Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For "Sola Scriptura" types:
* Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth?
* Where does the Bible say what books make up the Bible?
That's not what Sola Scriptura is.
It is not 'use only the Bible for Christian Truth,' but Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
What of the Benedictines, Domincans, Franciscans, Augustinians?
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:Okay, where does it say that?
But they are all Catholics, their religion is not based on the founder of their order. A Franciscan follows the rule of St. Francis in regards to how to live his life, but he is a Catholic just like someone of a different order or of no order. Likewise, it is perfectly fine to say "I am a Thomist" -- I accept the philosophy and methods of St. Thomas Aquinas. But we still all believe the same things.
Peter perhaps?And we are all Christians, our religion is based on its founder, Christ. They, like the Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans follow the emphases that come from the person of that name. They may be Roman Catholics, but they are distinctively [insert name of order] which is named after a man
As has been discussed in other threads, Catholic Faith (as described in the Athanasian Creed) is belief in the Holy Trinity
Where does Scripture say Mary was a sinless ever-virgin that got assumed into heaven?And Scripture says this where?
What is sad is what you profess to believe is found nowhere in Scripture. The authority to teach was given to the apostles. They said to hold fast to what they taught whether it was written down or not. There is no Scripture to support your belief.
Catholics hold Mary to be sinless, while the Bible says ALL descendents of Adam sinned. That's not "compatible" now is it? Nope, it's an outright contradiction to the Bible.I have. I've studied all those things, and found the Catholic position, as taught and believed by Catholics, to be perfectly compatible with Scripture.
In my post, I clearly said descendents of Adam were all born in sin. Jesus wasn't a descendent of Adam, now was he? Jesus had no father (unlike Mary), and the fathers, according to the Bible, determine lineage. That's why Jesus was born without sin.So Jesus was born with the corruption of Original Sin? Or is He an exception? (The SDA teach that He was corrupted by Original Sin and could have sinned actually, but didn't). If Christ's human nature was not corrupted by Original Sin, is it unreasonable to say that God protected Our Lord's mother from corruption as well?
Nowhere.Where does Scripture say Mary was a sinless ever-virgin that got assumed into heaven?
Catholics hold Mary to be sinless, while the Bible says ALL descendents of Adam sinned. That's not "compatible" now is it? Nope, it's an outright contradiction to the Bible.
Can't see how it could work any differently unless Mary wasn't humanoidIn my post, I clearly said descendents of Adam were all born in sin. Jesus wasn't a descendent of Adam, now was he? Jesus had no father (unlike Mary), and the fathers, according to the Bible, determine lineage. That's why Jesus was born without sin.
Thus, Mary was born with sin, since all descendents of Adam sinned.
I have no arguement with thatWhat is interesting about the Berean example is that they were considered more noble than some of the Thessalonians. And what is interesting about the Thessalonians is that Paul went to them and also preached from the Scriptures---and the Thessalonians also consulted the Scriptures to test Paul's teaching---but some of the Thessalonians decided Paul's interpretation was wrong! (Acts 17:1–9). The Bereans were willing to accept the new revelation of Christ. The Thessalonians would not accept anything new outside that which constituted Scripture for them!
So both the Bereans and Thessalonians went to Scripture. That in and of itself is not what made the Bereans more noble. What made them more noble is accepting what Paul said orally as the word. Paul himself said the oral teaching of he and the apostles constituted the "word of God." (1 Thes 2:13).
Your link doesn't say what you claim it does. Nothing in that link says that the Thessalonians "decided Paul's interpretation was wrong". It merely says that some Jews were Jealous. That's it. Nothing about disagreeing.What is interesting about the Berean example is that they were considered more noble than some of the Thessalonians. And what is interesting about the Thessalonians is that Paul went to them and also preached from the Scriptures---and the Thessalonians also consulted the Scriptures to test Paul's teaching---but some of the Thessalonians decided Paul's interpretation was wrong! (Acts 17:19). The Bereans were willing to accept the new revelation of Christ. The Thessalonians would not accept anything new outside that which constituted Scripture for them!
You JUST said that Paul used SCRIPTURE to preach to the Thessalonians; now you conclude from what you just said, that "oral teaching" constitutes the word of God? You've just contradicted yourself.So both the Bereans and Thessalonians went to Scripture. That in and of itself is not what made the Bereans more noble. What made them more noble is accepting what Paul said orally as the word. Paul himself said the oral teaching of he and the apostles constituted the "word of God." (1 Thes 2:13).
Hi Mr Polo.What is interesting about the Berean example is that they were considered more noble than some of the Thessalonians. And what is interesting about the Thessalonians is that Paul went to them and also preached from the Scriptures---and the Thessalonians also consulted the Scriptures to test Paul's teaching---but some of the Thessalonians decided Paul's interpretation was wrong! (Acts 17:19). The Bereans were willing to accept the new revelation of Christ. The Thessalonians would not accept anything new outside that which constituted Scripture for them!
So both the Bereans and Thessalonians went to Scripture. That in and of itself is not what made the Bereans more noble. What made them more noble is accepting what Paul said orally as the word. Paul himself said the oral teaching of he and the apostles constituted the "word of God." (1 Thes 2:13).
Hi DarkLite.
You're right .. Paul was reasoning with them ..explaining and
proving to them from Scripture that Jesus was the Christ...
(Many WERE receptive though to what He taught them...
but some of the jews were jealous...and went to the authorities
claiming that Paul and Silas were causing unrest (by claiming
another King (Jesus ) against Rome).
Here..check the Scripture to see if what I say is truth:
Sorry it's so long:
2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath
days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3explaining and proving that the Christ[a] had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,[b]" he said.
4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.
5But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad
characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city.
They rushed to Jason's house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd.[c]
6But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials,
shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,
7and Jason has welcomed them into his house.
They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."
That's not what Sola Scriptura is.
It is not 'use only the Bible for Christian Truth,' but Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
Where does this say scripture is the ultimate authority?
Right. I keep neglecting that fine distinctive definition.
Sorry for snapping.
I was trying to get you to give some explanation and interpretation of the many verses that you posted.
As do I, which is why I should probably be getting to bed and say Compline before I fall asleep at the computer... Debating religion is certainly not as important as actually practicing it, arguing shouldn't cut into my prayer time.
I would hope and pray that no one here intends to cast doubt on God and His words! We may argue but we are all still Christians and hold Sacred Scripture in the highest regard.
When we discuss and debate the issue of Scripture between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants what we are really asking is not whether or not the Scriptures are inspired by God and infallible (leave that to The Jesus Seminar and other modernist assaults on the faith). What we really are asking is this:
What is the Bible to you?
To the Protestant, the Bible is a collection of writings upon which he bases his faith -- it tells him about Jesus and how to live rightly and worship God.
To the Catholic or Orthodox, the Bible is a collection of works written by the Church, it is part of the sacred teachings of the Church which has been written down. The sacred teachings of the Church as a whole tell him about Jesus and how to live rightly and worship God.
When Catholics see Protestants saying that we must build a church which conforms to what the New Testament says, it sounds to us quite strange, like saying that we should build a community named "Israel" by conforming to what the Old Testament says. Certainly, Israel existed before the Old Testament was written down and there were teachings and practices of the Israelites which did not get written down. The Old Testament is a chronicle of the Israelites, it shows us history and the words of the prophets.
In the same way, the New Israel -- the Church -- existed before the New Testament was written down and there are teachings and practices of the Church which did not get written down. The New Testament is a chronicle of the Church, it shows us the life of Jesus (Gospels), history (Acts), letters to bishops and other individuals in different cities (Epistles) and prophecy (Revelation).
The New Testament didn't just fall from Heaven intact like Mohammed or Joseph Smith who claimed to receive scriptures from an angel. Most of the New Testament is composed of letters between different cities and people in the Church (mostly by St. Paul), so clearly there was a Church that was thriving even while the New Testament was being written.
And I'm reasonably sure that St. Paul had no idea that what he was writing was going to be put on the same level as the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament), he was just writing letters trying to educate the Church in different cities about the faith. The faith already existed, he wasn't creating it out of thin air or even by being inspired by God. He was just preaching the faith that already was being taught throughout the Church, in order to strengthen the believers in different cities. Most of what was written in the New Testament was not new to the Church (Revelation being an exception), but it was explained in a way that was inspired by God the Holy Ghost (though St. Paul and the other authors had their own style).
So if the Church existed before the New Testament was compiled and even before and while it was being written, how can the Church be a construction based on the New Testament? Not anymore than Israel was a construction based on the Old Testament.
That's the underlying problem of "Sola Scriptura", it has nothing to do with any sort of assault on the integrity and importance of Scripture. The real question is: What is the Bible, specifically the New Testament? Is it writings upon which the Church is founded or is it writings of the Church? Is the Church based on the Bible or is the Bible based on the Church? If it the former, Sola Scriptura is a necessity; if it the latter, it is an absurdity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?