptural warrant.

And i (i use smaller case "i" due to my stiff fingers, and in humility) have a much to go in full Godliness of heart and life, and "I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast shewed unto thy servant." (Genesis 32:10)

And i am also not a English Major (which is sometimes too obvious), but just a H.S. graduate and former truck driver who has learned a few things in the "school of Christ," and has much to learn. May we go where the Truth leads, God's word being Truth, and Scripture being the assured word of God.

But thanks. To God be the glory for what is good.