The Catholic Church can't be THE Church because...

[David Lamb]

It’s extremely hard for me to believe that all your theological beliefs are self taught straight from scripture without the aid of any outside influences. Not possible.
-

I think our posts "crossed", so I have already partly addressed this matter. My theological beliefs must be brought under the light of the authority of scripture. I don't believe something just because Pastor So-and-So or 2nd century Christian What's-His-Name taught it, but only if I can see the things Pastor So-and-So and 2nd century Christian What's-His-Name taught, in the bible.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It seems you misunderstand the idea of sola scriptura. Your caricature says that belief in sola scriptura means throwing out all Christian youth groups, all preaching, all Sunday schools, all study bibles, all bible commentaries, and so on. That is not the case at all. Those things only have authority insofar as what they teach agrees with what is in the bible.

Once again we fall into the same ‘ol song and dance of who decides what is being taught agrees with the Bible? Who has the authority to make that decision?

Whom out of the following: A Church of Christ, a Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Methodist, who can speak collectively for the group in regards to the teaching of Baptism?

I have no idea what "hot Joe" or the TBN channel might be, but I somehow doubt that they are part and parcel of the doctrine of sola scriptura!

Hot joe = Coffee
TBN = the Trinity Broadcast Network

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

My theological beliefs must be brought under the light of the authority of scripture. I don't believe something just because Pastor So-and-So or 2nd century Christian What's-His-Name taught it, but only if I can see the things Pastor So-and-So and 2nd century Christian What's-His-Name taught, in the bible.

Since you were knee high to a grasshopper you were taught what to believe. I was; being raised as a Baptist. I was taught (or indoctrinated) into the Baptist Distinctives and led to believe in the process that what I was being taught was what the Bible taught. But that’s not the case when a Church of Christ member can point to the same Scripture and do the same thing, but with a different outcome of beliefs.

Someone is right, someone is wrong or both are wrong…Both cannot point to sola scriptura and have two radically different interpretations.

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

I have too, and it does! Oh, I know you will argue that it can't work, because those who claim to believe it disagree among themselves. But that argument doesn't really hold water, because it does not affect the the question. Relying on God's Word as our ultimate authority does not depend on our perfect and unanimous understanding of scripture.

If you can't agree on what the ultimate authority means, how on earth does that assist decision-making? If Jim says that His Bible tells him that the best form of church government to have is presbyterian, Mary says her Bible gives her the right to congregational government and autonomy, Harriet agrees with Mary on congregational government but with connexionalism rather than autonomy based on the Bible, and Mike says I Cor 14 says that women should keep their mouths shut so why should he pay any attention to Mary or Harriet, how on earth can these five Christians get along and achieve anything? Who's right out of the five? Why?

 

[Matt Black]

Wow. Scripture alone - Scripture standing on it's own doesn't work? God's Word is incomplete and we need man's ideas to complete it? We need tradition to understand it - or to make it complete.

Wow. Just wow.

Why is that so hard to understand? See my post above - that's sola Scriptura for you.

QED.

[ETA - David, TBN os what we call the GOD Channel.]

 

[Bro. James]

"The saints(alive) at Berea were more noble than those at Thessolonica because they searched the scriptures daily, TO SEE IF THESE THINGS WERE SO." emphasis and parenthetical and sic are mine--a Bible example of one church using scripture and Holy Spirit to determine doctrine. This makes them less susceptible to the error of halo--i.e. the pope said it, it must be so-- even "holy"men are not infallible. Apparently, the Thessalonians were already losing it--the zeal for The Faith, once, for all, delivered to the saints. The Thessalonians appear in pretty good shape in
I and II Thessalonians.

The holy see has had to refer to apocryphal writings, including the "Holy Fathers" to prove a point. This is why Sola Scriptura is such a bone of contention. BTW that doctrine did not originate in Wittenburg. In fact, it has been practiced for nearly 2,000 years--mostly underground.

Thank God for His remnant.

Ever wonder how many religious folk perished during the Flood of Noah? All of human kind perished except for eight. Jesus said it would be like the Days of Noah when He returns to gather His saints, probably more than eight.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

And which Scriptures would the Bereans have searched?

 

[annsni]

Why is that so hard to understand? See my post above - that's sola Scriptura for you.

QED.

[ETA - David, TBN os what we call the GOD Channel.]

No - It's "man" for you. Do you honestly think that God's Word is given for confusion - yet man can straighten it out?

 

[Matt Black]

Then answer the question posed in my post just preceding the one you quoted

 

[annsni]

And which Scriptures would the Bereans have searched?

That would be the OT and parts of the New Testament that were already available to the general public.

2 Peter 3:14-18: 14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That would be the OT and parts of the New Testament that were already available to the general public.

2 Peter 3:14-18: 14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Since they used the LXX would they have also searched the apocrypha? Jude quotes the assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. Would they also have searched these?

 

[peterotto]

Ok, this thread is bound to be closed soon.
I have been out for almost a week and missed many pages. Here is my latest.

No, Catholics believe that faith and works are the result of grace.

We are going in circles here mrtumnus. For one to receive the Graces from the Roman
catholic Church one must first have joined the Church (work) and have faith.

I have said repeatedly that a necessary response is both faith and works.

If it is necessary then your salvation is based on God's grace plus your faith plus your works. Do you agree with this statement?

We are saved by grace alone. Not by our faith. Not by our works.

You just said your necessary response is both faith plus works. You can not have it both ways. If it is Grace alone then no faith or works is necessary.

I don’t not call it ‘works’. What I say is that it is neither our faith nor our works that saves us.

I understand in the end it is God's grace that will do the saving, BUT you must respond by faith plus works. Therefore it is faith plus works. Without it, you are hell bound.

You did not answer my previous question. Do you believe that one will be saved because they have faith yet they have no works?

We have different meanings behind the word "works". If we disagree on the word then the answer will not satisfy the question.

The work that is required for salvation is to respond to what grace calls us to do. To reject what grace calls us to do is to reject the gift of grace we have received.

So works is required and therefore to a Roman Catholic one must perform faith plus works.

No “continuing to work out your salvation in fear or trembling” for you I guess?

Are you saying now Work is necessary for salvation? As for Phil 2, I do not think Paul is referring to something eternal here.

In Phil 1:19 Paul uses the word deliverance for the same Greek word salvation. But you knew that already. You knew Paul was speaking of deliverance( salvation) from his imprisonment. The Greek word is soertia which means deliver, health, salvation, save, saving. The Greek word does not always mean something eternal.
But you knew that already.


Matt 25:46 "but the righteous into eternal life" . How did they become "righteous?

 

[Bro. James]

The ones which God provided plus the Comforter are the divine combination. Anything else is pure speculation of men/women, many of them throughly confused regarding salvation. Re: John Ch. 3, Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again--from above. Nicodemus was a master of Israel, throughly grounded in the OT and teaching it to others. Nicodemus was lost, an unsaved man of religious letters. I have never seen a scriptural account of him having been saved. Corollary: the unsaved cannot understand scripture, they are spiritually discerned.

What is in your wallet?

Be kind.

Shalom,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Since they used the LXX would they have also searched the apocrypha? Jude quotes the assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. Would they also have searched these?

Exactly.:thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok, this thread is bound to be closed soon.
I have been out for almost a week and missed many pages. Here is my latest.



We are going in circles here mrtumnus. For one to receive the Graces from the Roman
catholic Church one must first have joined the Church (work) and have faith.



If it is necessary then your salvation is based on God's grace plus your faith plus your works. Do you agree with this statement?



You just said your necessary response is both faith plus works. You can not have it both ways. If it is Grace alone then no faith or works is necessary.



I understand in the end it is God's grace that will do the saving, BUT you must respond by faith plus works. Therefore it is faith plus works. Without it, you are hell bound.



We have different meanings behind the word "works". If we disagree on the word then the answer will not satisfy the question.


So works is required and therefore to a Roman Catholic one must perform faith plus works.



Are you saying now Work is necessary for salvation? As for Phil 2, I do not think Paul is referring to something eternal here.

In Phil 1:19 Paul uses the word deliverance for the same Greek word salvation. But you knew that already. You knew Paul was speaking of deliverance( salvation) from his imprisonment. The Greek word is soertia which means deliver, health, salvation, save, saving. The Greek word does not always mean something eternal.
But you knew that already.


Matt 25:46 "but the righteous into eternal life" . How did they become "righteous?

Grace is God's working (for calvanist: God initiates we can't even begin to believe with out the Holy Spirit working in us through his Grace.). Faith then is a result of Grace as is works. Niether Faith nor Works can be accomplished without its begining in Grace. If you say grace (or salvation) is working in you and have no works or faith then it is a lie. You are not saved and there is no grace displayed in your life. If on the other hand Grace is working in you and you are saved then the natural outcome is faith and works. Protestants start after grace (unless your calvinistic) and say that you must believe (a work of your own not initiated by God) and when that occures you are saved. Catholics will say Grace has saved you and you can believe a natural result is works. Now it wasn't that hard now was it?

 

[David Lamb]

If you can't agree on what the ultimate authority means, how on earth does that assist decision-making? If Jim says that His Bible tells him that the best form of church government to have is presbyterian, Mary says her Bible gives her the right to congregational government and autonomy, Harriet agrees with Mary on congregational government but with connexionalism rather than autonomy based on the Bible, and Mike says I Cor 14 says that women should keep their mouths shut so why should he pay any attention to Mary or Harriet, how on earth can these five Christians get along and achieve anything? Who's right out of the five? Why?

Because not one of us has perfect understanding of God and His ways. Nevertheless, we are, agreed on the source of our authority. And there are differences among those who don't take the Scriptures as their final authority. I cannot think of any "authority" (church fathers, the church, the pope, etc.) where all who say they base their beliefs on that authority are fully agreed on what those beliefs are.

 

[David Lamb]

Since you were knee high to a grasshopper you were taught what to believe. I was; being raised as a Baptist. I was taught (or indoctrinated) into the Baptist Distinctives and led to believe in the process that what I was being taught was what the Bible taught. But that’s not the case when a Church of Christ member can point to the same Scripture and do the same thing, but with a different outcome of beliefs.

Someone is right, someone is wrong or both are wrong…Both cannot point to sola scriptura and have two radically different interpretations.

In XC
-

You seem to have quite an intimate knowledge of my pewrsonal life! :laugh: But in fact you are wrong. My parents were not baptists. I was brought up in the Church of England (christened, sunday school, choirboy, altar server, confirmed, - the lot!) and only started going to a baptist church when I read the bible, and found that what was being taught (at least at the particular Anglican church I attended) was far removed from what I read in the bible. And I have always been tall for my age, never knee high to a grasshopper; in fact I thought that when the vicar announced a "short children's service", I ought to stay away! :laugh:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You seem to have quite an intimate knowledge of my pewrsonal life! :laugh: But in fact you are wrong. My parents were not baptists. I was brought up in the Church of England (christened, sunday school, choirboy, altar server, confirmed, - the lot!) and only started going to a baptist church when I read the bible, and found that what was being taught (at least at the particular Anglican church I attended) was far removed from what I read in the bible. And I have always been tall for my age, never knee high to a grasshopper; in fact I thought that when the vicar announced a "short children's service", I ought to stay away! :laugh:

LOL David, read my post again…I never stated you or your parents were “Baptist”, only that I was raised a “Baptist”.

As a kid YOU were taught what to believe, you just admitted it…But I highly doubt you suddenly read the Bible and poof, realized that the Baptist Church was the Church, without first having a sense of Baptist Theology or having someone greatly influence you. Something wasn’t sitting well with you as an Anglican that set you on your journey. The same applies to me as a former Baptist now Orthodox Christian.

In XC
-

 

[annsni]

Since they used the LXX would they have also searched the apocrypha? Jude quotes the assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. Would they also have searched these?

No - The apocrypha was never accepted as canon. They WERE used as books of good knowledge but never as the Word of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No - The apocrypha was never accepted as canon. They WERE used as books of good knowledge but never as the Word of God.

Sorry your wrong. When Paul spoke about the scriptures they were talking about the LXX because that was the one in use. I referrenced Jude because it is obvious he takes passages from the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch which are not Canon. The first several hundred years of christianity used the books which are in the LXX (which includes the apocrypha) OT canon had not been established by the earliest christians as yet. The Protestant Bible which we all use follows the Jewish scholars canon (they didn't call it that but had the same import) contains 39 books of the OT which you are familiar with in AD 70. It is strange though that they did not follow the Jewish scholars organization of the OT but the LXX. That says something. It is evident from early christian writings that they used the LXX (apostles and bishops) because quotes from the OT are done in greek which is the translation of the LXX. The first bible canon was with the Apocrypha. Even the earliest protestant bibles contained the apocrhypha though as an appendix. (including the KJB) But it was taken out in the 1800's. So the eveidence is that the Bareans were using the LXX which included the apocryphal books.