PDA

View Full Version : Sola Scriptura?



ravenlorre
Aug 19th 2008, 12:48 AM
What are your thoughts on this key Protestant doctrine?

calidog
Aug 19th 2008, 01:30 AM
It was always reasonable to me that God would give us His entire message singularly and concisely. So all I knew was at first that I was a bible believer christian untill I learned that also put me into the catagory of protestant.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 19th 2008, 03:07 AM
The Bible is the one, final, objective, dependable authority on life as God created it. Anything else is subjective and is undependable, apart from Scripture. That includes the Pope or any other religious figure who are every bit as sinful and lost without Jesus as I am. Just because they wear a robe, have a title, and a fancy hat doesn't make them of any more authority in the Kingdom of Heaven that anybody else, including you or me.

ravenlorre
Aug 19th 2008, 04:27 AM
[quote=Literalist-Luke;1754722]The Bible is the one, final, objective, dependable authority on life as God created it.

Verse?

Anything else is subjective and is undependable, apart from Scripture.

Including any sort of commentary?

That includes the Pope or any other religious figure who are every bit as sinful and lost without Jesus as I am. Just because they wear a robe, have a title, and a fancy hat doesn't make them of any more authority in the Kingdom of Heaven that anybody else, including you or me.

Yep - the Pope is just as much a sinner as the writers of the NT and the OT; or you and me.

So, I guess I have a few more questions for you.....

1. Who decided which books where actually infallible and should be included in the NT?
2. Could the Protestant Reformation have occurred without removing authority in the Church and placing it solely into the Bible Alone?

blessings

HisLeast
Aug 19th 2008, 04:30 AM
Its the essence of the Berean spirit.

historyb
Aug 19th 2008, 04:31 AM
What are your thoughts on this key Protestant doctrine?

Well my first thought is how much it's misunderstood. Some believe it means Sole Scriptura instead of Sola Scriptura. Which is (Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone")) the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

:)

HisLeast
Aug 19th 2008, 04:42 AM
2. Could the Protestant Reformation have occurred without removing authority in the Church and placing it solely into the Bible Alone?


Could have. But Isreal could have communed with God directly... but they cowered instead and demanded a mediator. From that point on it all came through Moses and the law. So... yes, "Could have", but didn't.

David Taylor
Aug 19th 2008, 02:29 PM
[quote=Literalist-Luke;1754722]The Bible is the one, final, objective, dependable authority on life as God created it.

Verse?

Anything else is subjective and is undependable, apart from Scripture.

Including any sort of commentary?




Commentary's are never a source of final, objective, dependable authority.

Their usefulness, is similar to a dictionary, encyclopedia, or thesaurus.

They assist the Bible student in certain passage, gain a fuller knowledge about a location of a city, the meaning of a word, the reign of a king, or the external political or social issues going on surrounding a passage that the bible passage itself may not go into detail about.

Here is a good example for the usefulness of a Commentary to aid in the understanding of a scripture.

KJV-Genesis 2:14 "And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

This is a passage depicting the rivers of Eden.

Most folks reading it alone, would have no idea what or where the Hiddekel river was/is.

A commentary will explain in more detail to the reader, that the Hiddekel was the ancient Summerian name of what is today called the Tigris river.

So an example of the usefullness of a commentary, but also not showing the commentary to be the final, objective, authority either. If you don't want to believe a commentary, then don't believe it....or it could be wrong or opinionated. The Bible however, won't be.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 20th 2008, 02:39 AM
Verse?There are too many to list, so you can start with Psalm 119.
Including any sort of commentary? Commentaries are only the opinion of other sinners like you and me.
Yep - the Pope is just as much a sinner as the writers of the NT and the OT; or you and me.Are you agreeing with me? It’s hard to tell.
1. Who decided which books where actually infallible and should be included in the NT?There was a collection of writings that came to be generally accepted as the New Testament over a period of about 300 years following Jesus’ ascension. By the Council of Nicea, the Church was mostly in agreement over which “books” should be considered canon. There were some disputes, however, and those disputes even still go on today, such as in the case of the Apocrypha, for instance.
2. Could the Protestant Reformation have occurred without removing authority in the Church and placing it solely into the Bible Alone?The Protestant Reformation did not remove authority from anything. They simply stopped pretending that a man in Rome with robes and a tall hat had more authority on earth than any other believer.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 20th 2008, 02:40 AM
Commentary's are never a source of final, objective, dependable authority.

Their usefulness, is similar to a dictionary, encyclopedia, or thesaurus.

They assist the Bible student in certain passage, gain a fuller knowledge about a location of a city, the meaning of a word, the reign of a king, or the external political or social issues going on surrounding a passage that the bible passage itself may not go into detail about.

Here is a good example for the usefulness of a Commentary to aid in the understanding of a scripture.

KJV-Genesis 2:14 "And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

This is a passage depicting the rivers of Eden.

Most folks reading it alone, would have no idea what or where the Hiddekel river was/is.

A commentary will explain in more detail to the reader, that the Hiddekel was the ancient Summerian name of what is today called the Tigris river.

So an example of the usefullness of a commentary, but also not showing the commentary to be the final, objective, authority either. If you don't want to believe a commentary, then don't believe it....or it could be wrong or opinionated. The Bible however, won't be.Agreed, 100%. :thumbsup:

ChristianKnight
Aug 21st 2008, 12:27 AM
I interpret the bible as I see, and compare it to what I believe.

I do not believe any man has authority over me, even if others think he does.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 21st 2008, 08:25 PM
I interpret the bible as I see, and compare it to what I believe.

I do not believe any man has authority over me, even if others think he does.I assume you mean from a solely spiritual point of view? Like a priest or a pastor? Hopefully you're not talking about government officials, like a police officer.

Sold Out
Aug 21st 2008, 09:09 PM
[

1. Who decided which books where actually infallible and should be included in the NT?



Our LORD fixed the limits on the extent of the “canonical” books of the Old Testament at the 39 books we have today when He accused the religious crowd of his day of being guilty of killing all the prophets God had sent from Abel (Genesis – the first book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible) to Zecharias (II Chronicles – the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible). The question of which books belong in the Bible is called ‘the question of the canon.’ The word “canon” means rule or measuring rod and refers to the collection of books, which passed a test of authenticity and authority.
In the case of the Old Testament some assert that all 39 books were collected and recognized by Ezra in about 450 B.C.
In the case of the New Testament all 27 books were collected and “canonized” by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.
The question is: How was that collection made? Why were some books “canonized” and some not (the Book of Jasher, the Gnostic Gospels, the 12 books of the Apocrypha, etc.)? What tests were applied to determine authenticity and authority? The following questions determined legitimacy:

1. Was the book written by a prophet (Moses, David, etc.), a leader in Israel (Joshua, Ezra, etc.), or an Apostle (Paul, etc.)?

2. Was the book given the “stamp of approval” by CHRIST and the apostles?

3. Which books were considered authentic and authoritative via historians?
*Josephus, the first century Jewish historian (c. 95 A.D.), listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
*The Council of Jamnia (c. 90 A.D.), comprised of a synod of Jewish leaders, also listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
*Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), Bishop of Carthage, recognized a number of N.T. books as authoritative and was the first to use the expression “New Testament.”
*Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of divine books in about 367 A.D. It contained the 39 books of the O.T. and the 27 books of the N.T. Historians claim it is the first listing that matches perfectly with the Bible as we have it today.
*Jerome recognized the same 27 books of the N.T. as being authentic when he translated the Latin Vulgate in about 385 A.D.
*Two North African councils (Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 A.D.) also officially endorsed the canons of both Testaments and decided that nothing else should be read in the churches.

4. Which books were discovered to be authentic and authoritative via archaeology?
*The Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947, which dates back to the second century B.C., gave us a Hebrew text consisting of all but one of the 39 O.T. books (Esther).
*Two small silver amulets containing Numbers 6:24-26 discovered in 1986, which dates back to the seventh century B.C.,
* More than 5,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament exist today, which makes the Greek New Testament the best-attested document in all ancient writings. Contrast that with the writings of Julius Caesar or

5. Which books brought about a unity of theme?
* Written over a period of some 1,500 years by nearly forty different authors in several languages, the miracle of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament becomes all the more obvious when the Book is studied as a whole.

Bethany67
Aug 21st 2008, 09:29 PM
I do not believe any man has authority over me, even if others think he does.

What do you make of Heb 13:17?

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

one_lost_coin
Sep 4th 2008, 05:21 PM
I interpret the bible as I see, and compare it to what I believe.

I do not believe any man has authority over me, even if others think he does.

Where is that in the bible?

The bible in addition to what was pointed out by Bethany67 also records Jesus saying in Matthew 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

I submit to the authority of the church Jesus gave us it seems like a good thing to do.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 4th 2008, 05:40 PM
Didn't the Bereans need an iffallible interpreter of scripture... Wrong. They didn't need the Church - they were the Church. I defy you to show me anywhere in the Scriptures where it says that, prior to Paul's arrival, they didn't know how to interpret the Scriptures.

I don't need your church, my church or anybody's church to be able to understand the Scriptures. I only need the Holy Spirit who lives in me. Your church is nothing more than lost, depraved sinners who are just as desperately in need of Jesus as I am who would spend eternity burning in hell without Him, just like me. And that includes the Pope, every Bishop, Jesuit, Priest, Cardinal, and other monsignors in the whole hierarchy. They're all lost sinners without Jesus, just like me - and I have the same Holy Spirit that they (supposedly) have living in them - I don't need them, and neither does anybody else.

IMINXTC
Sep 4th 2008, 05:50 PM
Didn't the Bereans need an iffallible interpreter of scripture...

During the Apostolic age, Paul 2Pt 3:15,16 and the other apostles 2Pt 3:2 had the responsibility for interpreting the scriptures in light of the New Testament. Paul also speaks of his revelation Ep 3:3-5 of the mystery of the New Testament. Paul and others, in fulfilling their offices became official writers of scripture.

The Apostles become the architects of the church, the New Testament is scripture. Nowhere beyond the New Testament do we find authority for the interpretation or the revelation of the scriptures.

..."and exhort you that ye should ernestly contend for the faith which was once deliverd unto the saints." Jude 3b

HisLeast
Sep 4th 2008, 06:08 PM
Didn't the Bereans need an iffallible interpreter of scripture...

This was the order of operations at the Berean church.
1) Paul makes claims about Jesus
2) Bereans verify claims by searching scripture
3) Scripture validates Paul's claims
4) Bereans agree with Paul.

Because of (2), the Bereans would have seen through Paul had he been a false teacher. In absence of (2), the Bereans would have either not come to Christ or they would have done so with no justification (good seed, shallow soil). The only reason Paul's teachings were successfull is because the scriptures upheld them as true AND the Bereans cared enough to check them.

The scripture is the litmus test for the truth, NOT the "church". Had Paul told them "and on top of all the Jesus stuff... Mary is the Queen of heaven who hears your prayers and intercedes for you because she too was sinless, the ever-virgin, and was assumed into heaven just like her son", they may have told Paul to take a hike.

IMINXTC
Sep 4th 2008, 06:20 PM
And as a careful addendum, The Apostle, in counselling Timothy, pointed to the scriptures (old testament)... "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2Tm 3:16

Paul also assured Timothy that the scriptures of the Old Testament were sufficient for the knowledge of Salvation through Christ. 2Tm 3:15

HisLeast
Sep 4th 2008, 07:44 PM
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

1 John 4:6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

John and Paul seem to think otherwise from you. Is your teaching infallible? Theirs is.
Seems to me all Paul and Timothy are saying is that the church can teach, which I do not dispute. But why praise the Bereans at all if their only act was to FIRST double check the voracity of Paul's claims in the word? The base assumption is that scriptures have primacy. Church teaching must adhere to the word, not vice-versa.


By the way no one teaches Mary was assumed into heaven just like her Son.
Nobody except
- Pope Pius XII in "Munificentissimus Deus",
- Pope John Paul II in his homily @ Lourdes and written in "Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary
- the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
- Benedict XVI in mass at Church of St. Thomas of Villanova
- and no less than Profession of Faith # 966 of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church.

IMINXTC
Sep 4th 2008, 07:55 PM
Where in the bible does it give you the responsibility for interpreting the bible?

Sorry for the confusing sentence. The New Testament is the authority for the Church (the earthly body of Christ) where it pertains to doctrine and revelation. Today we have a complete New Testament canon. During those formative years of the canon of the New Testament, it is true, the Church relied upon the writings of the Apostles and others recognized as authoritive writers of scripture. (there was also the problem of forgeries).

Regardless of one's affiliation with these Apostles and writers, and regardless of one's edifying presence, the authority rests soley upon that which is within the canon of scripture.

There is by the way, a consensus of matters of the faith, based upon thousands and thousands of Bible-believers arriving by a rightful-dividing of the scriptures, to tried and tested conclusions. There is a huge difference between this and the establishment of a curia, that takes upon itself the authority to decide for the rest of us what is and is not truth.

For the record, I listen to the Apostles and what they taught, not only as edifying, but as infallible. Though Jude does not mention the words bible or scripture, the warning is very clear: "For there are certain men crept in unawares..." Jude v4

David Taylor
Sep 4th 2008, 08:23 PM
**Mod Hat On**
OK,
The ride on the derail-train is over.

The mess is cleaned up a bit, and we should have the caboose back on the tracks.

Back to the OP's question about Sola Scriptura; and not from a 'why it is wrong' and the RCC is 'the one true church' perspective either....anyone.

Ask questions about Sola Scriptura, give your reasons why Protestants believe it is important, whatever, but stay on topic; and don't turn it into a RCC attack on Sola Scriptura or Protestantism!

**Mod Hat Off**

one_lost_coin
Sep 4th 2008, 09:52 PM
A debate between RCC an protestants? Didn't realize there were any of the RCC posting.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 4th 2008, 10:08 PM
A debate between RCC an protestants? Didn't realize there were any of the RCC posting.Let's get to the point. Who do you believe is above the word of God? :hmm:

one_lost_coin
Sep 4th 2008, 11:00 PM
Let's get to the point. Who do you believe is above the word of God? :hmm:

No one. Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

But since I have to provide an answer with at least 15 characters I will add that I read it daily and I find in those scriptures that Jesus Christ established a Church and gave it authority. For example I find no where in the scripture that existed during the first council at Jerusalem that they could have read that they were to allow the gentiles to be enter into the Christian community without the need of circumcision. Yet they declared it and it is binding.

I will ask you. Are you an infallible interpreter of scripture? No one else has the courage to answer that question.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 4th 2008, 11:05 PM
No one.

But since I have to provide an answer with at least 15 characters I am free to post the Word of God and read it just like everyone else and all the verses I posted are right out of the bible.

I will ask you. Are you an infallible interpreter of scripture? No one else has the courage to answer that question.I'll take the plunge. I, personally, am not an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures. No human is. However, the Holy Spirit within me is definitely the perfect interpreter of the Scriptures and he will guide me into all truth (John 16:13) (even though it might take a lifetime to get there). No other human's interpretation of the Bible has authority over mine, just as mine has no authority over theirs.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 4th 2008, 11:09 PM
No one.

But since I have to provide an answer with at least 15 characters I am free to post the Word of God and read it just like everyone else and all the verses I posted are right out of the bible.

I will ask you. Are you an infallible interpreter of scripture? No one else has the courage to answer that question.No. When did anyone in the thread claim to be infallible in their interpretation? :hmm:

So, if no one is above the word of God, shouldn't scripture be our final authority? If not, who is the final authority?

one_lost_coin
Sep 4th 2008, 11:22 PM
Originally Posted by one_lost_coin
By the way no one teaches Mary was assumed into heaven just like her Son.

Originally Posted by HisLeast
Nobody except
- Pope Pius XII in "Munificentissimus Deus",
- Pope John Paul II in his homily @ Lourdes and written in "Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary
- the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
- Benedict XVI in mass at Church of St. Thomas of Villanova
- and no less than Profession of Faith # 966 of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church.You are mistaken not one of the documents declares Mary was assumed into heaven just like her son. The Catholic Church considers that heresy.

Before you reply you will need to look up the difference between the Ascension and the Assumption. The difference is huge.

Feel free to disagree with the Assumption but at least disagree with what is actually taught by someone else and not what you think they teach.

one_lost_coin
Sep 4th 2008, 11:36 PM
No. When did anyone in the thread claim to be infallible in their interpretation? :hmm:

So, if no one is above the word of God, shouldn't scripture be our final authority? If not, who is the final authority?

No one has answered it at all (I notice after posting someone has answered the question I will reply tomorrow I am done for this evening) especially when it is obvious that their interpretations are not infallible yet all of us are using the bible and their are different interpretations being developed from it.

How are we going to know who's interpretation is correct unless there is an "us" like St. John says we have to agree with or we will be listening to the spirit of error.

Jesus said take it to the Church yet you are telling me I should go to the bible instead.

No individual is greater than the Church either although it seems some here claim to no longer need to listen to the Church.

I wonder if these people could step back and think that this teaching of Sola Scriptura was not concieved by them they learned it from whatever denom or nondenom they attend.

IMINXTC
Sep 4th 2008, 11:39 PM
No one. Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

But since I have to provide an answer with at least 15 characters I will add that I read it daily and I find in those scriptures that Jesus Christ established a Church and gave it authority. For example I find no where in the scripture that existed during the first council at Jerusalem that they could have read that they were to allow the gentiles to be enter into the Christian community without the need of circumcision. Yet they declared it and it is binding.

I will ask you. Are you an infallible interpreter of scripture? No one else has the courage to answer that question.

Yes, the issue was one of confusion and error, and was confronted and rectified during the Jerusalem council. All taking place within the Apostolic age and within the context of the Inspired New Testament. Just like all doctrinal issues, it was settled there and then, under the authority of the Apostles. Some traditions, however, would have us believe that the Apostolic succession is passed down from one generation to the next... scary stuff!

Studyin'2Show
Sep 4th 2008, 11:48 PM
No one has yet no one has answered it at all especially when it is obvious that their interpretations are not infallible yet all of us are using the bible and their are different interpretations being developed from it.

How are we going to know who's interpretation is correct unless there is an "us" like St. John says we have to agree with or we will be listening to the spirit of error.

Jesus said take it to the Church yet you are telling me I should go to the bible instead.

No individual is greater than the Church either although it seems some here claim to no longer need to listen to the Church.

I wonder if these people could step back and think that this teaching of Sola Scriptura was not concieved by them they learned it from whatever denom or nondenom they attend.When exactly did Jesus say we were to go to the church for interpretation? :hmm: Please cite scripture. In what I've read He didn't say He would send us the church to teach us all truths.

BTW, who is this 'Church' that you keep capitalizing as if there is some deity to it? Let us be clear.

Both myself and Literalist-Luke have answered your question concerning infallibilty. I don't believe any human being (Yeshua not included) is infallible. Do you believe someone is infallible?

From my one personal testimony, I came to faith without any denomination. I read the Bible. Not a few verses here and there doing what I call Bible hopscotch, but a book at a time read as the books that they are, in context. From that reading I learned that Yeshua Himself told us that He would send the Comforter that would teach us all truths.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 4th 2008, 11:55 PM
No individual is greater than the Church either although it seems some here claim to no longer need to listen to the Church.Why do you insist that we need to listen to the Church, but you refuse to tell us which "church" you are speaking of? How are we supposed to do what you suggest when you won't tell us who you're talking about?

For all we know, you might be speaking of some Jim Jones cult in the South American jungle. What "church" are you speaking of?

one_lost_coin
Sep 5th 2008, 12:07 AM
Yes, the issue was one of confusion and error, and was confronted and rectified during the Jerusalem council. All taking place within the Apostolic age and within the context of the Inspired New Testament. Just like all doctrinal issues, it was settled there and then, under the authority of the Apostles. Some traditions, however, would have us believe that the Apostolic succession is passed down from one generation to the next... scary stuff!

Have you ever read anything from the very people that learned at the feet of the Apostles and later replaced them and became martyrs for the faith? Hero's of the faith many call them.

Do you accept the doctrine of the Trinity? That was defined by the Church councils out of the Apostolic age (I assume as I don't know how long you consider that age to last) out of necessity to refute errors being taught and is binding.

I am surprised by how many people don't accept that teaching today for the reason that it is not found in the bible (and I don't mean the JW's I mean those that profess to be Christian).

You know what books are supposed to be in the bible because the Church by its authority determined what books are to be there. No where in the bible does it say what books to include. Yes I know the table of contents haha. I think it goes without saying that was an add on.

one_lost_coin
Sep 5th 2008, 12:13 AM
Why do you insist that we need to listen to the Church, but you refuse to tell us which "church" you are speaking of? How are we supposed to do what you suggest when you won't tell us who you're talking about?

For all we know, you might be speaking of some Jim Jones cult in the South American jungle. What "church" are you speaking of?

Which Church is irrelevant to this conversation as it was framed. The original post asked for our thought of the doctrine of sola scriptura, I am offering mine and why I think what I believe.

I would be happy to explore which specific church in another thread but for the intent of this one I think it only necessary to point out the role the church whichever one it may be has been given. I would be interested in hearing what church you think it is otherwise.

IMINXTC
Sep 5th 2008, 12:19 AM
Have you ever read anything from the very people that learned at the feet of the Apostles and later replaced them and became martyrs for the faith? Hero's of the faith many call them.

Do you accept the doctrine of the Trinity? That was defined by the Church councils out of the Apostolic age (I assume as I don't know how long you consider that age to last) out of necessity to refute errors being taught and is binding.

I am surprised by how many people don't accept that teaching today for the reason that it is not found in the bible (and I don't mean the JW's I mean those that profess to be Christian).

You know what books are supposed to be in the bible because the Church by its authority determined what books are to be there. No where in the bible does it say what books to include. Yes I know the table of contents haha. I think it goes without saying that was an add on.

These martyrs of the faith, bless their souls , were not Apostles.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1Jn 5:7 et al.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 12:48 AM
Which Church is irrelevant to this conversation as it was framed. The original post asked for our thought of the doctrine of sola scriptura, I am offering mine and why I think what I believe.

I would be happy to explore which specific church in another thread but for the intent of this one I think it only necessary to point out the role the church whichever one it may be has been given. I would be interested in hearing what church you think it is otherwise.You should enter politics - that was an expert dodging-of-the-question if I ever saw one.

Until the question is answered, everything you say must be suspect. Like I said, for all I know, you might be speaking of some Jim Jones/David Koresh cult.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 5th 2008, 12:51 AM
Please respond to post#27 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1776275&postcount=27) I'm still curious about the capitalization thing with 'Church'. :hmm:

ChristianKnight
Sep 5th 2008, 01:29 AM
I do not see the Church over anyone. Jesus is over us, not the Pope. Call me a heretic, wouldn't be a first ;).

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 01:34 AM
I do not see the Church over anyone. Jesus is over us, not the Pope. Call me a heretic, wouldn't be a first ;).I'll call you a brother. :thumbsup:

MidnightsPaleGlow
Sep 5th 2008, 01:38 AM
I do not see the Church over anyone. Jesus is over us, not the Pope. Call me a heretic, wouldn't be a first ;).

Exactly, and no, my friend, I do NOT consider you a heretic for believing this, I consider you a brother in the Lord. It's the truth, Christ is over us, not some fallible, delusional man who sits on a throne in Rome. The fallible, delusional Pope is the REAL heretic.

IMINXTC
Sep 5th 2008, 01:44 AM
I do not see the Church over anyone. Jesus is over us, not the Pope. Call me a heretic, wouldn't be a first ;).

"And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning; the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
Col. 1:18

ChristianKnight
Sep 5th 2008, 05:50 AM
"And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning; the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
Col. 1:18

That doesn't say the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church.

Besides, I am not against the RCC, but I am not for a lot of the stuff they do either. I do not agree that if your not in it, you burn in hell (yes I have been told this by several catholics).

IMINXTC
Sep 5th 2008, 06:01 AM
[quote=ChristianKnight;1776605]That doesn't say the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church.

Truth. Scripture is speaking of Christ himself, and Christ alone.

IMINXTC
Sep 5th 2008, 06:14 AM
You are mistaken not one of the documents declares Mary was assumed into heaven just like her son. The Catholic Church considers that heresy.

Before you reply you will need to look up the difference between the Ascension and the Assumption. The difference is huge.

Feel free to disagree with the Assumption but at least disagree with what is actually taught by someone else and not what you think they teach.

I have just got to jump in here. If this is not RCC apologetics, I don't know right from wrong. I know I can be rightly accused of internet naivete and a certain flakiness which frankly I feel perfectly entitled to after several decades of full-time spiritual battle:

But to deny the blasphemous teaching of Munifecentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pious XII in which Mary is exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, where the Pope is infallible in his Bull (intriguing term) reducing the argument to a simple matter of semantics (Ascension vs Assumption) is in fact nothing more than the proseltysing of Catholicism.

Not a discussion of Sola Scriptura (of which I passionately adhere to) at all; not even a reasonable argument against Sola Scriptura, but an attempt to propagate the age-old contempt for those who would dare to trust God's infallible Word in lieu of the lordship of the 'infallible' Vicar of Christ... the roman papistry. Clever arguments indeed, but to think of those who have been burnt at the stake, men far worthier than me...

OK, I'm outta here.

David Taylor
Sep 5th 2008, 12:24 PM
Some info on this guy and his "church".

His userprofile lists his homepage as The Maronite Catholic Church (http://web.mac.com/maronitereadings/daily/Welcome.html).

They claim to be an unbroken lineage the original "church" of Antioch with, founded by Peter and Paul.

There homepage states:
"Their loyalty to the church and to the Pope led to persecutions over the centuries, and the Maronites eventually moved to Lebanon. The Maronite Catholic Church preserves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith, administers the seven sacraments, adheres to all Papal rulings and is characterized by devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Mary, the Blessed Mother."

So now you can get a better feel for his use of "the church" and pro-Maryism apologetics.

Now, back to the original Op and why we as Protestants believe in the importance of Sola Scriptura.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 03:23 PM
Some info on this guy and his "church".

His userprofile lists his homepage as The Maronite Catholic Church (http://web.mac.com/maronitereadings/daily/Welcome.html).

They claim to be an unbroken lineage the original "church" of Antioch with, founded by Peter and Paul.

There homepage states:
"Their loyalty to the church and to the Pope led to persecutions over the centuries, and the Maronites eventually moved to Lebanon. The Maronite Catholic Church preserves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith, administers the seven sacraments, adheres to all Papal rulings and is characterized by devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Mary, the Blessed Mother."

So now you can get a better feel for his use of "the church" and pro-Maryism apologetics.

Now, back to the original Op and why we as Protestants believe in the importance of Sola Scriptura.I figured the word "Catholic" would be in there somewhere. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/mmph.gif Thanks David. :thumbsup:

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 10:44 AM
Wrong. They didn't need the Church - they were the Church. I defy you to show me anywhere in the Scriptures where it says that, prior to Paul's arrival, they didn't know how to interpret the Scriptures.


Ministry of Apollos, Acts18:24-26, where Priscilla and Aquila explained the way of God more accurately to him.

The Pharisees unlike the Sadducees and Karaites believed in the authority of the Oral Torah,(Mishnah). This Oral Torah was to help them interpret the Written Torah. Jesus however doesn't tell the crowds to obey the Sadducees or Karaties, he tells them to do everything the scribes and Pharisees taught them,Matthew23:2.

The Sadducees and Karaites believed in only the authority of the Written Torah, similar to the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I believe the Sadducess only accepted the Written Torah(first five books), where as the Karaites accepted the whole Jewish Tanakh.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 10th 2008, 11:04 AM
Ministry of Apollos, Acts18:24-26, where Priscilla and Aquila explained the way of God more accurately to him.

The Pharisees unlike the Sadducees and Karaites believed in the authority of the Oral Torah,(Mishnah). This Oral Torah was to help them interpret the Written Torah. Jesus however doesn't tell to crowds to obey the Sadducees or Karaties, he tells them to do everything the scribes and Pharisees taught them,Matthew23:2.

The Sadducees and Karaites believed in only the authority of the Written Torah, similar to the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I believe the Sadducess however only accepted the Written Torah(first five books), where as the Karaites accepted the whole Jewish Tanakh.This does not say that people did not understand how to interpret scripture. In fact, Yeshua showed them by example that their interpretation of the keeping of Sabbath was flawed. I have absolutely no trouble with oral tradition...so long as it does not conflict with scripture.

God Bless!

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 12:03 PM
This does not say that people did not understand how to interpret scripture. In fact, Yeshua showed them by example that their interpretation of the keeping of Sabbath was flawed. I have absolutely no trouble with oral tradition...so long as it does not conflict with scripture.

God Bless!

Yes it does, the Pharisees and Sadducees had many disagreements based on the interpretation of the written law.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 10th 2008, 12:24 PM
Yes it does, the Pharisees and Sadducees had many disagreements based on the interpretation of the written law.The text does not say that people don't understand God's word, it simply says to submit to authority. There is no mandatory religious authority now but there are those godly men and women to whom I have submitted. Paul speaks concerning this type of submission, even to the local authorities. What Yeshua DID say is that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us.

God Bless!

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 12:31 PM
The text does not say that people don't understand God's word, it simply says to submit to authority. There is no mandatory religious authority now but there are those godly men and women to whom I have submitted. Paul speaks concerning this type of submission, even to the local authorities. What Yeshua DID say is that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us.

God Bless!

The text does say that in 2Peter3:14-18?

Studyin'2Show
Sep 10th 2008, 01:48 PM
The text does say that in 2Peter14-18?That's not even close to talking about what you're implying. :rolleyes: That is referring to the Gospel. It never says that these things that 'are not cunningly devised fables' have not been written down. I submit that the things that they followed, they wrote down for us. Let's take a look at that scripture. :hmm:

2 Peter 14-18
14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.

16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

So, let's take a look at a few things. How would Peter 'be careful to ensure' our reminder after his death? Because he dictated it to Mark; making a written record of it. ;) Then in verse 18 he speaks of a voice coming from heaven. :hmm: Do you think he may have made sure that was written down for us? (Mark 9:7-8)

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 02:59 PM
Sorry, i left out the chapter.

2Peter3:14-18

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 03:15 PM
he tells them to do everything the scribes and Pharisees taught them,Matthew23:2.As if the scribes and Pharisees were doing a bangup job of interpreting the Scriptures themselves....

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 03:30 PM
As if the scribes and Pharisees were doing a bangup job of interpreting the Scriptures themselves....

Christ would not have told the crowds to obey them if their teachings were in error. What the Jews failed to recognize was that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. I also believe tradition holds that at least some of the Pharisees converted to christianity including Saint Pauls teacher Gamaliel and Nicodemus.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 03:37 PM
Christ would not have told the crowds to obey them if their teachings were in error.In your zeal to assign undeserved authority to sinners (like the Pope) in the "Church" as having authority over other believers, you have completely missed the point that Jesus was trying to make when He said this.
What the Jews failed to recognize was that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. I also believe tradition holds that at least some of the Pharisees converted to christianity including Saint Pauls teacher Gamaliel and Nicodemus.Yes, some of them recognized that Jesus was the Messiah in the end. Most of them, however, did not.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 10th 2008, 06:07 PM
Sorry, i left out the chapter.

2Peter3:14-182 Peter 3:14-18
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Exactly how is this saying that scripture can not be understood? It simply say that some things that PAUL writes are hard to understand, not impossible. The key is not to be untaught and unstable. We are to study to show ourselves approved as the verse in my sig states.

God Bless!

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 06:24 PM
In your zeal to assign undeserved authority to sinners (like the Pope) in the "Church" as having authority over other believers, you have completely missed the point that Jesus was trying to make when He said this.


You believe God kept his written word free from error, why couldn't he also do it with his oral instructions given to Moses on Mount Sinai?

If Jesus told people to obey false teachings, wouldn't that be akin to tempting them to sin, which God cannot do,1James1:13?

What was the point Jesus was trying to make when he told the crowds to obey everything that the Pharisees and scribes taught them? Pharisees and scribes who recognized the authority of the Oral Torah.


Exactly how is this saying that scripture can not be understood? It simply say that some things that PAUL writes are hard to understand, not impossible. The key is not to be untaught and unstable. We are to study to show ourselves approved as the verse in my sig states.

It doesn't say it can't be understood, but that it is hard to understand, and that the ignorant and unstable twist the meaning to their own destruction. It doesn't just say that what PAUL writes is hard to understand, and people twist the meaning of. It also states they twist the meaning of the other scriptures.

David Taylor
Sep 10th 2008, 06:33 PM
You believe God kept his written word free from error, why couldn't he also do it with his oral instructions given to Moses on Mount Sinai?

If Jesus told people to obey false teachings, wouldn't that be akin to tempting them to sin, which God cannot do,1James1:13?

What was the point Jesus was trying to make when he told the crowds to obey everything that the Pharisees and scribes taught them? Pharisees and scribes who recognized the authority of the Oral Torah.


The point was, when the Phairisees and Scribes taught the Torah, the Torah was true and correct. Their problem was when they stopped teaching scripture; but their mouths kept moving onto other things unscriptural.

Jesus Himself said that the OT writings spoke of and pointed to Himself. Of course Jesus would have taught that the OT Scriptures spoken by the Phairsees and Scribes was true.

That didn't give the Phairsees and Scribes carte-blanche authority that everything else they say (just like popes and bishops and priests) were true and authoritative...it wasn't.

The Holy Spirit in conjunction with the Written Word; is our teacher; and teaches perfectly. When we start added external teachings and pronouncements and other doctrines into the mix 'as if' it were from God; that is where the problem arrises; whether from the Pharisees, or the RCC, or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith, or Ron Wienland, or the next proclaimed infallible expert who comes down the pike.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 06:43 PM
The point was, when the Phairisees and Scribes taught the Torah, the Torah was true and correct. Their problem was when they stopped teaching scripture; but their mouths kept moving onto other things unscriptural.

Jesus Himself said that the OT writings spoke of and pointed to Himself. Of course Jesus would have taught that the OT Scriptures spoken by the Phairsees and Scribes was true.

That didn't give the Phairsees and Scribes carte-blanche authority that everything else they say (just like popes and bishops and priests) were true and authoritative...it wasn't.

The Holy Spirit in conjunction with the Written Word; is our teacher; and teaches perfectly. When we start added external teachings and pronouncements and other doctrines into the mix 'as if' it were from God; that is where the problem arrises; whether from the Pharisees, or the RCC, or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith, or Ron Wienland, or the next proclaimed infallible expert who comes down the pike.Thank you. :yes:

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 06:53 PM
The point was, when the Phairisees and Scribes taught the Torah, the Torah was true and correct. Their problem was when they stopped teaching scripture; but their mouths kept moving onto other things unscriptural.


The problem was that they didn't understand Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. They understood the Old Covenant not the New Covenant(i'm talking of the people who opposed Christ). That is why Paul states the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2).



That didn't give the Phairsees and Scribes carte-blanche authority that everything else they say (just like popes and bishops and priests) were true and authoritative...it wasn't.


When they taught concerning the law, Jesus told the crowds to obey everything the scribes and Pharisees taught them. When they weren't teaching on the law, they could be fallible like the rest of us. The same is true of the magisterium of the RCC. It is taught however that the magisterium in union with the Pope can only reveal what has been handed onto it(ie. By the Holy Spirit).



86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."



The Holy Spirit in conjunction with the Written Word; is our teacher; and teaches perfectly. When we start added external teachings and pronouncements and other doctrines into the mix 'as if' it were from God; that is where the problem arrises; whether from the Pharisees, or the RCC, or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith, or Ron Wienland, or the next proclaimed infallible expert who comes down the pike.

I don't discount the possibility of private revelation through the Holy Spirit to show us the meaning of scripture and other things. I do believe there is a yard stick and an authority to test whether these private revelations or interpretations are the correct ones. Being a Catholic i believe that yard stick is the Church.

IMINXTC
Sep 11th 2008, 02:26 AM
The problem was that they didn't understand Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. They understood the Old Covenant not the New Covenant(i'm talking of the people who opposed Christ). That is why Paul states the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2).



When they taught concerning the law, Jesus told the crowds to obey everything the scribes and Pharisees taught them. When they weren't teaching on the law, they could be fallible like the rest of us. The same is true of the magisterium of the RCC. It is taught however that the magisterium in union with the Pope can only reveal what has been handed onto it(ie. By the Holy Spirit).





I don't discount the possibility of private revelation through the Holy Spirit to show us the meaning of scripture and other things. I do believe there is a yard stick and an authority to test whether these private revelations or interpretations are the correct ones. Being a Catholic i believe that yard stick is the Church.

Thus: the Reformation, and the reformers' cheer: Sola Scriptura!

Studyin'2Show
Sep 11th 2008, 11:19 AM
It doesn't just say that what PAUL writes is hard to understand, and people twist the meaning of. It also states they twist the meaning of the other scriptures.Yes it does, friend. Basic sentence structure. ;) From verse 14 through verse 16 is one run on sentence.

2 Peter 3:14-18
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

I don't want to turn this into an English class but the bolded section is clearly one thought pattern having to do with Paul's epistles, concerning the first unbolded section which speaks of salvation, in which are some things hard to understand. Then the second thought pattern comes after the 'which' (underlined portion) concerning what untaught and unstable people twist, to which Peter adds that they (the untaught and unstable) also do to the rest of the Scriptures. What they 'DO' can only be referring to twisting the Scriptures and can't refer to what Paul's epistles 'ARE' which is hard to understand. ;) But even without looking at the obvious sentence structure, the bottom line is that it does not say that either Paul's epistle or all the Scriptures are impossible to understand.

God Bless!

Jerome1
Sep 11th 2008, 09:23 PM
Yes it does, friend. Basic sentence structure. ;) From verse 14 through verse 16 is one run on sentence.


Maybe you took different English classes than i did, but the comma in verse 16, is to break for a pause on the same sentence. It seems the sentence structure in the KJV puts a comma after letters/epistles, and not a full stop. They do use semi colons, which can indicate a different meaning within a sentence. What translation do you use?

2Peter3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.


I don't want to turn this into an English class but the bolded section is clearly one thought pattern having to do with Paul's epistles, concerning the first unbolded section which speaks of salvation, in which are some things hard to understand. Then the second thought pattern comes after the 'which' (underlined portion) concerning what untaught and unstable people twist, to which Peter adds that they (the untaught and unstable) also do to the rest of the Scriptures. What they 'DO' can only be referring to twisting the Scriptures and can't refer to what Paul's epistles 'ARE' which is hard to understand. ;) But even without looking at the obvious sentence structure, the bottom line is that it does not say that either Paul's epistle or all the Scriptures are impossible to understand.

I never said they was impossible to understand, i said Pauls epistles were hard to understand, and people twist the meaning to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Jerome1
Sep 11th 2008, 09:27 PM
Anybody want to answer the question, why did Jesus tell the crowds to obey the scribes and Pharisees(who held to oral and written tradition) as apposed to the Sadducees who did not?

Secondly, how is sola scriptura any different from what the Sadducees and Karaites believed?

That would be a major problem for me if i believed in sola scriptura.

IMINXTC
Sep 11th 2008, 10:36 PM
Anybody want to answer the question, why did Jesus tell the crowds to obey the scribes and Pharisees(who held to oral and written tradition) as apposed to the Sadducees who did not?

Secondly, how is sola scriptura any different from what the Sadducees and Karaites believed?

That would be a major problem for me if i believed in sola scriptura.

No matter how hard I have looked at Mt 23:2-39, since you have raised it in other threads, I can see no discourse on the Pharisaical method of interpreting Torah (oral) verses the Sadducees (written). Jesus calls them hypocrites.

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat:" Mt 23:2 This does not imply that they are faithful to Moses, or even that they occupy that position by Divine decree. (call no man Rabbi).

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom you trust."

Jesus commanded the Jews to obey these who have occupied the seat of Moses because He did not come to destroy the Law. He was not to be accused of inciting disobedience to the Law of Moses. And the Jews were to be obedient to the Law. The Sadducees were largely the functionaries of the Temple, and though they also taught, they did not dominate in the fashion that the Zealous Pharisees did, where it concerned discussions on the law. Jesus was not necessarily making a distinction between them.

"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadduces." Mt 16

Mt 5:18 ..."Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle (written) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Concerning the Oral Law. "You have heard that it was said..." Mt 5:21,27,31,33,38,43,.." Was Jesus perhaps condemning the 'hearsay' that had largely replaced the 'it is written.' ?

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, Than man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." Lk 4:4

Jerome1
Sep 11th 2008, 11:52 PM
No matter hard I have looked at Mt 23:2-39, since you have raised it in other threads, I can see no discourse on the Pharisaical method of interpreting Torah (oral) verses the Sadducees (written). Jesus calls them hypocrites.


Hypocrites not because of what they teach, but because they do not practice what they teach.


Jesus commanded the Jews to obey these who has occupied the seat of Moses because He did not come to destroy the Law. He was not to be accused of inciting disobedience to the Law of Moses. And the Jews were to be obedient to the Law. The Sadducees were largely the functionaries of the Temple, and though they also taught, they did not dominate in the fashion that the Zealous Pharisees did, where it concerned discussions on the law. Jesus was not necessarily making a distinction between them.

He obviously was making a distinction between them, because he was aware of their differences, and even tells the Sadducees that they know neither the scriptures nor the power of God(Matthew22:29). That is a pretty big distinction, telling the crowds to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees teach them, and then telling the Sadducees they neither know the scriptures nor the power of God.

Matthew22:29 Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

IMINXTC
Sep 12th 2008, 01:49 AM
Hypocrites not because of what they teach, but because they do not practice what they teach.




He obviously was making a distinction between them, because he was aware of their differences, and even tells the Sadducees that they know neither the scriptures nor the power of God(Matthew22:29). That is a pretty big distinction, telling the crowds to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees teach them, and then telling the Sadducees they neither know the scriptures nor the power of God.

Matthew22:29 Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.


I guess this brings us back to their teachings on Sabbath etc. Were they correct in their teaching or had they misinterpreted or added to the Law?

Yes, the admonition here is that they know not the Scriptures . The subject being 1. the resurrection, 2. the nature of the marital state. Did He imply that they knew nothing of any of the scriptures? Or that they were wrong on these scriptual issues?

Regardless, the standard is the scriptures. "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternall life: and they are they which testify of me." Jn 5:39

Bit of a challenge to finally determine which sect he was addressing in John 5. The term in the text is 'Jews.' (who sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day)v.16

"If though shalt harken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, if thou turn unto the LORD they God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul." Dt30:10

IMINXTC
Sep 12th 2008, 07:22 AM
Anybody want to answer the question, why did Jesus tell the crowds to obey the scribes and Pharisees(who held to oral and written tradition) as apposed to the Sadducees who did not?

Secondly, how is sola scriptura any different from what the Sadducees and Karaites believed?

That would be a major problem for me if i believed in sola scriptura.

What the Sadduces and Karaites believed can only be vaguely related to sola scriptura, becuse they denied the ressurection (for one). You quoted Jesus admonition to them that they knew not the scriptures. Regardless of their theological standing concerning transmission of the old testament, oral or written, they had grossly disregarded much of its clear teachings.
I would have to go back and re-study the Kairites to be more informed about their beliefs, but it has no bearing on my belief in sola scriptura.

The Bible itself, and Christ taught that the authority of God rests in the Word of God alone. I don't actually need to consider what the Karaites or the Sadducees, for that matter, believed, other than what the Bible records. The Sadduces and Pharisees conspired to put Christ on the Cross in the name of Moses.

And, of course, you seem to be determined to somehow read into this the notion that the Pope has the authority of the Holy Spirit to determine truth. At the risk of sounding unpolite, remember that in his infallable Bull he determined that Mary was ordained "Queen over all things." If you can somehow pull this absurdity out of an obtuse shuffling of
scripture...I'm not actually being disrespectful here...I'm just saying that your case is extremely weak, at best. And there remains a tremendous problem with the RCC claim that the papacy began in the earliest days of the church age as if it were right there in Jerusalem with James, Peter and Paul.

If, as you say, the Holy Sprit conveyed this authority to this man, where is the confirming evidence? Certainly it does not reside in the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is, first of all, a Protestant doctrine, born out of the Reformation... in clear refutation of the RCC's claim of divine authority over men and over the Word of God. That's where it came from.

When the Pharisees left the authority of the Torah, they were committing error at best, heresy at times. The same truth applies to the Sadducees who claimed to hold to the authority of the Written Torah.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mt 15:9

I have been told to watch my blood-pressure, not your fault:)

Jerome1
Sep 12th 2008, 11:48 AM
What the Sadduces and Karaites believed can only be vaguely related to sola scriptura, becuse they denied the ressurection (for one).


I know the Sadducees did, not too sure about the Karaites.


I would have to go back and re-study the Kairites to be more informed about their beliefs, but it has no bearing on my belief in sola scriptura.

It has a lot of bearing on your belief in sola scriptura, they rejected the idea of sacred tradition also.


The Sadduces and Pharisees conspired to put Christ on the Cross in the name of Moses.

That dosen't address the clear distinction Christ makes between the Pharisees and Sadducees. If Christ told the crowds to obey the Pharisees, who adhered to the Oral Torah and the Written Torah. Where do you get this idea of sola scriptura?


Sola Scriptura is, first of all, a Protestant doctrine, born out of the Reformation... in clear refutation of the RCC's claim of divine authority over men and over the Word of God. That's where it came from.

Belief in the authority of just the written word, was not born out of the reformation. There were clearly sects within Judaism who believed the same thing.



When the Pharisees left the authority of the Torah, they were committing error at best, heresy at times. The same truth applies to the Sadducees who claimed to hold to the authority of the Written Torah.


So Jesus told the crowds to obey a bunch of heretics, is that what you are saying?

IMINXTC
Sep 16th 2008, 12:43 PM
Well how about this: I had asked the question earlier: Were the Pharisees correct in their teachings on the Sabbath-an essential, fundamental part of the Law?

If they had sought to slay Jesus because He had healed a man on the Sabbath Jn5:16, can 'heretic' be too strong of a word? Certainly this is a teaching or interpretation of the Law.

When the Lord commanded the people to observe and do all that these who sat in the seat of Moses said Mt.23:2,3; He was speaking also of the heavy burdens v4 that Pharisees had layed on the shoulders of the people.

Ths could in no way imply that they were correct in there teachings. They were wrong and He said as much, but admonished the people to obey or go along in the name of the seat of Moses. He was also going to the cross
which would be the end of the Law for them who believed.

Where they taught Torah faithfully, they were correct. Where they went beyond Torah to the point where they would kill Jesus for healing a man on Sabbath (in the name of Moses) yes, they were heretics.