SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Sigforum Christians, have you been "saved"? (And ongoing Christian faith-based discussion)
Main Page The Lounge Sigforum Christians, have you been "saved"? (And ongoing Christian faith-based discussion)Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
Short; to-the-point. Interesting and compelling. Regardless of what anyone thinks is the right way to worship and/or study, the bottom line regardless of denomination is execution of "the love directive". Our action in the world, as provoked by The Spirit. James 2:14-26 | |||
|
| The Ice Cream Man |
I think like many Protestants, I have far less issues with the Orthodox Church - before I found the LCMS, I considered Orthodoxy, so as to have a community which was compatible on the larger issues. TMK, the Orthodox Church has never been as corrupt as Rome - and has never had as much secular power. The Russian church may be an exception in both cases, but Moscow controls the Russian speaking Lutheran church as well - or is trying to. The issue I think many Protestants have is that he mentions “Praying to the East, and making the sign of the cross,” as equal in authority to Scripture, and I don’t see the grounds for it. That the Apostles taught with full authority is not rejected by anyone, TMK. It is that later people claim the same authority, which most people reject - especially in Rome, where that authority was so often blatantly corrupted. The idea of Apostolic succession is appealing - but it does not work, anymore than the UK’s living constitution works. Nor is it fair to try to claim that all of Paul’s teachings was in two letters. Presumably the NT was the bulk of his teaching. Maybe that’s why relics, etc serve such a purpose in the Apostolic churches - it might be hard to go too off the deep end, in a church with direct relics of the Apostles. | |||
|
Member |
Sola Scriptura is the easiest protestant doctrine to refute. To believe in Sola Scriptura, you have to believe these things: 1. That all beliefs and doctrines do not have to be solely from scripture. Because nowhere does the Bible say that you can only believe in things that are written in the Bible. 2. That the Catholic Church is infallible in determining the canon of the New Testament books. Otherwise, you'd have to believe that the Bible literally fell out of the sky. 3. That all the beliefs and doctrines that their denominations hold that are not found in the Bible are somehow biblical (Rapture,sinners prayer, etc). | |||
|
Member |
None of the 3 things you listed have to do with Sola Scriptura nor are they prerequisites to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. 1.Sola scriptura doesn't mean that the only things we can believe are found in scripture. No where in the bible is the word "trinity" found, yet you and I both believe in the triune God of scripture. 2.No one believes the canon fell out of the sky and we don't adopt the RCC canon nor do we believe in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. 3.Some denominations try to read their believes into the text and you've listed a couple of them which I don't think are biblical. But again, just because people wrongly interpret text or read things into the text is not related to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura at all | |||
|
| Member |
Sola Scriptura literally means Scripture Alone. Meaning that Scripture (and the individual's interpretation) is the sole authority for determining doctrine and beliefs. And as you pointed out, the people who subscribe to Sola Scriptura almost always believe in the Trinity, in direct opposition to "in scripture alone." You do use the Catholic canon in the New Testament. The discrepancy is in the deuterocannonical texts, which are referenced in the New Testament and would have been used by the Jews in Jesus' time. So protestants reject them, but only because they reject the Catholics and want to try to discredit the Church. It doesn't work. The arguments against the deuterocannonicals always fall apart. To your third point, like I said before, denominations who claim Sola Scriptura don't really believe it, it's just a anti Catholic statement that means nothing. | |||
|
| Member |
In defense of BlackTalon, I will say that I found your initial response quite confusing, Cous. I'll re-read, to try to better understand. | |||
|
| Member |
Basically, what I was trying to say is that people who say they believe in Sola Scriptura actually never really believe in Sola Scriptura. And protestants have to yield the infallibility of the Council of Rome, and therefore the Catholic Church, if they believe that the Scripture is the infallible inspired Word of God. They often, like BlackTalon did, try to claim that they don't used the Catholic canon, but the protestants removed those seven apocrypha books in the 1500s. They didn't have an honest reason, other than to try to discredit the Catholic Church. | |||
|
| Member |
Protestants use the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament. We didn't remove any canonical books from the Bible, we simple don't add them as Roman Catholics do. But back to Sola Scriptura, it certainly does translate as scripture alone, just like Sola Fide translates as faith alone but that doesn't define the doctrine and the definition you gave isn't the definition. Sola scriptura means that scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church and contrary to what you keep saying I do really believe in the doctrine as it's properly defined as do millions of protestants. There's no need to redefine or strawman protestant doctrine here and it seems the only reason to do so is an attempt to show that protestants are either dishonest or unintelligent. | |||
|
| Member |
I grew up in the Catholic Church and went to services for many years. My father didn't find what he wanted there and went to a couple Christian non-denominational churches and is where he found Jesus. I went with him and eventually we were led to a small church, the Ft. Lauderdale Bible Chapel and where we stayed. I only mention this to show my background. The problem with the Apochrypha from what I have studied, is that they contradict what the Bible teaches from using magic in Tobit 6:5-7 - using part of a fish heart to ward away devils and evil spirits to money being offered for the sins of the dead and there resurrection - 2 Maccabbees 12:43, to name a couple. In the book of Judith, it speaks of King Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyrians but he was actually king of Babylon in that time period and the book mentions Holofernes's rapid travel of 300 miles in three days, which is considered not realistic for any army. Also, no other book in the Bible quotes the Apochrypha but the New Testament does with the Old Testament. Granted there are books/texts that are not mentioned in the new but the Jewish people were in charge of recording scripture, because they were entrusted with the oracles of God- Paul states in (Rom. 3:1-2). They, Apochrypha, might have been written to mean well but are we to believe in something that is only to be "meant well" or in what God says is His word? Anytime we let any group of people/religion, tell us what is taught in the Bible and how their way is the right one, many forget what Christ taught and how we should not add anything to the Bible that was not meant to be there. We can pray directly to the source- Jesus and don't need anyone "to talk" to God on our behalf. Praying to anything other than God is idol worship and should be abstained from. | |||
|
| Member |
Firstly, Id like to point out that the arguments against the Apocrypha here are simply conjecture. Protestants love to pretend like Catholics came up with these books and added them to support false doctrine. It's all nonsense. The Apocrypha were included in the Septuigent and were in the text that first century Jews would have used. If they were good enough for Jesus, they are good enough for you. They were in the Bible before the protestant reformation, and should still be in the Bible. But this argument is one of those finger-pointing "you added" vs. "you removed" arguments that gets old.... Especially with all of the questionable "facts" that get presented to argue against the Apocrypha. So, back to Sola Scriptura. How can Black Talon say that my definition of Sola Scriptura is correct, but then say that that's not what people mean when they say they believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? That seems odd to me. You said, "...it certainly does translate as scripture alone, just like Sola Fide translates as faith alone but that doesn't define the doctrine and the definition you gave isn't the definition. Sola scriptura means that scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church and contrary to what you keep saying I do really believe in the doctrine as it's properly defined as do millions of protestants." Do you believe in scripture alone or not? If so, consider the following: Where in the Bible does it say that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith? How did the early Christians practice their faith before the New Testament was written or finalized? Who had the authority to decide which books belonged in the Bible—and how do you know they were right? If Sola Scriptura is true, why didn’t any Christian practice or teach it for the first 1,500 years of Christianity? Do you trust the Catholic Church to have correctly preserved the New Testament but not to interpret it faithfully? Why? If the Bible is your only authority, how do you resolve doctrinal disagreements between sincere believers who interpret it differently? If every individual is their own final authority in interpreting Scripture, how is that not just religious relativism? With thousands of Protestant denominations teaching different doctrines from the same Bible, how does Sola Scriptura produce unity? Would the apostles recognize a church that teaches individual interpretation of Scripture as the only authority? | |||
|
| Member |
Where in the Bible does it say that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith? *2 Timothy 3:16-17 How did the early Christians practice their faith before the New Testament was written or finalized? *By the apostles teachings/eye-witnesses of Jesus and their disciples like Luke, Paul, etc.. This is the way the Gospels were determined. Many of the books were written not much later after Christ's death. Who had the authority to decide which books belonged in the Bible—and how do you know they were right? *Paul states, as I stated before, the Jews were given the oracles of God. They were God's chosen people and the Old Testament is what they decided should be in the books. If Sola Scriptura is true, why didn’t any Christian practice or teach it for the first 1,500 years of Christianity? *Acts 17:11-speaks of the Bereans teaching others what was taught by the apostles as true, 1 Corinthians 4:6-Paul states not to go beyond what is written and Mark 7:6–9, stating we should not cling to traditions as the people did at that time by honoring Jesus with their mouths but not in their hearts/traditions. Do you trust the Catholic Church to have correctly preserved the New Testament but not to interpret it faithfully? Why? * I am not stating that but there are practices from "tradition" that become problematic unfortunately-praying to saints, Mary, pictures of Jesus in any church, etc., is idol worship. We are to pray to Jesus alone and no one else,1 John 5:14-15, One mediator only- 1 Timothy 2:5, the Spirit helps us-Romans 8:26-27. Jesus said we are to pray in His name and He will make intercession for us, as no one else can. Mary was under sin just like any of us, as she had an earthly father-(from which sin is passed down by Adam,father of us all-first human and his sin we are all guilty of), but she was chosen by God for a purpose as no man had touched her and through a man we are under sin. If Joseph impregnated Mary, Jesus would not be the perfect sacrifice for us. On a side note, as a Christian, we are saints. Many of Paul's letters and other books address this when he speaks to them "to the other saints" not as those who are dead or did live. If the Bible is your only authority, how do you resolve doctrinal disagreements between sincere believers who interpret it differently? *There is no interpretation but Jesus' word in the Gospels. Many religions today add in "traditions" which is a very dangerous to do. "We are saved by grace and not of works"-Ephesians 2:8-9, among many others Paul and the apostles taught but some religions say we can play a part and earn our salvation which is totally wrong and against everything in scripture. Many people confuse what is in the book of James, when he speaks of works without faith is dead. He is speaking of what we should be doing and not just talk about it. It's how it is manifested in us. If we are the body of Christ, we should act like it do the things Jesus taught-helping our neighbors. If every individual is their own final authority in interpreting Scripture, how is that not just religious relativism? * We are not to decide what could be there but only what is there in the scriptures. For example, many people think if they live a good life and love God but did not repent of their sinful life and change their ways, like the apostles did or those who were closest to Jesus- tax collectors, demon possessed, persecutors of Christians, etc., they think they can still get to heaven by working off their sins/debt afterwards which is false and not biblical. Jesus spoke many times of Hell/damnation and who would go there. He said we each have 2 deaths, one after living and another after judgement. If we don't read the scripture, how do you know what God wants or demands of you-Romans 10:17, Hebrews 4:12? We are sinful and can't do it on our own and have no right to question God or decide what we think is right in God's eyes. With thousands of Protestant denominations teaching different doctrines from the same Bible, how does Sola Scriptura produce unity? *There is no unity in any belief unless it listens/teaches from the scripture. Don't follow religion, follow Jesus. Many times in history we can see how the name of God was used to make empires and take over nations by death/destruction. Jesus taught us to love those that hate us and pray for them- Matthew 5:44. Those leaders will pay an eternal price one day in torment. Would the apostles recognize a church that teaches individual interpretation of Scripture as the only authority? * No, as there should be no individual interpretation but only what is there- 2 Peter 1:20-21, Romans 10:17. What we do know is Jesus is the only way to the Father-John 14:6. He is our eternal priest and intercessor-Hebrews 2:17; 4:14 and paid the price alone for sin- Hebrews 9:12. | |||
|
| Member |
I recently watched a video in which an Orthodox dude put this in a way that made a lot of sense to me. He said that it's not that some of us pray TO Mary and/or saints. It's that we ask them to pray for us. Pray. Not intercede in the way that only Christ can. We ask them to pray to The Father, in Jesus' name, on our behalf. The same way we submit a prayer request to our fellow Christians as we know them in this forum or in our congregations. The guy said it's like making that request of the holiest person you can think of. We'd likely be more confident knowing a trusted and admired deacon or our pastor is praying on behalf of our concern, than Jo Blo. Not to diminish the power of Jo Blo's prayers, but I think there is such a thing as "knowing how to pray". Going to someone who you know is full of the Holy Spirit, who knows how to pray, makes sense. You don't get fuller than Mary and The Saints. Though, yes, there are many among us that are saints like Paul describes. This idea may be full of holes. It was the first time had heard it presented this way, and I thought it was an honest take on the matter. It would certainly serve to close that denominational gap a bit, if others agreed. "Holy Mary, Mother of God, PRAY for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." The guy also had something to say about making the distinction between idols and icons. Another valid point worth considering. I see little wrong with icons, so long as we understand what they are, and that we shouldn't make them idols.This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM, | |||
|
| Member |
Surely you understand the difference between translating words from another language, in this case Latin, and defining the meaning of words in a phrase. For instance Sola Fide is simply translated as "faith alone" but that doesn't define what the doctrine of Sola Fide means. It means that the believer is justified by faith in Christ alone apart from works. If you need me to explain further I can try but I think most people understand the differences between translating words and defining words/phrases. | |||
|
| Member |
1. To use this passenger from Timothy is they typical response, but it doesn't mean that Scripture is sufficient. Protestant translators (solely in an act of protest to the Church) translated the Greek word for "profitable as sufficient. The scriptures are profitable. Also, the whole thing is a moot argument because the passage, in context, is to Timothy, and predates the New Testament as a document. The Epistles are obviously a part of scripture now, but when they were written, they were letters from Paul to churches, bishops, or individuals. This is a prime example of a single verse being used out of context as a prooftext, but really being a pretext. 2. It sounds like we agree. 3. I was speaking of the NT. If you are referring to the Apocrypha, I'd say that issue has been beaten to death, but the preponderance of evidence supports the Catholic canon of the OT based upon the Septuigent and the first century Christians use of it. 4. Acts 17 praises the Bereans for checking Paul’s message against Scripture, not for rejecting Tradition or the Church. But Paul was an apostle, not a private interpreter. He taught with authority, and the Bereans' openness to his teaching, verified by Scripture, is a good thing—but doesn’t imply Sola Scriptura. 1 Cor 4:6 refers to not going beyond apostolic teaching—not to restricting faith to written words alone. Mark 7 critiques human traditions that oppose God—not the Sacred Tradition Paul commands us to hold (2 Thess 2:15). Jesus himself followed and respected Jewish liturgical and oral traditions (e.g., temple worship, synagogue readings). 5. You don't understand Catholic teaching on the intercession of the saints. Jesus never said that no one else can pray for us or intercede for us. And Mary was without sin. "Full of Grace." For you to say that she was just your average sinner is to completely miss the whole point of the birth of Christ. You have to ignore all of the foreshadowing of her in the OT, you have to ignore Gabriel's words, which when literally translated from the Greek are, "Rejoice, you who have been and remain filled with grace, the Lord is with you.", you have to ignore the rest of the typology used, especially by John in the Gospel and in Revelation. It takes WAY more effort to ignore Mary's perfect grace than to reject it like protestants do. Your misunderstanding of the phrase "saints" used by Paul is another translation error. In the Greek, he uses the phrase ἅγιοι, which means "holy ones". So yes, in modern translations they use the phrase Saints, but that is not the context in which Paul is speaking. We are sinners who are called to be Saints. To be a Saint, you must LIVE the Gospel. Yo live the Gospel, you have to do what Jesus commanded is to do. Those things would include the Traditions of the Eucharist, amount others. 6.If every individual is free to interpret scripture, the result would be, and is, religious relativism. The Gospel would no longer be THE truth, but MY truth. 7. There is unity within the Catholic Church. Sure there are minor differences between the trads and modernists, but their beliefs are the same. It's more of a reverence issue between those two groups. Protestantism, on the other hand, has no unity (other than being anti-catholic). 8. The Apostles and first century Christians wouldn't recognize protestantism and surely wouldn't recognize Sola Scriptura. Jesus didn't leave a book. He left a Church. He left traditions. He left the Sacraments. To KSGM, yes! Mary has interceded for us since the beginning. Look at her role in the Wedding at Cana. We do not worship her. We worship WITH her. We pray WITH her. We ask her to pray for us. To Black Talon, maybe I do need a better definition, because I was going on the direct translation and what protestants have claimed for 500 years. Scripture Alone as the authority. You keep saying I'm wrong, but I don't see how and you aren't being specific. If Sola Scriptura doesn't mean Scripture Alone, what does it mean? | |||
|
| Member |
OK, let's start with this. Do you understand translating words to be the process of taking words from one language and determining the words in another language that most closely match the words in the given language? One such example would be to use a service like Google Translate. And do you also understand defining words or terms to be the process of explaining a term in order to give the term a meaning? One such way that this is done is with a dictionary or scholarly text. | |||
|
| Member |
I do, but I wonder by your responses if you do. That's my point. Define Sola Scriptura. Then ponder the questions I asked several posts above. | |||
|
| Member |
You're point is that I don't understand the difference between translating words and defining words? I've defined Sola Scriptura (rather than simply translating the words) in my past post and you've interacted with my post and misquoted the definition so you're aware that I've already given the definition. But I'll give the definition again. The definition for Sola Scriptura is that scripture alone is the sole infallible and inspired rule of faith for the church. For a more complete definition and understanding perhaps paragraph 3 under the section Sola Scriptura here will be of help Link If you have any questions about Sola Scriptura as it is properly been defined I'm happy to answer them but please be respectful of myself and others here that have taken the time to interact with you and ask your questions in good faith. | |||
|
Member |
All I say is, how do the works of Joseph Campell and Jarad Diamond fit in? I’m not trying to rock the boat but I think much of the mentioned studies have merit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell | |||
|
| Member |
I have found myself browsing this dude's videos lately. He is a former-Orthodox protestant who hosts a lot of Catholic and Orthodox guests on his show. These two videos in particular are relatively brief and rooted in the sola scriptura discussion. Coincidentally, he draws inspiration from the same "Gavin" in both of these clips. I haven't dug into the Gavin source yet, and Ruslan's commentary is worthwhile, so I think watching them this way is good. I am interested what y'all think of these views. | |||
|
| Member |
Is this to imply that Mary is someone we should enlist to pray with us and for us, when favorable worldly (though righteous) outcomes are the goal? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Sigforum Christians, have you been "saved"? (And ongoing Christian faith-based discussion)
Main Page The Lounge Sigforum Christians, have you been "saved"? (And ongoing Christian faith-based discussion)© SIGforum 2025