Sola Scripture?

[SpiritualMadMan]

Ephesians 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
Ephesians 4:12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up
Ephesians 4:13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Ephesians 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Living_stone:
How can Sola Scriptura be correct when the bible states that the Church - i.e. the Apostles, Bishops and Priests were given to the church for their betterment and learning.

Where does Bible state so as you describe above?

</font>[/QUOTE]Eph 4:11-13 deals with Apostles as being thus given to the Church, I Tim 3 covers bishops and deacons and Titus 1:5-9 refers to bishops and presbyters ('priest' being an English translation of 'presbyter')

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Living_stone:
How can Sola Scriptura be correct when the bible states that the Church - i.e. the Apostles, Bishops and Priests were given to the church for their betterment and learning.

Where does Bible state so as you describe above?

</font>[/QUOTE]Eph 4:11-13 deals with Apostles as being thus given to the Church, I Tim 3 covers bishops and deacons and Titus 1:5-9 refers to bishops and presbyters ('priest' being an English translation of 'presbyter') </font>[/QUOTE]This is problem with Roman Catholic minds:

Where is Priest in New Testament? only in 1 Peter 2:5 -9 which indicates all true believers are the priests!
What kind of translation lead you to translate Presbytero to Priest? Is it because Spellings are similar?

Ephesians 4:11-13 are mentioning the gifts not the offices. 1 Tim 3:1-13 explains the qualification of Overseers ( Bishops) and Deacons as we find it in Titus 1:5-9 as well.

Do you see what kind of problem I notice?
Actually, those are not given to modify the Scripture or override it or change it, but they are in the service to help people understand the Scripture, which means they are not above the Scripture but established under the scripture.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The pillar and ground of truth is God. Not the entity that is "of" God, as if it were equal to Him.

Yet in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul informs Timothy that it is the church of the living God which is "the pillar and ground of truth". Christ who is God incarnate is indeed the Truth, yet Paul says to the Ephesians that God gave Christ: "to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:22-23). So, the Church, the Body of Christ, is indeed called the fullness of Christ--the fullness of Truth Himself who fills all in all! For this reason this "entity 'of' God" can truly be called by Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, "the pillar and ground of Truth", since it is the fullness of Truth Himself.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
[What kind of translation lead you to translate Presbytero to Priest? Is it because Spellings are similar?

Look up the etymology of the word, "priest" in any decent English dictionary, and you'll find it comes from the word "presbyteros".

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Living_stone:
How can Sola Scriptura be correct when the bible states that the Church - i.e. the Apostles, Bishops and Priests were given to the church for their betterment and learning.

Where does Bible state so as you describe above?

</font>[/QUOTE]Eph 4:11-13 deals with Apostles as being thus given to the Church, I Tim 3 covers bishops and deacons and Titus 1:5-9 refers to bishops and presbyters ('priest' being an English translation of 'presbyter') </font>[/QUOTE]This is problem with Roman Catholic minds:

Where is Priest in New Testament? only in 1 Peter 2:5 -9 which indicates all true believers are the priests!
What kind of translation lead you to translate Presbytero to Priest? Is it because Spellings are similar?</font>[/QUOTE]Priest is a contraction of presbyter in English

Ephesians 4:11-13 are mentioning the gifts not the offices.

How so? The text doesn't say that.

1 Tim 3:1-13 explains the qualification of Overseers ( Bishops) and Deacons as we find it in Titus 1:5-9 as well.

Yes. And? You asked for references in the Bible and I gave them to you.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eliyahu:
[What kind of translation lead you to translate Presbytero to Priest? Is it because Spellings are similar?

Look up the etymology of the word, "priest" in any decent English dictionary, and you'll find it comes from the word "presbyteros". </font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean Presbytero ( Πρεσβυτερροσ) came from Hieros (Ιεροσ= Priest) ?

You are exposing your ignorance!

Which dictionary are you referring to?

Was it compiled by English speaking people?

Listen, Priests came from only Levy tribes, even only from Kohathits and therefore called Cohanim in Hebrew during OT times .

Presbytero came from all 12 tribes like Judah, Reuben, Benjamin, etc, and each tribe had the elderly leaders and they were called Zaqen in Hebrew and Presbyteros in Greek.

There appear more than 100 times of Elders in Bible and I will show you one of them:

Numbers 11:24
And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.

Elders and Priests are different. Only Cohathites could become Priests .

No elders of other tribes like Judah could become Priests at all and therefore Elders are very much different from Priests!


Now in NT times, we all believers in Christ have become the Priests because of Jesus Christ.
There is no priest office at the church because every believers are the priests. Read 1 Peter 2:5-9.

This kind of ignorance was spotted in the previous post, and therefore I raised the question!

The first 2 spellings are the same each other!

I often enjoy the comedies!

[ April 28, 2006, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Living_stone:
How can Sola Scriptura be correct when the bible states that the Church - i.e. the Apostles, Bishops and Priests were given to the church for their betterment and learning.

Where does Bible state so as you describe above?

</font>[/QUOTE]Eph 4:11-13 deals with Apostles as being thus given to the Church, I Tim 3 covers bishops and deacons and Titus 1:5-9 refers to bishops and presbyters ('priest' being an English translation of 'presbyter') </font>[/QUOTE]This is problem with Roman Catholic minds:

Where is Priest in New Testament? only in 1 Peter 2:5 -9 which indicates all true believers are the priests!
What kind of translation lead you to translate Presbytero to Priest? Is it because Spellings are similar?</font>[/QUOTE]Priest is a contraction of presbyter in English

Ephesians 4:11-13 are mentioning the gifts not the offices.

How so? The text doesn't say that.

1 Tim 3:1-13 explains the qualification of Overseers ( Bishops) and Deacons as we find it in Titus 1:5-9 as well.

Yes. And? You asked for references in the Bible and I gave them to you. </font>[/QUOTE]I know you guys don't read the Bible deeply and therefore don't understand the differences.

Read the above post of mine.
Often I was amazed at your vocabularies in English, but this time why do you try to expose your ignorance?

How come Presbyteros is the same as Hieros?

You have not heard about the difference between Office and Gifts.
Gifts are the talent given by Holy Spirit and therefore Ephesians 4:11-13 don't mention about how are the qualification of those gifts as they are given by Chrst via Holy Spirit ( He gave Gifts unto men: Eph 4:8)

Offices are mentioned in 1 Tim 3:1-13 which states Bishops (Overseers) and Deacons. The Bishops were also called Elders as we can see Acts 20:17 and Acts 20:28.
Paul called the Elders of Ephesus Church ( 20:17- Assembly) and then told them " Holy Spirit has made you Overseers" and therefore we can understand that Overseers(Episkope) are the same as Elders( Presbuteros).
Also, Titus 1:5 mention that Paul left Titus to ordain Elders for each city, then 1:7 says " Bishop must be...." which means that Elders=Bishops(Episkope)=Overseers(Episkope).

Elders are in the sense of elderly position, while Overseers(=Bishops) are in the sense of functions and responsibility.

There are only 2 offices in NT churches which are Elders and Deacons which appear in plural all the time except the definition or qualification of them.

This is why you need to study more on Scripture.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Priest is a contraction of presbyter in English

I must confess you again that I have been often amazed at your optimum use of vocabularies and etymology but this time, I am amazed at your comedy!

 

[Joe Gofish]

On the subject on Sola Srpipture,can any one please show the words in the bible SOLA SCRIPTURE or just show the words BIBLE,Did the early Christians have the bible as we know it today.
Is the Bible the sole teaching from God?
Does the bible state it is the sole or final authority of Christianity ?
Looking for some good answers and may God bless you all.

 

[Matt Black]

Eliyahu, I'm afraid your getting confused between the English and Greek languages. CLICK HERE for an explanation; you might learn something.

The distinction you make between gift and office is simply not there in the NT; for example 'prophets' were people who 'prophesied' regularly.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Eliyahu, I'm afraid your getting confused between the English and Greek languages. CLICK HERE for an explanation; you might learn something.

The distinction you make between gift and office is simply not there in the NT; for example 'prophets' were people who 'prophesied' regularly.

Thanks, Matt, but since I doubt Eliyahu will actually click on the link and admit when he is wrong, here is the key sentence:
"The first, presbyteros (πρεσβυτερος), Latin presbyter, is traditionally translated priest and the English word priest is indeed etymologically derived from this word;"

So, Eliyahu, you might want to do a little more research next time before you pop of at the mouth (or key board ) and claim that someone else is "ignorant".

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Eliyahu, I'm afraid your getting confused between the English and Greek languages. CLICK HERE for an explanation; you might learn something.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
There is no mentioning about Roman Catholic or Anglican in the Bible. Which church is Pillar of Truth? You said Idol Worshipping churches are not qualified and Roman Catholic is worshipping Idols. Do you still believe that it is OK by tradition?

Sure there is for the Anglican Church 1 Timothy 3:15b "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (Sorry couldn't help myself) The undivided Church up until 1054 for me. Sadly I think almost all the Churches have strayed from this somewhat. The RCC has obviously strayed ie. papal infallbility, Mary as Co-Redemtrix, Immaculate Conception the list goes on. And obviously the Anglican Church allowing women and homosexuals into the priesthood.

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

"What we instead have is sola Scriptura..."

Yes, exactly as God desires.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete and prepared for every good work"

And the regular folk at Berea were commended for testing the apostle Pauls teachings against the scriptures to make sure they lined up.

"...+private interpretation..."

Not exactly Matt. Let me remind you of something. The Holy Spirit is alive and well, and He is the interpreter of the scriptures.

"However when He has come, He will guide you into all truth"

"=multiple, changing truth standards."

Only in cultic groups like the Catholic Church.

"Truth" for the Catholic Church is different in the 4th century than in the 3rd(as more paganism superstition and idolatry is added or invented), different in the 5th than in the 4th(as more paganism, superstition and idolatry is added or invented), different in the 6th than in the 5th, etc etc etc ad nauseum all the way up to today.

May Almighty God have mercy.

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Joe Gofish:
On the subject on Sola Srpipture,can any one please show the words in the bible SOLA SCRIPTURE or just show the words BIBLE,

The term "sola sciptura" is not found in the Bible, as many theological terms are not found in the Bible: trinity and rapture to name a couple, but both are taught in the Bible. We are discussing theology, but the word theology is not found in the Bible. Specifically, since we are discussing matters relating to the Bible we are discussing Bibliology, but Bibliology is not found in the Bible. Most theological terms are not found in the Bible, nor need they be. If the theological concepts which man has given a label to, such as the trinity, is found in the Bible, that is what is important.

Did the early Christians have the bible as we know it today.

That depends how you define early Christians. The epistles were written between 50 and 90 A.D. and the last book of the Bible to be written was the Book of Revelation written about 98 A.D. Thus the early believers before that date never had all 27 books of the New Testament at any one place. Soon after that they did. Catholics would have us to believe it was hundreds of years. But I don't believe that early believers were so naive and ignorant not to know what books were inspired and which books were not. The Apostles had taught them which were genuine and which were not. The books were accepted into the canon shortly after they were written. Paul knew he was writing an inspired book when he wrote it. He would use phrases such as "This is a commandment from the Lord." You would not find such phrases in other uninspired writings. Peter points to the Scripture that Paul had written in 2Peter 3. The early believers knew what the canon of Scripture was shortly after it was written.

Is the Bible the sole teaching from God?

Absolutely. It is God's revelation to mankind. There is no other authority that God has set in place but the Bible.

Does the bible state it is the sole or final authority of Christianity ?

1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--It is the Word of God that saves. No other agency has such power or authority.

24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
--The Word of God will never fail. It will endure forever. It is by the Word of God which the gospel is preached unto us. It can be preached unto us only because the Word of God has that authority to do so.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
--The gospel (found in the Word of God (1Pet.1:25) is the power (authority) of God unto salvation.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
--It is alive, powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword. It is authoritative.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
--The testimony of Jesus. The smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (jot or yod) or the smallest part of a Hebrew letter (tittle--like the crossing of a "t") would not pass away from the Word of God. It is an authoritative book and would remain forever.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Looking for some good answers and may God bless you all.

Welcome to BB.
DHK

 

[Eric B]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eric B:
The pillar and ground of truth is God. Not the entity that is "of" God, as if it were equal to Him.

Yet in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul informs Timothy that it is the church of the living God which is "the pillar and ground of truth". Christ who is God incarnate is indeed the Truth, yet Paul says to the Ephesians that God gave Christ: "to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:22-23). So, the Church, the Body of Christ, is indeed called the fullness of Christ--the fullness of Truth Himself who fills all in all! For this reason this "entity 'of' God" can truly be called by Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, "the pillar and ground of Truth", since it is the fullness of Truth Himself. </font>[/QUOTE]No, first of all, for 1Tim, we can illustrate this like a quadratic equation:
You are suggesting:
[CHURCH of the living God] =pillar and ground of truth.
But it really is:
Church of [the living GOD=pillar and ground of truth].

As for Eph., there are TWO "Him"s in the passage; the second one ("the fullness of...") refers back to "God" in v.17 and 20. Christ is God, of course, but in these verses, the distinction between Father and Son is being utilized. So God "has put all things under [Christ's] feet, and gave [Christ] to be the head over all things to the Church, which is [Christ's] body, the fullness of [God] that fills all in all".
"The fullness" refers to "Him" whose body it is, not the body itself. Christ is the Fullness of God.

The focus is entirely on Christ, and the Church is not His equal. After all, He is its "head".

 

[nate]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Not exactly Matt. Let me remind you of something. The Holy Spirit is alive and well, and He is the interpreter of the scriptures.

Well what about the JW who believes that Jesus is just a god? They claim they get their teaching from the HS too who is right you or them?

D28 Guy
[qb]Only in cultic groups like the Catholic Church.

Well what about the 3,000 plus protestant denominations? Do all believe the Truth?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Eliyahu, I'm afraid your getting confused between the English and Greek languages. CLICK HERE for an explanation; you might learn something.

The distinction you make between gift and office is simply not there in the NT; for example 'prophets' were people who 'prophesied' regularly.

D-T said:
"The first, presbyteros (πρεσβυτερος), Latin presbyter, is traditionally translated priest and the English word priest is indeed etymologically derived from this word;"


Matt and Thomas,

Are you continuing to insist on your ignorance of the Truth by relying on the fable web site?
Wikipedia sometimes make ridiculous mistakes! Ask Wikipedia where they got such etymology in detail?

Your site report the vast information about the Priests mentioning Kohanim or Presbuteros but read it carefully. Even it doesn't explain how Presbuteros was contracted as Priest, but the TRADITION misused it ! Could you not notice it?

Many churches misrepresent the Priests still exist even in the New Testament period. Where could you find out Priest? That was my first question!

Could you find out Priest in the NT church else than 1 Peter 2:5-9 and Rev 1:6?
In Hebrews Jesus was explained as High Priest following after Melchizedek. In the Gospel the priests are mentioned in the sense of Old Testament and Caiaphas and Annas accused Jesus, and the High Priest Ananias accused Paul. However, as we can read in 1 Pet 2:5-9 and Rev 1:6 Jesus Christ has made us Kings and Priests unto God(Rev 1:6) because of His Blood and Death at the Cross. Therefore in the New Testament Churches there is no office called "Priests"
but there are only 2 offices named Elders( also called Overseers or Bishops=Episkope) and Deacons. In the New Testament, as we can see in Matt 27:1, there are separate words for Priests and Elders. They are separately mentioned in many verses, because they are different positions. As I told you, Priests were elected among the Kohanim only, while Elders are from various tribes.

If you still insist on your ignorance, you better refer to the better dictionary, my Oxford dictionary mentions about the etymology about those but there shows no connection between 2 words, but mentions the connection in some churches by tradition ( which means misunderstanding!) Yes, some church people like you misundestand that still Pastors are the same as Priests in the OT or Catholic Fathers are the Priests. However, nowhere is mentioned Priest as an office in the NT churches because all the Born-Again Believers are Priests.

I explained you about the difference between Office and Gifts. The gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:8-13 have no qualification mentioned while Episkope mentioned in 1 Tim 3:1-7 have the qualification requirements.

If you are talented to pray in different tongues, that is the gifts. If you teach the people at the church well, you are talented as a Teacher. If you prophesied well for the Iraqi War, you are a Prophet. If you are preaching Gospel to new nations, you may become an Evangelist. If you heal the people by prayers, you have the Gift of Healing or Healer's Gift.

Gifts are different from Offices in the NT.

In conclusion, what you mentioned about Priest was wrong according to the Bible. According to the dictionary, it just reflect the misuse of the word by tradition in some churches like Roman Catholic and it doesn't have further background at all. Historically they were separate Words.

If you still insist that Priest is the contraction of Presbyteros, it is from wrong source.


Hope you understand them better.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Private interpretation - as the Apostle makes clear in the passage you have just cited - is not permitted; one clearly needs the counsel of the Church to interpret Scripture. You yourself have admitted that man ifs fallible and therefore the purported private interpretations of men are doomed to failure

Matt your position is illogical and indefensible.
1. Private interpretation is not permitted. Correct.
Then why does the Catholic Church practice it. That is what the verse means. Any organization that claims a private interpretation for itself is wrong. It goes directly contrary to the hundreds of Scriptures that command us to personally study the Scripture:
2Tim.2:15 Study to show yourself approved..
"Meditate on these things..."
"Thy word have I hid in my heart"
"Take heed to the doctrine"

I would not be exagerrating if I said there are literally thousands of Scriptures that refer to the Bible in a personal way. Our obligation is to study the Bible personally. If an organization claims to have a private interpretation of the Bible it would abrogate all of those commands in the Bible.

Some other examples:
The J.W.'s have their own private interpretation.
The Mormon's have their own private interpretation.
The Branch Davidians had their own private interpretation.
Scientology has their own private interpretation.

Need I go on. You classify the above as cults. The RCC puts itself in the same class as cults by avoiding sola scriptura and violating this command and having its own private interpretation. It doesn't allow for private Bible Study beyond the scope of the magesterium.

It is the Word of God that is inspired and infallible, not the councils of man. The councils of man are full of errors. That is why the Catholic Bible has more books than the canon of Scripture. It is why they hold on to many many unscriptural doctrines that are man-made and cannot be supported by Scripture like indulgences and the assumption of Mary. These are outright heresies claimed by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
What is inspired and infallible is the Scriptures. There is no way you will ever find the Assumption or indulgences in the Bible. It is an impossibility. Thus the RCC has another standard. It is a human standard--themselves. In doing so they have set themselves up as god. God gave us a Book of Revelation, His revelation to mankind. The RCC has rejected it (in part), and have set themselves as their own authority, saying that they don't need the sole authority of the Word of God. "We have our own selves as our own authority." How blasphemous!

And if you really think that Church Councils are 'mere formalities', try telling that to the countless people who lost their lives defeding the Truth against heretics - who arose, incidentally, because of sola Scriptura - as a backdrop to those Councils.

The countless thousands of people that have lost their lives are people who have believed in sola scriptura. For believing in such they have died at the hands of the RCC, been brutally tortured at the hands of the RCC, suffered or martyred through the various Inquisitions. You need a history lesson. Or do you simply try to revise it?
DHK