How to defend Sola Scriptura (blood, confess, Orthodox, protestant)

[jeapostle]

Originally Posted by juj

I have answered every one of these issues one at a time over many threads. I don't have the time or energy to answer these one at a time. The Holy Spirit works on the edges and works inward. It doesn't start working out from the middle. You folks are just not ready to understand.

I deem a person ready when they start asking the right questions. Then I give them information as they can ask for it. That's how the Holy Spirit works. You folks are saturated with your truth with no more space for anything else. At least you have some of the truth.

Peace be with you all.

Dear juj,

Were not worthy! we only have some of the truth! Thank you for gracing us with your awesome Catholic truth. It has been humbling to listen to the awesome revelation that flows from your lips. How could we have ever made it this far without you?

[billb7581]

Isn’t it interesting that Martin Luther acknowledged the Catholic Church as the custodian of sacred Scripture when he wrote,

"We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"

[billb7581]

Originally Posted by ShalomPeace

This compilation corresponds to the Jewish and Protestant canon, with the exception of the Book of Esther. Melito's canon did NOT include the Deutero-canonical books.

0

Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by DNick

How does one defend the belief of Sola Scriptura? I would like to hear your arguments.

Well, for starters, one would have to use only the Bible -- which does not teach Sola Scriptura -- to do so.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Okiegirlfriend

You blame the devil! And the gates of Hell will not prevail against Her(the Church).

Do you have any idea what the phrase "the gates of Hell" meant to Christ's contemporaries, Okiegirlfriend? It had absolutely nothing to do with the devil, with satanic forces or with anything as sinister as you're imagining it to. I'll tell you that much.

[eyewrist]

Originally Posted by Fundamentalist

It's one of the 5 solas created during the "protestant reformation" it means "alone" "writings" -scripture alone; Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”

I was wondering the same thing Dani. My question is how can they believe that when at the book of John the last sentence he says is that many things Jesus done was not recorded because there would not be enough books to record them. So if John felt that statement important enough to be recorded, then he was just letting people know there is more than we know about the teachings of Jesus. Let me know what you think because that is what I get out of it.

[ShalomPeace]

Originally Posted by billb7581

Isn’t it interesting that Martin Luther acknowledged the Catholic Church as the custodian of sacred Scripture when he wrote,

"We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"

As a former Catholic monk, what did you expect him to say?

The Catholic (Universal) Church was indeed a good custodian of the “OneTrueChurch” that Jesus Christ first established. But when greed and corruption went overboard and clearly went against scriptures, Luther could not just sit back and do nothing.

The Catholic Church was denying the idea of Scripture alone being the sole authority in the church. They had elevated some of the traditions of men to the same level as Scripture, which contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible.

Traditions of men cannot be on the same level as Scripture, but at the council of Trent in 1545, the Roman Catholic Church decided that tradition was equal in authority to Scripture. The council’s decision reversed what had been accepted for over 1,500 years— that Scripture alone was the sole authority.

What were some of the traditions being held up by the church? They included: the church built upon Peter as the first pope; purgatory; prayers to Mary and other dead saints to mediate on our behalf; kneeling and praying before statues and images; confession to a priest for absolution of sins; the necessity of mass and sacraments for salvation; salvation only through the Roman Catholic Church; the Eucharist by transubstantiation literally becoming the body and blood of Jesus; the selling of indulgences; veneration and worship of Mary; the rosary; immaculate conception of Mary; sinlessness of Mary. There is no biblical backing for any of these traditions.

How did such extra-biblical traditions came about?

Though "Apparitions", "Theological conclusions", "Dogmatic facts" and "Philosophical truths" put in place by the RC Church. Apparitions are considered to be welcome charismatic expressions of the faith. To them, God permits the appearance of (Christ, Mary, Saints) to individuals. When the Church confirms that divine revelations to individual persons have taken place, she permits veneration. Theological conclusions was based upon the assumption that revelation and reason, such as the prohibition of the ordination of women are religious truths deducted from divine revelation. Dogmatic facts are based upon historical facts, not part of revelation but clearly related to it. For example the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, and the petrine office. And Philosphical truths such as existence of the soul, "freedom of will", are used to support dogmas such as transsubstantiation. Clearly such “Dogmas” took precedence over the Word of God by the Roman Catholic Church because they are considered as “infallible”. In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself the right and authority to declare doctrines or articles of faith infallibly (without any error). These points of doctrine are to be believed without doubt or question, at the risk of one's salvation. These infallibly declared doctrines need NOT be revealed by scripture, since their validity rests solely on the presumed apostolic teaching authority given to Peter and his successors, which have, it is claimed; passed down this Tradition in unwritten form (living Tradition) primarily from Peter to the present pope.

As a priest and theology professor, Martin Luther confronted indulgences salesmen with his 95 Theses in 1517. Luther strongly disputed their claim that freedom from God's punishment of sin could be purchased with money. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Experor Charles V at the Diet of Worms meeting in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor.

Luther was also concerned about the Catholic Church’s view of salvation. They rejected salvation by faith alone, but rather said that salvation is by faith plus works. Luther taught that salvation is a free gift of God and received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin, not from good works. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the RC Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge.

Also, according to Catholic teaching, purgatory is a place for the purification of sins, even though the Bible doesn’t even hint that such a place exists (the council of Florence made purgatory official in 1438). Alms were given and indulgences were purchased for the dead, in hopes that such efforts would lessen a loved one’s time in purgatory. If purgatory is real, then Christ’s death is insufficient for the forgiveness of sins. And that flies in the face of clear biblical teaching. But remember, if Scripture is not the sole authority, then it really doesn’t matter what the Bible says, because it can always be trumped by the teachings and traditions of men.

Luther's intention as a Monk was to reform the Roman Catholic Church, NOT so much to start a new one. He was the one person most responsible for the Protestant Reformation, which restored the New Testament teaching (and that of the Early Church Fathers, including Augustine) of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) as the Christian's final authority in matters of Faith and Doctrine.

He was also the one person most responsible for the Catholic Reformation, which corrected many of the abuses involving corruption that were occurring at that time, including the sale of Indulgences and Church Offices.

Originally Posted by billb7581

Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

That is a another one of your gross misrepresentation and we should look at biblical and historical facts to determine when and why Jews in general rejected the New Testament. NOT ALL Jews of the OT and NT times rejected Jesus and many in fact became Christians.

The NT is in fact not anti-Judaism. Jesus' first disciples continued living as practicing Jews. And nowhere does the NT incite contempt or hatred for the Jewish people as a whole just because some of their members rejected Jesus. When he was hanging on the tree, he asked God: "Forgive them, Father, for they don't know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34).

We can't say the Jews "rejected" Jesus anymore than we can say the Gentiles "accepted" him— if we mean ALL of them. Because in the New Testament era most non-Jews did not accept him, while thousands of Jews did.

The coming of Jesus was characterized by one pious elderly Jew: "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and the rise of many in Israel" (Luke 2:34). He saw that Jews would indeed fall away from God over the messianic child— but many would also rise: by accepting God's messianic redemption for themselves. This mixed reaction to Jesus is exactly what we find in the NT.

In his gospel record, John uses an important adjective: "many." Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover many believed in his name; many of the multitude believed in him; many came to believe in him. [Even] "many of the Samaritans [bitter enemies of Jews] believed in him" (John 2:23; 7:31; 8:30; 4:39). Many believed; it doesn't say, "Everyone rejected."


Throughout his mission, Jesus was accepted not only by these common people. Some of "the Jews" also believed in him (John 11:45). Especially in John's gospel this term apparently designates the "Judeans" or Jerusalem spiritual leaders— the Temple Establishment, the Jewish Vatican—and their supporters, not ordinary Jewish citizens of Israel. John says "many rulers believed in him" (John 12:42). This term [Grk, archontes] often denotes leaders of the Sanhedrin, the national religious court. Thus, educated and patriotic Jewish leaders saw no reason to reject Jesus, even though the majority eventually did.

In the book of Acts (which covers events after the resurrection of Jesus), the picture is the same. "Multitudes" of Jews believe what they hear the disciples preach about the Nazarene.

Many of those who had heard the message believed, and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. (Acts 4:4)

And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. (Acts 5:14; also 9:42; 17:12)

Special mention is also made of Jewish leaders and hasidim, both within Israel and in the Diaspora.

A great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7)

There was a certain disciple in Damascus, named Ananaias . . . a man who was devout by the standard of the Torah, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there. (Acts 9:10; 22:12)

Certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees . . . had believed. (Acts 15:5)

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue [in Corinth, Greece], believed in the Lord [Yeshua], with all his household. (Acts 18:8)

You see brother how many tens of thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealots for the Torah. (Acts 21:20)

Here again we read of temple priests, Pharisees, synagogue officials, and Torah zealots all saying Yes to Jesus, Yeshua of Nazareth. These were orthodox— not gentilized, assimilated—Jews. They were "hasidic" (covenant loyal), Scripture-centered people.

So why did the Jews eventually fall away?

The Christianity that the medieval Jews rabbis rejected was Roman Catholicism, NOT the Judaic Christian faith of the New Testament. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius in AD 380, it was by then largely non-Jewish and hostile to Jews and Judaism— anti-semitic, anti-judaic – hostile even to Jewish believers in Jesus. The new religion had little outward Jewishness about it. Emperor Constantine had seen to that earlier at the Council of Nicea in 325 when he warned church bishops that they should have nothing to do with the "odious Jews."

During the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, there were dozens of instances of persecution of Jews by the church, including exiling Jews from cities, dioceses and entire countries; destruction of synagogues; denial of the right to own land or to hold office; and their reduction to serfdom and slavery. Perhaps the worst instances during these centuries were genocides during the Crusades. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered in cold blood by Christian armies on their way to and from Palestine. During these centuries, there were a few attempts by various popes to reduce the impact of the church's policies against the Jews. They were largely ignored. None had any lasting impact.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/timeline.htm


And as the philosophically-trained theologians of the RC Church evolved their abstract doctrines about God and distilled them into a series of creedal formulas, the Jewish rabbis discerned no connection with Israel's scriptures or faith. Jesus and Christianity were not synonymous. The Church, in its actions and teachings, did not represent the faith and doctrines depicted in the New Testament.

So the Jews rejected Christianity—and Jesus— as a package, in retaliation to what the Roman Catholic Church had done to them in Jesus’ name, and to oppose the de-Judaizing and paganizing forces within, which exist to this day.

It was only much later in the 20th century that the Roman Catholic Church reversed its policies against the Jews and is now a strong supporter of religious tolerance towards Jews.

[juj]

Originally Posted by ShalomPeace

As a former Catholic monk, what did you expect him to say?

The Catholic (Universal) Church was indeed a good custodian of the “OneTrueChurch” that Jesus Christ first established. But when greed and corruption went overboard and clearly went against scriptures, Luther could not just sit back and do nothing.

The Catholic Church was denying the idea of Scripture alone being the sole authority in the church. They had elevated some of the traditions of men to the same level as Scripture, which contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible.

Traditions of men cannot be on the same level as Scripture, but at the council of Trent in 1545, the Roman Catholic Church decided that tradition was equal in authority to Scripture. The council’s decision reversed what had been accepted for over 1,500 years— that Scripture alone was the sole authority.

What were some of the traditions being held up by the church? They included: the church built upon Peter as the first pope; purgatory; prayers to Mary and other dead saints to mediate on our behalf; kneeling and praying before statues and images; confession to a priest for absolution of sins; the necessity of mass and sacraments for salvation; salvation only through the Roman Catholic Church; the Eucharist by transubstantiation literally becoming the body and blood of Jesus; the selling of indulgences; veneration and worship of Mary; the rosary; immaculate conception of Mary; sinlessness of Mary. There is no biblical backing for any of these traditions.

How did such extra-biblical traditions came about?

Though "Apparitions", "Theological conclusions", "Dogmatic facts" and "Philosophical truths" put in place by the RC Church. Apparitions are considered to be welcome charismatic expressions of the faith. To them, God permits the appearance of (Christ, Mary, Saints) to individuals. When the Church confirms that divine revelations to individual persons have taken place, she permits veneration. Theological conclusions was based upon the assumption that revelation and reason, such as the prohibition of the ordination of women are religious truths deducted from divine revelation. Dogmatic facts are based upon historical facts, not part of revelation but clearly related to it. For example the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, and the petrine office. And Philosphical truths such as existence of the soul, "freedom of will", are used to support dogmas such as transsubstantiation. Clearly such “Dogmas” took precedence over the Word of God by the Roman Catholic Church because they are considered as “infallible”. In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself the right and authority to declare doctrines or articles of faith infallibly (without any error). These points of doctrine are to be believed without doubt or question, at the risk of one's salvation. These infallibly declared doctrines need NOT be revealed by scripture, since their validity rests solely on the presumed apostolic teaching authority given to Peter and his successors, which have, it is claimed; passed down this Tradition in unwritten form (living Tradition) primarily from Peter to the present pope.

As a priest and theology professor, Martin Luther confronted indulgences salesmen with his 95 Theses in 1517. Luther strongly disputed their claim that freedom from God's punishment of sin could be purchased with money. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Experor Charles V at the Diet of Worms meeting in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor.

Luther was also concerned about the Catholic Church’s view of salvation. They rejected salvation by faith alone, but rather said that salvation is by faith plus works. Luther taught that salvation is a free gift of God and received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin, not from good works. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the RC Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge.

Also, according to Catholic teaching, purgatory is a place for the purification of sins, even though the Bible doesn’t even hint that such a place exists (the council of Florence made purgatory official in 1438). Alms were given and indulgences were purchased for the dead, in hopes that such efforts would lessen a loved one’s time in purgatory. If purgatory is real, then Christ’s death is insufficient for the forgiveness of sins. And that flies in the face of clear biblical teaching. But remember, if Scripture is not the sole authority, then it really doesn’t matter what the Bible says, because it can always be trumped by the teachings and traditions of men.

Luther's intention as a Monk was to reform the Roman Catholic Church, NOT so much to start a new one. He was the one person most responsible for the Protestant Reformation, which restored the New Testament teaching (and that of the Early Church Fathers, including Augustine) of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) as the Christian's final authority in matters of Faith and Doctrine.

He was also the one person most responsible for the Catholic Reformation, which corrected many of the abuses involving corruption that were occurring at that time, including the sale of Indulgences and Church Offices.




That is a another one of your gross misrepresentation and we should look at biblical and historical facts to determine when and why Jews in general rejected the New Testament. NOT ALL Jews of the OT and NT times rejected Jesus and many in fact became Christians.

The NT is in fact not anti-Judaism. Jesus' first disciples continued living as practicing Jews. And nowhere does the NT incite contempt or hatred for the Jewish people as a whole just because some of their members rejected Jesus. When he was hanging on the tree, he asked God: "Forgive them, Father, for they don't know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34).

We can't say the Jews "rejected" Jesus anymore than we can say the Gentiles "accepted" him— if we mean ALL of them. Because in the New Testament era most non-Jews did not accept him, while thousands of Jews did.

The coming of Jesus was characterized by one pious elderly Jew: "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and the rise of many in Israel" (Luke 2:34). He saw that Jews would indeed fall away from God over the messianic child— but many would also rise: by accepting God's messianic redemption for themselves. This mixed reaction to Jesus is exactly what we find in the NT.

In his gospel record, John uses an important adjective: "many." Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover many believed in his name; many of the multitude believed in him; many came to believe in him. [Even] "many of the Samaritans [bitter enemies of Jews] believed in him" (John 2:23; 7:31; 8:30; 4:39). Many believed; it doesn't say, "Everyone rejected."


Throughout his mission, Jesus was accepted not only by these common people. Some of "the Jews" also believed in him (John 11:45). Especially in John's gospel this term apparently designates the "Judeans" or Jerusalem spiritual leaders— the Temple Establishment, the Jewish Vatican—and their supporters, not ordinary Jewish citizens of Israel. John says "many rulers believed in him" (John 12:42). This term [Grk, archontes] often denotes leaders of the Sanhedrin, the national religious court. Thus, educated and patriotic Jewish leaders saw no reason to reject Jesus, even though the majority eventually did.

In the book of Acts (which covers events after the resurrection of Jesus), the picture is the same. "Multitudes" of Jews believe what they hear the disciples preach about the Nazarene.

Many of those who had heard the message believed, and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. (Acts 4:4)

And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. (Acts 5:14; also 9:42; 17:12)

Special mention is also made of Jewish leaders and hasidim, both within Israel and in the Diaspora.

A great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7)

There was a certain disciple in Damascus, named Ananaias . . . a man who was devout by the standard of the Torah, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there. (Acts 9:10; 22:12)

Certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees . . . had believed. (Acts 15:5)

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue [in Corinth, Greece], believed in the Lord [Yeshua], with all his household. (Acts 18:8)

You see brother how many tens of thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealots for the Torah. (Acts 21:20)

Here again we read of temple priests, Pharisees, synagogue officials, and Torah zealots all saying Yes to Jesus, Yeshua of Nazareth. These were orthodox— not gentilized, assimilated—Jews. They were "hasidic" (covenant loyal), Scripture-centered people.

So why did the Jews eventually fall away?

The Christianity that the medieval Jews rabbis rejected was Roman Catholicism, NOT the Judaic Christian faith of the New Testament. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius in AD 380, it was by then largely non-Jewish and hostile to Jews and Judaism— anti-semitic, anti-judaic – hostile even to Jewish believers in Jesus. The new religion had little outward Jewishness about it. Emperor Constantine had seen to that earlier at the Council of Nicea in 325 when he warned church bishops that they should have nothing to do with the "odious Jews."

During the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, there were dozens of instances of persecution of Jews by the church, including exiling Jews from cities, dioceses and entire countries; destruction of synagogues; denial of the right to own land or to hold office; and their reduction to serfdom and slavery. Perhaps the worst instances during these centuries were genocides during the Crusades. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered in cold blood by Christian armies on their way to and from Palestine. During these centuries, there were a few attempts by various popes to reduce the impact of the church's policies against the Jews. They were largely ignored. None had any lasting impact.

Catholic Timeline on Antisemitism


And as the philosophically-trained theologians of the RC Church evolved their abstract doctrines about God and distilled them into a series of creedal formulas, the Jewish rabbis discerned no connection with Israel's scriptures or faith. Jesus and Christianity were not synonymous. The Church, in its actions and teachings, did not represent the faith and doctrines depicted in the New Testament.

So the Jews rejected Christianity—and Jesus— as a package, in retaliation to what the Roman Catholic Church had done to them in Jesus’ name, and to oppose the de-Judaizing and paganizing forces within, which exist to this day.

It was only much later in the 20th century that the Roman Catholic Church reversed its policies against the Jews and is now a strong supporter of religious tolerance towards Jews.

Wow! Man we Catholics are good. We even got you guys to trash your main man, Martin Luther. That's awesome!

Man there's more straw here than in Noah's Ark.

[ShalomPeace]

Originally Posted by juj

Wow! Man we Catholics are good. We even got you guys to trash your main man, Martin Luther. That's awesome!

Indeed Luther had harsh words to say to the Jews for refusing to convert to Christianity, which the Nazis later conveniently exploited in the 20th century in their anti-semitic propaganda. However this does not change the facts about the Old and New Testament canons or Sola Scriptura.

Originally Posted by juj

Man there's more straw here than in Noah's Ark.

This is all you can say - "straw" - when you have nothing else to say in your defense ....

[juj]

Originally Posted by ShalomPeace

Indeed Luther had harsh words to say to the Jews for refusing to convert to Christianity, which the Nazis later conveniently exploited in the 20th century in their anti-semitic propaganda. However this does not change the facts about the Old and New Testament canons or Sola Scriptura.




This is all you can say - "straw" - when you have nothing else to say in your defense ....

I have. Just search the various threads. Just admit that there's nothing I could possibly say or back up Catholic beliefs with scripture that would make you believe that Catholics got it right. I have done it before. I quote some scripture and you reply that's not what it means. Been there, done that. So what's the point. You are free to believe what you want. Straw and all.