Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Emmaus | 38812 | ||
Lionstrong, Sorry I don't see the words "sola scriptura" or "scripture alone" in anything you have presented no matter how you translate it. Maybe you can do better with "faith alone." I know where that is in the bible. But it is in James not Paul. Could you quote that for me in its sentence? Emmaus |
||||||
2 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Lionstrong | 38905 | ||
I ask the question again, Emmaus, If the Bible is not one's sole rule of faith and practice, why limit oneself to one or two sources of faith? Or what rule of faith limits us to the Bible and Papal edicts and why should that rule be accepted as an authority? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
3 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Emmaus | 38925 | ||
Lionstrong, What does the Bible say is the pillar and foundation of truth? Where does the Bible say to go when you have a dispute with your brother that cannot be resolved between yourselves or with witnesses? the answer is not the Bible, but the answer has the Bible and is the authoritative interpreter of the Bible. 1 Timothy 3:15, Matt 18:15-18. Emmaus |
||||||
4 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Reformer Joe | 38961 | ||
We go to the church! How does that destroy the biblical doctrine of sola Scriptura, which holds that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the CHURCH? You wrote: "the answer is not the Bible, but the answer has the Bible and is the authoritative interpreter of the Bible." Absolutely correct. The church has the Bible. Lots of places HAVE the Bible. The local ward of the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints possesses the Bible. Now the question is, why are they not the authoritative interpreters of the Bible? --Joe! |
||||||
5 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Emmaus | 38968 | ||
They are not the Church Jesus founded and promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against and that the Spirit would lead to all truth and that those who hear it, hear him. They are not the Church that preserved the Old Testament, produced by the Holy Spirit's inspiration of its members the New Testament and discerned which books were inspired, without which we would not even be having this conversation. Emmaus |
||||||
6 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Reformer Joe | 39009 | ||
Good. See, we can agree, up to a certain point! To that I would add, "They are not the Church that continues in the teachings and tradition of the apostles and the prophets." "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" --Ephesians 2:19-20 The big question is whether the foundation IS the apostles and prophets, or whether the foundadtion is something OF the apostles and prophets (i.e. something possessed by and delivered to us by them). "By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" --Ephesians 3:4-5 Here Paul is definitely speaking of the message given to the apostles and prophets, and not to their offices themselves. "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." --2 Peter 3:1-2 Again, the authority of the apostles and prophets is in the message that they possess, and not in the position of being an apostle and prophet. As we read the last epistles of these two men (2 Timothy and 2 Peter), we see a real sense of wanting to impart some final words that could be forgotten otherwise. If the church indeed is founded on an organizational structure, rather than on the teachings and tradition, why would Paul and Peter be so concerned with writing down their teachings, repeating to their disciples what they had said before? In other words, if the church is infallible, why have a Bible at all? In fact, until the Protestant Reformation set in, most did NOT have a Bible. Classical Protestants see the church not as a single human organizational structure, but rather the communion of all those who hold to the traditions and teachings of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ. We hold that the church of Rome started out that way, but started deviating from that tradition in the Middle Ages by adding decrees and edicts which have no connection whatsoever to the traditions and teachings of the apostles. We see a move from the striving to interpret Scripture correctly to DISCERN doctrine to the CREATION of doctrine which was to be accepted simply because the source was viewed to be infallible. As I have said before, Luther never argued against the importance of tradition. He himself appealed not only to the Bible, but to early church fathers (particularly Augustine) in defense of his position. What sola Scriptura means is not "just me and my Bible." It means that the traditions and teachings of the apostles and prophets are inscripturated in the Old and New Testaments, and they should be the church's sole guide to correctly discerning what the will of God is and in what the traditions of apostles actually consist. --Joe! |
||||||
7 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Emmaus | 39129 | ||
Joe, "What sola Scriptura means is not "just me and my Bible." It means that the traditions and teachings of the apostles and prophets are inscripturated in the Old and New Testaments, and they should be the church's sole guide to correctly discerning what the will of God is and in what the traditions of apostles actually consist." This is circular logic. If the traditions are all "inscripturated" then the only tradition is the bible and the bible is the only tradition. The fruit of Sola Scriptura is the almost infinite splintering of Chritianity that we see today. From Luther to the 20,000 or more denominations, "non-demoninations" and independents. Even Luther as time progressed recognized with dismay the religious anarchy that his well intentioned effort at reform based on the two solas had become after less than 10 years. And that was just the very beginning. He wrote in 1525 "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with Baptism, another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself a prophet." and also "How many doctors have I made by preaching and writing! Now they say, Be off with you. Go off with you. Go to the devil. This it must be. When we preach they laugh...When we get angry and threaten them, they mock us and laugh up their sleeves." and "There is no smearer, but when he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himslf and crowns his ass and convinces himself that he knows better than all who teach him." and "When we have heard or learned a few things about Holy Scripture, we think we are already doctors and have swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all." Sola Scriptura can easily lead to the famous "Bondage of the Will" but it is the bondage of each man to his own will. You frequently mention medieval doctrines that are not found in tradition or scripture. I would submit Sola Scripura and Sola Fide as two prime examples of the same presented by Martin Luther at the end of the Middle Ages. Some Rennaisance! Thanks, I think I will pass on that. You work on your side of the aisle and I will work on mine. Maybe we will meet at the altar. Emmaus |
||||||
8 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Reformer Joe | 39177 | ||
Emmaus: You wrote: 'This is circular logic. If the traditions are all "inscripturated" then the only tradition is the bible and the bible is the only tradition.' No, it is not circular. What the Reformation view of sola Scriptura holds is that the traditions of the early church (and by early I mean until the Middle Ages) are consistent with the traditions of the apostles that were subsequently written down in the Bible. As an example, look at Nicaea or Chalcedon and look at Trent. Protestants and Catholics agree on the first two. Why? Because it is clear from them that the bishops involved were seeking to INTERPRET Scripture correctly. to come together as an ecclesiastical body and rightly discern what the Scriptures (and vis-a-vis the apostles) teach on important theological matters. I stand right beside you in defending the Nicene Creed against groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses who insist that the council simply made it up. However, when we look at later edicts, such as those which pronounced that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra (a notion that arose in the 12th century as a debate between Fransiscans and other orders), the immaculate conception of Mary (19th century), and the assumption of Mary (20th century), we see absolutely no mention whatsoever in Scripture of these doctrines, nor can we find a shred of evidence that they were held by anyone in the first several centuries of the church. So where did they come from? From the "infallible" church, which is not nearly as monolithic in its theology as you want to assert. You seem to hold that heresy and schism and sectarianism began with Luther. Read your New Testament and you will see that false teaching has always been with us, held by large numbers of cults and sects. In your own church, we had the split of the Eastern and Western Church in the 11th century, which exists today as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Lest we forget the Great Schism also, there were several decades when the church itself had two, then THREE competing popes, all with their own followers and supporters, claiming that they held the chair of Peter. So it is somewhat of a red herring to say that because people distorted (and continue to distort) the very biblical notion of sola Scriptura that the doctrine itself is wrong. And notice that Luther viewed these groups that rejected the apostolic tradition in favor of personal authority with just as much disdain as he viewed the Roman church with their elevation of human tradition above that of the apostles as seen in Scripture. Lastly, you have not commented yet on Romans 4 in view of sola fide, so I will just say that reapeating your assertion over and over again that it is unbiblical does not make it so. --Joe! P.S. No altar in my church. Christ already made the last sacrifice of atonement. |
||||||
9 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Emmaus | 39262 | ||
1 of 2 parts Joe, "P.S. No altar in my church. Christ already made the last sacrifice of atonement." He is always before the Father presenting His sacrifice and that is the altar to which we attend. Read Revelation. The Eastern Orthodox are not in the same category as the Protetsant reformers. The Orthodox accept the sacraments, the apostolic succession, the priesthood and all the Marian doctrines which you say are from the late middle ages, though the orthodox parted much earlier and if anything hold Mary if it is possible in higher esteem as "the Panagia", the all holy. As for Romans 4. Paul NEVER said "faith alone," only Luther's isogesis reads that into the text. Paul preached a faith that was faithful and active in obedience that was received by grace. If there is anything we are saved by alone it is grace. Paul never said faith alone and James never said works alone but he did say "we are saved by works not by faith alone" because thay both knew that saving faith is not a passive virtue. A living person is an integrated whole of body and soul or it is dead. A saved person has faith and works by grace or that person is spiritually dead. Paul and James were speaking of the same faith. They both used Abraham to illustrate. Abraham's faith was an active responsive faith. Paul and James were talking about a different kind of works. Paul about works of the law ( circumcison, dietary, etc) and any works outside of grace given active saving faith. James was talking about works in Christ which Pauls addressed as "faith working through love" and " we are created in Christ Jesus for good works." Note that Abraham's works could not be works of the law because they were done in faith and before the law was given. Jesus said; " Not eveyone who cries Lord, Lord will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but him who does the will of the Father." Emmaus |
||||||
10 | purgatory is it true? | Matt 22:32 | Reformer Joe | 39502 | ||
Emmaus: You wrote: "As for Romans 4. Paul NEVER said "faith alone," only Luther's isogesis reads that into the text. Paul preached a faith that was faithful and active in obedience that was received by grace. If there is anything we are saved by alone it is grace." Yes, grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Let's take a look at Paul ourselves if Luther was so wrong. 'What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness' --Romans 4:1-5 Was Abraham justified before God by works, according to verse 2? We may be talking about works of the law, which you correctly state as being not given at Sinai at this point, but it is apparent that Paul is not advocating a "different kind of works" here. In any case, can you name a single work required of God which is not included in the law? The law not only covers ceremonial cleanliness and sacrifices, but how to conduct oneself. The Ten Commandments are a part of the law. So are Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, which taken together are the summation of the law, according to Christ. We still see that Abraham's faith ALONE was credited as righteousness. In verse 5, Paul makes the distinction crystal clear. Abraham was justified by faith apart from works -- period. In case there would still be misunderstanding, Paul goes on in the chapter to reiterate the word "believe," distinguishing it from works. This belief does result in works (a point on which you and I agree), but it was the belief itself which God reckoned to Abraham as righteousness (before he was even circumcised). He also uses David as an example as well: "just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" --Romans 4:6 Apart from works...That is in keeping with what we see in the previous chapter as well: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" Again, apart from the law, righteousness has been revealed, through faith (nothing else mentioned at all) for all those who believe (nothing else mentioned at all). All fall short, but justification is a GIFT (i.e. not something that is earned, which Paul elaborates upon in Romans 4 when he speaks of wages versus justification by faith apart from works). The Jews in Paul's day did not hold the dietary laws and circumcision alone to be the key to attaining righteousness from God. The law was taken together as a whole, with the moral law definitely included as the key element to "earning righteousness." You wrote: "Abraham's faith was an active responsive faith." Agreed, the only faith that is true, saving faith. "Note that Abraham's works could not be works of the law because they were done in faith and before the law was given." They were works in keeping with the moral law of God, even if the Ten Commandments had not been given in written form. According to Romans 2:13-15,the moral will of God is written on the hearts of all human beings. I do not argue with the fact that Abraham's works were rooted in faith. I stand with you in saying that true faith produces God-honoring works. However, it is far from reading into the text to say that Abraham's BELIEF in God was credited to him as righteousness. Jesus said so in no uncertain terms: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." --John 5:24 He who believes has eternal life. He who believes will not be judged. He who believes has passed out of death into life. Just like Abraham, who was credited with righteousness from God before he was even circumcised and began to work, so God's children are credited with Christ's righteousness before we even lift a finger to live out our true belief. "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God." --Romans 5:1-2 Yeah, really seems like Luther (and Augustine before him) was really stretching it. :) --Joe! |
||||||