Words for Roman Catholics to define

Why?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Because if it is not according to the Word of God, the Bible clearly condemns the person teaching them as having no light in them, and being unsaved.
DHK

 

If they speak not by this word...do you know the septuagent spelling of the word "word" here? I do not, and am curious.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

To answer,

I think you are taking this passage out of context. Isaiah is a prophet, conendemning and also giving hope to the people of Israel. As a prophet, would he not say to speak by and live by the word he is speaking? I would make no sense that he would say there was a need to live by a "word" (the Bible) if it will not exist for several hundred years in the future...that is why I wanted to know the Gree for "word" is it "ous" (transalliteration).

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

This is the common meaning of the word in both English and in Greek. Whether you look in an English dictionary or a Greek lexicon--where you will find the meaning of the Greek word "charis" that is what it means: "free unmerited favor."
Jesus demonstrated that free unmerited favor when he told us that the rain falls upon the just and the unjust alike. Likewise the sun that shines. It shines upon both: the just and the unjust. Neither one of us deserve the goodness of God. But He bestows it upon us anyway, without cost, freely--out of his love for mankind. That is grace. Giving freely that which we don't deserve. It is his free unmerited favor. As applicable to salvation we can expand on it more, for in that area the Catholics have a warped definition of grace.
DHK

 

This verse is what we call a timeless principle. Isaiah is referring to the "law and to the testimony. That is what "the word" refers to. There is no need to go to the Hebrew or Greek here. The context tells you all you need to know. Isaiah refers to the law of God, the written law of God. He refers to the testimony of God, which also refers to the written Word of God. Thus the expression, "the word" refers to the same.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--Paul called the Bereans "noble" because they searched the Scriptures daily. They didn't take Paul at his word. They checked first in the Old Testament to check whether or not his New Testament message was true. Their final authority was the Word of God. That is sola scriptura. Paul commended them for it.

1 Corinthians 14:29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. (ASV)
--The sense of the passage is this. When the prophet spoke the rest of the congregation were to check what they spoke, or "Judge" if they spoke according to the word of God. If it was according to the Word of God, they could accept it as such, or as a prophet's word. If not, he was a false prophet. They were to judge each and every message according to the Word of God. That is sola scriptura. The Bible was their final authority.
DHK

 

Ps104_33 I hope for your sake what you say is 100% true otherwise you have just knocked the church our Lord has founded and I wouldn't want to be you!

Read John 17 and see how Jesus prays for his people to be one with him and the Father, as he is one with the Father.

grace56

 

DHK,

I am not sure I follow your logic. You posted,

"Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--Paul called the Bereans "noble" because they searched the Scriptures daily. They didn't take Paul at his word. They checked first in the Old Testament to check whether or not his New Testament message was true. Their final authority was the Word of God. That is sola scriptura. Paul commended them for it."

Your argument goes as such:

The Bereans read scripture.
Paul commends them for reading scripture.
Therefore, scripture alone is the only way to come about God's will and Godly doctrine.

You see the fallacious inference here do you not?
It does not say that they crosschecked Paul's teaching with the OT first...where does it say that? Nor does it say that they acknowledge that the final authority is the scripture alone. You've inferred that yourself.

You continued:

"1 Corinthians 14:29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. (ASV)
--The sense of the passage is this. When the prophet spoke the rest of the congregation were to check what they spoke, or "Judge" if they spoke according to the word of God. If it was according to the Word of God, they could accept it as such, or as a prophet's word. If not, he was a false prophet. They were to judge each and every message according to the Word of God. That is sola scriptura. The Bible was their final authority."

I agree with part of what you say. The RCC does have those who speak, or prophecy, and the church will use scripture to measure it up, as well as tradition. Again, I think your inference is incorrect. Of course, we have a problem. The earliest church went without NT scripture for at least 20 years after our Lord's death. When that scripture began to be written, those in the church (Apostles, and their disciples) had to judge for themselves what was inspired and what was not. How did they do this? Prayer, and guidence from the Holy Spirit...we at the RCC have a word for this...it is called tradition.

As for the Isaiah passage,

Was there a historical context here or was Isaiah speaking only for all eternity, or for both? And the question about the Greek was for my own edification, and nothing more, and I woudl still appreciate it. Thanks.

Psalm,

You say,

"Of course there are many things about God and his creation that we will never understand. God knows how weak and feeble-minded we all are. That is why he made the plan of salvation so simple! It was never supposed to be all that razzle-dazzle, bell ringing , inscense burning, latin speaking jibber jabber, clown costumes, weeks of cathecism classes, and then most Roman Catholics I run into still dont understand how to get to heaven."

Are the Catholics you run into not going to heaven because they say they do not know, or because by your criteria says they will not go to heaven...remembering of course you say I will not go to heaven, which is ridiculous. As for your cheap shots, "clown costumes" "latin speaking jibber jabber," hurts your argument as it comes across as quite immature. While I would not worship as you do, I would never make such trite remarks concerning your faith. That must just be the difference between us.
Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Where does it say that?

Paul came to them. Paul preached to them. The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so Their standard was the Word of God, which they had. Their final authority was the Word of God. They checked Paul's message according to the Word of God. They were instructed to do this from birth as Israelites, in order to identify false prophets. But when the message of the gospel was found in the Old Testament, they knew that the message of Paul was true, and thus accepted it.
Remember that when Philip witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch the Scripture that he used was from the Book of Isaiah.

The canon of Scripture was completed as soon as the Book of Revelation was completed in 98 A.D. The Apostles knew which books were inspired of God and which were not. Peter notes this in his second epistle quite clearly. He refers to the epistles of Paul as Scripture in chapter 3. He refers to the writings of the Apostles as Scripture like the writings of the prophets.
Never did the early church, or the Apostles appeal to tradition as any kind of authority. It was always the Word of God. That was their only authority.

There is both. Here is the context:

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? on behalf of the living should they seek unto the dead?

The children of Israel had sought after familiar spirits, and had gone into occultic practices. Isaiah rebukes them for it. In verse 20, he says that the Word of God is the standard that the nation must go by. It is the standard. If the person that they have been speaking to (wizards, familiar spirits, etc.) were not speaking according to the truth of the Word of God, they were not of God. Remeber, that according to Old Testament law, such people were to be put to death. The penalty was severe. Thus the warning to use the Word of God as their final authority. It remains a warning for us today. It is what we call a timeless principle.
DHK

 

DHK,

Just because the Bereans used scripture as a cross reference does not mean it is the FINAL authority...rather it means it is simply an authority...or at least using logic that is the ONLY conclusion to which you can definately come. And also, contextually, you know they were checking the OT to see as to whether or not Paul was preaching in accordance with the Messianic prophecy, so they were being commendable, but that does not mean it was the ONLY source for them to come to the conclusion, otherwise, why would they have need Paul at all? Why not just know Christ was the right guy because of that scripture? As for the Isaiah, thanks for the lesson, but we simply read scripture differently...look to the aforementioned reference to our dead horse friend on another thread.

As for the Apostles appealing to tradition...they were quite busy starting it, such as the 1st council of Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible.

Psalm,

Sheep in whatever clothing, it shows the lack of any sort of respect for us, or for yourself, to resort to childish name calling and fun making.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Where do you get your information from? Do you just make it up? Do you even read the Bible? What did the verse say? Read it again.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--It plainly says that they searched the Scriptures, not Tradition, not the Cathechism, not papal bulls, not the Book of Mormon, but SCRIPTURE

The Council of Jerusalme had nothing to do with Tradition. It had to do with a decision that was made concerning heresy by heretical Judaizing teachers that were spreading the false belief that one had to be circumcized and keep the law in order to be saved. The Apostles put this matter to rest once and for all in a formal statement so that there would be no confusion among anyone. This had no effect on Paul's ministry. He had been preaching the same message with great success long before this formal decision anyway.
DHK

 

DHK,

Whoa we were talking past each other so fast I almost missed you. Do I read the Bible? I will not justify that question with an answer. No I do not make this stuff up. It is not difficult subject matter, so I will try again. I am going to give to you a simple logical syllogism ok?

If A then B
B is present
Therefore A must be present

It looks like this

A->B
B
----
A

This is the logical fallicy of Modus Tollens and is logically incorrect. I will give a word example:

If it rains today, the ball game will be cancelled.
The ball game was canclled.
Therefore, it rained today.

We can see why this logic does not hold. There are numerous reasons as to why the game could have been cancelled...now what is the relevence of this?

You are arguing thusly,

If scripture is the final authority, then noble people will read it.
Noble people do read scripture
Therefore Noble people adhere to the fact that scripture is the final authority.

Do you see the parallel with your argument and the fallicy of modus tollens? I am not making this stuff up. These laws of logic are a priori. Your argument does not hold logically. As for the council, it did set a precedent, one we still follow today...but I am wasting my time on this point so I will not go further into it.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Just look at what happened, and see for yourself.
Paul went to Berea.
Paul preached the gospel.
The Bereans checked his message by the Bible, their final authority.
They found that the message of Paul was correct.
Therefore they accepted the message of Paul.

In Corinth the prophets gave a message from God.
The congregation judged that message according to the Word of God, their final authority.
If the message was correct according to the Word of God, it was accepted; if not, it was rejected.
Thus the Bible was always the final authority.

The nation of Israel was consulting with wizards and other such false prophets.
Isaiah told them to measure every thing by the Word of God.
If it isn't according to the Word of God, there is no light in them. The Word of God was the final authority by which they measured things.
The wizards, and familiar spirits, etc, were thus to be rejected.

In every case the Word of God is the only authority, the final authority. There was no other authority that is ever referred to. In the case of the Bereans Paul paid them a compliment by calling them "noble" because they used the Bible, and searched it daily. Being "noble" doesn't even fit into the logical fallacy that you set up. You are the one that is being illogical here.
DHK

 

DHK,

read my syllogism again,

"If scripture is the final authority, then noble people will read it.
Noble people do read scripture
Therefore Noble people adhere to the fact that scripture is the final authority."

I did include the nobility factor. But you are adding an important clause that is not mentioned in the bible...you are infering it yourself... you wrote,

"Paul went to Berea.
Paul preached the gospel.
The Bereans checked his message by the Bible, ::their final authority.::
They found that the message of Paul was correct.
Therefore they accepted the message of Paul."

The part separated by colons is your own inference, it is not there in the Bible, perhaps it is there implicitly, but then you had better prove to me that it is, and nost just assume that I will agree with it. You infered it into your other two arguments as well. I am not saying that scripture is not an authority. It is, but its interpretation must be aided by something else otherwise we run in cirlces...that aid? Spirit led tradition.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Stephen,
Ask yourself why the Bereans, as well as the Corinthians, and the nation of Israel (Isaiah 8), referred to the Scriptures, and not Hamurabbi's Code of Law, or the ancient Hindu Vedas still in existence at that time? Duh??
Isn't the answer a bit obvious. The Bible was not a book of fairy tales to them. It was God's revelation to mankind; God's holy inspired Word; their final authority in all matters of faith and practice. They didn't refer to the Hindu Scriptures for a good reason. It wasn't their authority. The Bible was.
DHK