Yes, I understand that teaching the way Thinkingstuff does, one point we have agreed upon. But you said you believe it must be done for eternal life. However, I guess you are not obeying this, not sure why if you say it is needed for eternal life?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Would you stay? 3
- Thread starter Davyboy
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I understand that teaching the way Thinkingstuff does, one point we have agreed upon. But you said you believe it must be done for eternal life. However, I guess you are not obeying this, not sure why if you say it is needed for eternal life?
Matthew 19: 16 - 22
I didn't say it, Jesus said it. I have said about eternal life, and if you go back and read my posts, it is not just one thing but everything. One cannot be separated from the other and the Scriptures indicate this time, after time, after time. If it was just to "have faith in Jesus Christ and you will receive eternal life", the New Testament would have been but one page and 11 words long.
The New Testament.
Have faith in Jesus Christ and you will receive eternal life.
The End.
I didn't say it, Jesus said it. I have said about eternal life, and if you go back and read my posts, it is not just one thing but everything. One cannot be separated from the other and the Scriptures indicate this time, after time, after time. If it was just to "have faith in Jesus Christ and you will receive eternal life", the New Testament would have been but one page and 11 words long.
The New Testament.
Have faith in Jesus Christ and you will receive eternal life.
The End.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Why not ask about Jn 14 or Jn 15? Why do you need me to expound on what Jesus said. I think he made it very clear. I didn't put words into his mouth. What do you think me meant by that? While you are expounding on that can you also expound on Luke 22:14-20, or 1 Cor 11:22-32, or 1 Cor 10:16-17. Are you looking for an opportunity to accuse me of something. Just come out and ask. Don't be obtuse.
OfLivingWaters
Active Member
What a mess! All the denominations are a hot mess! Good thing God is going to give answer that the true believers may have their time and the everlasting gospel may be heard! Many are going to fall away!
So sola scriptura at its core simply teaches that Scripture is alone infallible. “Alone” is the key word here, since that’s what separates Protestant belief from Catholic or Orthodox belief. None of those Scripture passages even imply that Scripture is alone infallible, just that it is authoritative, which we already accept.
Scripture is indeed sufficient, but it can also be easily twisted, just as Satan did. Certainly Jesus understood this, and it would stand to reason that He, based on His love for us and desire for us to follow Him perfectly, would want us to have an infallible interpreter, and He in fact did promise this (John 16:13). While some Protestants do sort of claim having this interpreter in the Holy Spirit, it is abundantly clear from the numerous ways different Protestants profess doctrine that their system is not at all what Jesus intended.
So those passages haven’t proven anything beyond what Catholics already accept. They haven’t actually proven that Scripture is alone infallible, which is of course the major issue with Sola Scriptura: It is a doctrine that demands that it must prove itself, but it doesn’t, because Scripture never claims Scripture is alone infallible nor claims that all other sources, particularly Tradition and Church, are fallible. In other words, Sola Scriptura is self-defeating.
By the way Paul was speaking as an Apostle to Timothy, a bishop, on how to correctly lead a church. This was not Paul telling lay people to go off and interpret for themselves even if that meant creating their own doctrine separate from what Timothy gave them. This was for Timothy, who himself had been instructed by Paul, to instruct others using Scripture.
Luke 10
25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”
Jesus' answer is perfect. Those who lack faith will undermine the command of God.
I believe I understand what you said and have represented you the way you want to be. Yes, you said it is everything together, part of the eternal life is living homeless is what YOU said and you gave Scripture to support your answer (Jesus said it). Now it seems your Catholic friends do not support this, even though you guys as Catholics always claim you speak as one voice on expressing correct doctrine.
I only have the Scriptures, you claim you have more word of God on this matter and you include this as how one must be saved. Are you saying that you, as a Catholic, cannot expound on it for the soul who wants to know what he must do to be saved? How am I suppose to eat His flesh and drink His blood so i may be saved?
I need a Catholic to tell me, I only have the Scriptures.
Don't be paranoid. This should be a great opportunity for you to share how Catholics believe one must be saved.
I have, you keep dodging around...
Cool word! Shawshank Redemption.
OK, we now have a third Catholic answer and that makes three different answers as to what one must do to be saved. Where is the one voice, one doctrine of the Catholic answer on "what must i do to be saved?"
1. No it isn't.
2. Even if it were, you are breaking B.B. rules by calling people liars.
"All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your traditions" (Mark 7:9).
2 Timothy 3:16-17. 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.'
I'm sure that @JonShaff will accept your apology for falsely accusing him of lying. '
'Profitable' means 'useful' or 'yielding profit' (Oxford Concise Dictionary). The result of Scripture is that those who diligently study it (c.f. 2 Timothy 2:15) are 'complete' and 'thoroughly equipped.' It is therefore sufficient inasmuch as we need nothing else for any good work.
Great! So we don't need Jesus, we don't need forgiveness or anything else; all we need is to do that. And you do it, do you? All the time, perfectly? Without a single flaw (James 2:10)?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Based on your questions it seems you want to jump topics once again! Your initial question was a simple one. "Can a Catholic tell me how to be saved" I answered that question directly and simply. "Yes believe on the Lord Jesus and do what he says." You then say "that is not good enough" Totally, disregarding whether the statement was true or not, or even valid. That makes me believe you don't really want the Catholic answer but rather a statement on which to base an accusation. You then asked me for a list. Which seems ludicrous to me because everything Jesus said has to do with salvation. I asked you if you had a list and you said something to the effect that you must have faith in Jesus and that is the one thing on your list. I then asked if that means you don't have to do what Jesus said. You said you do what Jesus instructed but never answered whether or you needed to do what Jesus said, which makes me believe that following what Jesus said was optional in your faith. You choose to do it but you could not choose to do it. Then you finally asked what Jesus said about salvation. I responded with scripture on some of the things Jesus said with regard to salvation. Then you said expound on what Jesus said. I responded that what Jesus said was pretty clear and didn't need any explanation but then asked what you thought he meant. Now you are bringing up another topic by saying "I only have the scripture I need a Catholic to tell me." Ok. Using only scripture (which Catholics also use) explain to me what Jesus said. I gave you also scripture reference passages to help you. See, I don't think you really want to know. You just want to me to say something you disagree with and to use a different standard than you do. That is not productive. Ask the real questions you want to really address. Speak directly.
I noticed in all the catholics' responses, they lacked one thing--The Work of Jesus Christ. Particularly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In my estimation, they are ignorant of or lack an understanding of the realities concerning justification as a result of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We read in 2 Timothy 3:16-17”All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."
There are some considerations that undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage.
1st- I think sometimes the appeal takes the form of an emotive appeal to the fact that the text says all Scripture is inspired by God — better translated as “God-breathed” — as if Catholics did not also believe that Scripture is written by the verbal inspiration of God. Ultimately, however, the appeal to the first clause is fruitless since it merely says that Scripture is profitable or useful (not sufficient) (Greek, ophelimos) for teaching, not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology. (It is useful for the Christian in coming to know, love and serve God, but it is not an all-inclusive handbook on how to be a Christian or govern the Church.) A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven only by hammers. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers. So “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.
2nd – “All” in the Greek is PASA, and it actually means “Every”. In the Bible, when Scripture is used in the singular it refers to an individual passage or book, not the whole Bible. So this means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would also mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even you would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless you argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
Mark off 2 Timothy 3:16-17 off your list of verses to "prove sola scripture".
There are some considerations that undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage.
1st- I think sometimes the appeal takes the form of an emotive appeal to the fact that the text says all Scripture is inspired by God — better translated as “God-breathed” — as if Catholics did not also believe that Scripture is written by the verbal inspiration of God. Ultimately, however, the appeal to the first clause is fruitless since it merely says that Scripture is profitable or useful (not sufficient) (Greek, ophelimos) for teaching, not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology. (It is useful for the Christian in coming to know, love and serve God, but it is not an all-inclusive handbook on how to be a Christian or govern the Church.) A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven only by hammers. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers. So “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.
2nd – “All” in the Greek is PASA, and it actually means “Every”. In the Bible, when Scripture is used in the singular it refers to an individual passage or book, not the whole Bible. So this means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would also mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even you would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless you argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
Mark off 2 Timothy 3:16-17 off your list of verses to "prove sola scripture".
So, you suppose sinful man is infallible?
Examples?
So, church tradition is infallible? Can you find church tradition that is NOT in the Scriptures? If so, please give us an example.
First, This idea of "Lay people" is of the devil. God did away with the substitutionary priesthood and made all of His children Priests and Kings.
Secondly, why would you assume anything of the sorts about what Paul did or did not say? Do you doubt the abilities of the Holy Spirit to lead His people into a correct way of understanding?
Just because no one pointed it out in our answers does not mean we are not aware of the concept of justification. This idea is another issue entirely applicable to it's own thread, though I myself have recently been reading Catholic theologian Dr. Scott Hahn's commentaries on Romans that delves into this particular subject.
The fact is we Catholics know full well the work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection that allows us to be as Dr. Hahn wrote "established in a right relationship with God" or to put in other words justifies us in God's sight (my words). From what I get from this is that we now need not follow the old law and all it's precepts, but can rejoice in the freedom of the new law as given to us by Jesus Christ.
As usual, the different faith traditions have come up with different takes on this. One could go very deep when discussing all the variations associated with this issue by the different faith traditions and needless to say the endless argument would once again occur..
I simply asked, "How can i know i'm forgiven," and i was given a long list of "Do's". So is forgiveness a result of trusting in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins, or is it a result of a litany of other things?
Obviously we receive forgiveness due to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that is Christian belief number one and that is what orthodox Christianity teaches. Excuse me, but I don't remember you using those exact words, I believe you said either salvation or eternal life and I responded with the litany of things that are found in the Scriptures.
- Status