Sola Scriptura and Canon

[tosca1]

Nope. He was a reformer. He didn't protest the Law, he fulfilled it. He was reforming Judaism, not protesting against it.

He was not labelled a heretic he was labelled a blasphemer, big difference.

No, I speak Truth.

It wasn't about the Law. I was referring to His disapproval of the PRACTICES of the Pharisees! The New Testament is actually filled with that!


Either heresy or blasphemy, or both. Here are the accusations against Him:


Luke 23

23 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.”

And yes, Jesus fits the description of a "protester" when He expressed disapproval, and condemned the practices of the Pharisees.

protest

1. a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.

His disapproval also was expressed through His action:


Matt 21
Jesus at the Temple

12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’[e] but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’[f]”

As for the devil - whether he's a protester or not, what's that got to do with this? :lol:

 

[ChezC3]

It wasn't about the Law. I was referring to His disapproval of the PRACTICES of the Pharisees! The New Testament is actually filled with that!


Either heresy or blasphemy, or both. Here are the accusations against Him:


Luke 23

23 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.”

And yes, Jesus fits the description of a "protester" when He expressed disapproval, and condemned the practices of the Pharisees.



His disapproval also was expressed through His action:


Matt 21
Jesus at the Temple

12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’[e] but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’[f]”

As for the devil - whether he's a protester or not, what's that got to do with this? :lol:

So let me get this straight, you want to assert that Jesus was a protestor against the people who were worshiping him? No house divided against itself shall stand, no?

con·text
ˈkänˌtekst/
noun
noun: context; plural noun: contexts

1.
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

I don't know what we're doing here truth be told, I made a quip and you turned it into something else entirely.

but you need to keep the context of what someone said. That's a protestor problem, I know...:2razz:

 

[tosca1]

Wow. Are you just looking for any cheap shot available? By the way, the issue was not pedophilia, but ephebophilia among homosexuals who entered the priesthood.

Bear with me. There is a point why I asked you.

When I said indulgences/forgiveness were being sold, your response was that, simony was considered a crime.

Thus my reply to that was this question: Paedophilia or ephebophilla - is that considered a crime by the Catholic Church? Of course, it is considered a crime by the Catholic Church!

However, being said that it's considered a crime does not negate the fact that this sexual crime does exists - it's PREVALENT!

It's not the actual crimes that drove people away from the church - it's how the crimes were handled, and the perpetrators were seemingly protected.

People are frustrated over how the Vatican responded or handled all the atrocities of paedophilia or ephebophilla - why wouldn't we easily assume that the same thing happened in the time of Luther when agents of the Church were abusing their power and selling indulgences/forgiveness? There's obviously a great deal of frustration felt by people from that time, too.

That is my point for the question.

 

[phattonez]

Bear with me. There is a point why I asked you.

When I said indulgences/forgiveness were being sold, your response was that, simony was considered a crime.

Thus my reply to that was this question: Paedophilia or ephebophilla - is that considered a crime by the Catholic Church?
Of course it is considered a crime by the Catholic Church!

However, being said that it's considered a crime does not negate the fact that this sexual crime does exists - it's PREVALENT!

It's not the actual crimes that drove people away from the church - it's how the crimes were handled, and the perpetrators were seemingly protected.

People are frustrated over how the Vatican responded or handled all the atrocities of paedophilia or ephebophilla - why wouldn't we easily assume that the same thing happened in the time of Luther when agents of the Church were abusing their power and selling indulgences/forgiveness?
There's obviously a great deal of frustration felt by people from that time, too.

I never said that the way the Church handled the issue of simony during the time of Luther was right. They really should have done more to reign it in and Luther was absolutely correct that it is an abuse. You'll find no disagreement from me about that. Yes, I feel that the Church is also handling the priest abuse scandal terribly.

That said, this has nothing to do with authority. The fact remains that authority to declare doctrines and interpret scripture is entrusted with the Church. The clergy and those in the Church can do badly, no doubt. After all, I don't think it's mere coincidence that Jesus rebukes Peter right after giving him the Keys to the Kingdom. It lets us know that Peter, though given this authority, is not perfect and is still capable of doing evil.

So then what's the problem? It's with breaking away from the Church. Luther used the issue as a springboard and started denying tradition for no reason. He then translated the Bible to suit his needs, which is why his translation was banned (do I need to bring up the added word "alone" and his attempt to throw out the book of James?). You can and should address evil in the Church. However, that is no reason to break away from the Church. Breaking away from the Church because of evil is a spit in the face of Jesus who said that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Evil may happen, but it is always the Church that Jesus established, the one that He is constantly with until the end of time, and the infallible authority defining heresy and the way to salvation.

 

[tosca1]

So let me get this straight, you want to assert that Jesus was a protestor against the people who were worshiping him? No house divided against itself shall stand, no?

EH? :lol:

I don't know what we're doing here truth be told, I made a quip and you turned it into something else entirely.

What quip? :2razz:

but you need to keep the context of what someone said. That's a protestor problem, I know...:2razz:

I did.

 

[tosca1]

So then what's the problem?

The other unbiblical practices and fabricated doctrines which were already mentioned previously.
They all add up, you know.

There wouldn't be any Protestant churches if the Roman Catholic Church didn't stray from the Scriptures and traditions practiced by the Apostles.

We're all warned against false teachings, and it's been prophesied by one of the apostles (I think it's Peter) that false teachers will spring from within the churches. We've been severely advised by Christ to be vigilant against wolves in sheep's clothings, and to stick to the Word of God - all given in the SCRIPTURES!


In summary, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, "tangible," infallible guide left by God for His church.

It is the written word of God, not an infallible leader. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)


And, as He gave the Holy Spirit to bear holy men along in the writing of those Scriptures (2 Peter 1:19-21), so He has given His Holy Spirit to indwell, fill, guide, and gift members of His church today for the purpose of directing His church through the proper interpretation of that written word. (1 Corinthians 12 and 14; Ephesians 4:11-16)

That there are schisms and false teachings today should be no surprise, for the Bible also warns us that there would be false teachers who would twist the written word (2 Peter 3:16) and that these false teachers would arise from within the churches. (Acts 20:30)

Therefore, the believers were to turn to God and the "word of His grace" for their guidance (Acts 20:32), determining the truth not by who said it, but by comparing it with the gospel already received by the early church, the gospel recorded for us in Scripture. (Galatians 1:8-9; see also Acts 17:11)

http://www.gotquestions.org/papal-infallibility.html#ixzz2xls39hdz


It is indeed Sola Scriptura, and you don't think so. I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this issue.

 

[phattonez]

The other unbiblical practices and fabricated doctrines which were already mentioned previously.
They all add up, you know.

There wouldn't be any Protestant churches if the Roman Catholic Church didn't stray from the Scriptures and traditions practiced by the Apostles.

We're all warned against false teachings, and it's been prophesied by one of the apostles (I think it's Peter) that false teachers will spring from within the churches. We've been severely advised by Christ to be vigilant against wolves in sheep's clothings, and to stick to the Word of God - all given in the SCRIPTURES!

On what basis do you assume that it's the Catholic Church that's putting forward false teachings and not the Protestant churches?

In summary, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, "tangible," infallible guide left by God for His church.

It is the written word of God, not an infallible leader. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

Well not only that:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

And, as He gave the Holy Spirit to bear holy men along in the writing of those Scriptures (2 Peter 1:19-21), so He has given His Holy Spirit to indwell, fill, guide, and gift members of His church today for the purpose of directing His church through the proper interpretation of that written word. (1 Corinthians 12 and 14; Ephesians 4:11-16)

Right, the Holy Spirit inspires the proper interpreter: the Church, not individuals. So who has the authority to interpret scripture? Is it the Church that can claim direct descent from the apostles, or the churches that broke away and interpret the Bible for themselves?

That there are schisms and false teachings today should be no surprise, for the Bible also warns us that there would be false teachers who would twist the written word (2 Peter 3:16) and that these false teachers would arise from within the churches. (Acts 20:30)

Therefore, the believers were to turn to God and the "word of His grace" for their guidance (Acts 20:32), determining the truth not by who said it, but by comparing it with the gospel already received by the early church, the gospel recorded for us in Scripture. (Galatians 1:8-9; see also Acts 17:11)

Is papal infallibility biblical?

The Gospel received by the early Church is not the Gospel recorded in Scripture because they didn't have the scriptures. We've belabored this point over and over. They did not have an authoritative compilation of inspired books. What did they rely on? Tradition. The same tradition that you use to justify why the Gospel of Peter is not inspired.

 

[tosca1]

On what basis do you assume that it's the Catholic Church that's putting forward false teachings and not the Protestant churches?

Numerous examples of unbiblical practices had already been given - which include, among other things, the fabricated lofty and wordly titles of POPE, PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES, VICAR OF CHRIST, etc., - all of which were never even given to, or used by Peter!

In other words, the Catholic church doesn't even follow the APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS that they claim to have through the so-called Apostolic Succession.



We make our own choices.


My choice is to cling to the Scriptures as the WORD OF GOD.

It's THE ONLY AUTHORITATIVE Reference that I can trust and rely on.


One of the main key to know if the interpretation is done correctly:
it is consistent with the rest of the Scriptures. God will never contradict His own words, or have any conflicting instructions.



For the basic how-to:

http://carm.org/how-interpret-bible


Pray to the Holy Spirit for understanding.



I have trust and faith that God would not have given us a Book that is lacking in any way, or is insufficient for the purpose that it's given:

to lead us to Him. To have faith and trust in Him.
To have us know Him and understand what is required from us to gain our rewards and eternal life.


May God bless us all, and guide us.

 

[phattonez]

Numerous examples of unbiblical practices had already been given - which include, among other things, the fabricated lofty and wordly titles of POPE, PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES, VICAR OF CHRIST, etc., - all of which were never even given to, or used by Peter!

In other words, the Catholic church doesn't even follow the APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS that they claim to have through the so-called Apostolic Succession.

1. As I've already stated, pope just means father, which is used by St. Paul and St. John. If you have an issue with it then you have an issue with Paul and John.
2. Prince/vicar is made clear by only Peter being given the Keys to the Kingdom, being mentioned far more than any other apostle, being the first to speak at Pentecost, etc.

We make our own choices.


My choice is to cling to the Scriptures as the WORD OF GOD.

It's THE ONLY AUTHORITATIVE Reference that I can trust and rely on.


One of the main key to know if the interpretation is done correctly:
it is consistent with the rest of the Scriptures. God will never contradict His own words, or have any conflicting instructions.



For the basic how-to:

How to Interpret the Bible | biblical interpretation | principles | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


Pray to the Holy Spirit for understanding.



I have trust and faith that God would not have given us a Book that is lacking in any way, or is insufficient for the purpose that it's given:

to lead us to Him. To have faith and trust in Him.
To have us know Him and understand what is required from us to gain our rewards and eternal life.


May God bless us all, and guide us.

Tosca, look at where the issue stands now.
1. Nowhere does the Bible state that you should rely on it ALONE. It is a great resource and you should rely on in totally, but it is not our only resource.
2. The Bible states that we should rely on tradition.
3. The Bible states that interpretation of scripture is not up to individual prophecy.
4. There was no authoritative compilation of Books that made up the Bible for the first 400 years of the Church.
5. In order to explain why books like the Gospel of Peter are not considered inspired, you rely on tradition.

I'd say that this is enough to convincingly show that sola scriptura is unbiblical and illogical. So where does that leave us? You have hesitation toward going to the Church because of the many misconceptions that you have associated with it. Fine, I get it, I disagree but I get it. So what's left? It can't be a Protestant Church because they all believe in sola scriptura. So then you need a church that relies on tradition because the Bible states that we should and because we'd be blind without it. That leaves only the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches. At this point, if your church isn't following any sort of tradition, then it's unbiblical.

 

[Monserrat]

I hope you don't mean the Catholic Church as we know it today.

In those days, the catholic church meant ALL CHRISTIANS!

I've already explained about the term, "catholic." It didn't mean the Roman Catholic Church.

I mean the Catholic Church that was established by God and throughout it's 2000 year history up until today.

We went over this, in those days the Catholic Church WAS the Church.

You explained your viewpoint on it, and then I showed you how you were wrong, go read back a few posts I know I posted sources from early Christian writings, those early Christians recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome long before Rome adopted Christianity as their state religion. There were other christian cults that were certainly not catholic, and heretical teachings that popped up but again were not Catholic so certainly the Catholic Church didn't include all "Christian" teachings, there were a lot of heretical teachings that kept springing up and it wasn't the bible that put them to rest it was the recognized authority of the Bishop of Rome.

You have the bible that you have today because of that authority, because God established a Church to lead for you to follow his word and not your own.

 

[Manny]

Perhaps there were divisions in the 'church' from the very beginning. I heard that Mary and Peter were in conflict after Jesus was crucified.

"Early Christian writings offer literary representations and preserve historical memories of strong female figures who had leading roles in proclaiming the word of salvation. They affirm that in some Christian circles, men and women were able to exercise leadership on the basis of their spiritual maturity and not on the basis of their gender. Furthermore, these writings contain traces of a conflict between Mary Magdalene and the leading male disciples, especially Peter. This conflict can be detected already in Luke’s resurrection account and the list of authoritative witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7. Major non-canonical writings that mention Mary Magdalene also offer a glimpse into the nature of the conflict concerning her, which seems to focus on two themes: (a) her gender and (b) her remarkable understanding and appropriation of Jesus’ teaching. This controversy most likely reflects a developing tension between those who claimed authority based on the idea of succession and those who claimed authority based on spiritual gifts, especially prophetic experience."

http://www.theopedia.com/Mary_Magdalene

 

[tosca1]

1. As I've already stated, pope just means father, which is used by St. Paul and St. John. If you have an issue with it then you have an issue with Paul and John.
2. Prince/vicar is made clear by only Peter being given the Keys to the Kingdom, being mentioned far more than any other apostle, being the first to speak at Pentecost, etc.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself about the "father" issue. Either you're deliberately ignoring the context and the explanation, or you're not really getting it. As for the Prince/Vicar - don't you understand what I'm saying?

The keys were handed to Peter, AND YET PETER HIMSELF WAS NEVER GIVEN THOSE LOFTY TITLES, NOR WAS HE EVER DESCRIBED OR ADDRESSED AS SUCH BY THE OTHER APOSTLES!

That's the point, isn't it? You claim the importance of tradition, yet there is no tradition of Peter having been given such titles!

Furthermore, the other verses given clearly show that, other than God/Jesus, THERE IS NO SUPREME LEADER among the Apostles - and that is consistent throughout the Bible.


Gal 1
No Other Gospel

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

There is no such thing as the "Prince of the Apostles!"

There is no such distinct position held by one individual, "VICAR OF CHRIST." All the Apostles are VICARS OF CHRIST! And all preachers who preach the truth of the Gospel are Vicars of Christ!

The Roman Catholic Church fabricated those titles.



There is only ONE AUTHORITATIVE Reference or guide that we're supposed to use. The Word of God which are compiled in the Scriptures!

The keyword is "Authoritative."


Acts 17
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.


2 Tim 3
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


Acts 20:32
32 “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.


To claim that only one particular denomination is the "true church" is false teaching. The gifts of God are not limited to only one particular denomination!


1 Cor 12
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.


And since it's all the work of God, everything that's being interpreted or spoken or done will be consistent to His Word.

If they are in conflict with the Scriptures, you bet it's not from God!


Ephesians 4
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it[a] says:


“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions[c]? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.


Anyone who preaches THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL - pastors, evangelists, preachers, priests - is given by Christ to equip us that we may do our work, to build up the Body of Christ - which is a metaphor to mean, The Church.

 

[RGacky3]

Perhaps there were divisions in the 'church' from the very beginning. I heard that Mary and Peter were in conflict after Jesus was crucified.

"Early Christian writings offer literary representations and preserve historical memories of strong female figures who had leading roles in proclaiming the word of salvation. They affirm that in some Christian circles, men and women were able to exercise leadership on the basis of their spiritual maturity and not on the basis of their gender. Furthermore, these writings contain traces of a conflict between Mary Magdalene and the leading male disciples, especially Peter. This conflict can be detected already in Luke’s resurrection account and the list of authoritative witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7. Major non-canonical writings that mention Mary Magdalene also offer a glimpse into the nature of the conflict concerning her, which seems to focus on two themes: (a) her gender and (b) her remarkable understanding and appropriation of Jesus’ teaching. This controversy most likely reflects a developing tension between those who claimed authority based on the idea of succession and those who claimed authority based on spiritual gifts, especially prophetic experience."

http://www.theopedia.com/Mary_Magdalene

What's interesting is that Mary is mentioned in ALL the gospel accounts, but not in Pauls ressurection list like you said, I think the reason for this is that 1 Corinthians 15 is creedal and apologetic and a womans testimony was not really Worth much in the wider culture, so appearances to men, especially men of Church authority, was Worth much more when it came to Public testimony, whereas the gospels we're more interested (at least the synoptics) in early historical Sources and the actual events as they relate to the gospel.

It doesn't seam like all the apostles had problems With women, as many of them preached as husband and wife teams, and there were women in leadership, Paul may have had an issue With them in some churches, yet his opinions seam to be conflicting, in some Places having a very egalitarian view, other Places being somewhat partial to men, N.T. Wright has a theory on this that the Christian Church was very egalitarian compared to Jewish religion, yet in some pagan areas religions was done by women, and that culture was in the Churches there and Paul in those cases wen't the other direction.

As far as Mary, it doesn't seam like she had any specific leadership roles, although outside Jerusalem there were women deacons, and prophets and so on. That being said there isn't any evidence of a conflict between Mary and Peter, the only References are much later writings that have very little to do With actual early christian history.

 

[phattonez]

I'm not going to keep repeating myself about the "father" issue. Either you're deliberately ignoring the context and the explanation, or you're not really getting it.

I'm ignoring nothing. Jesus was talking about the Pharisees who lorded titles and took pride in them. A spiritual mentor being called father has a long history in the Church and is mentioned in the Bible. If the Church is wrong on this issue, then so were St. Paul and St. John.

As for the Prince/Vicar - don't you understand what I'm saying?

The keys were handed to Peter, AND YET PETER HIMSELF WAS NEVER GIVEN THOSE LOFTY TITLES, NOR WAS HE EVER DESCRIBED OR ADDRESSED AS SUCH BY THE OTHER APOSTLES!

That's the point, isn't it? You claim the importance of tradition, yet there is no tradition of Peter having been given such titles!

Furthermore, the other verses given clearly show that, other than God/Jesus, THERE IS NO SUPREME LEADER among the Apostles - and that is consistent throughout the Bible.

Only St. Peter was given the keys. Only he is the rock on whom Jesus would build his church. Only St. Peter was told to feed the sheep, feed the lambs, and tend the sheep. St. Peter is mentioned more than all of the other apostles combined. It is St. Peter who is the first to speak after Pentecost and it is he who has the visions and is guided by the Holy Spirit. And what did the early Church fathers, whom you quote to justify why the Gospel of Peter is not inspired, say about St. Peter and the papacy? St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Gal 1
No Other Gospel

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Yet what the Church holds is that we are following the tradition of the apostles directly!

There is no such thing as the "Prince of the Apostles!"

There is no such distinct position held by one individual, "VICAR OF CHRIST." All the Apostles are VICARS OF CHRIST! And all preachers who preach the truth of the Gospel are Vicars of Christ!

The Roman Catholic Church fabricated those titles.

According to the quotes of early Church fathers this is not true. They understood that all of the apostles had authority, but the Bishop of Rome held the highest authority. If you use tradition to justify why the Gospel of Peter is not inspired, then on what basis can you reject the same tradition that recognizes the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

There is only ONE AUTHORITATIVE Reference or guide that we're supposed to use. The Word of God which are compiled in the Scriptures!

The keyword is "Authoritative."

You cannot say that because 2 Peter directly contradicts the idea: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, "

Acts 17
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

And what Scripture did they have back then? They had only the Old Testament. Again, nowhere does this state only Scripture, nowhere does it state only Scripture, in many places it says accept tradition. Sola scriptura is an impossible position.

2 Tim 3
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

That's fine, I'm not knocking Scripture. The point is that nowhere does it state Scripture ALONE.

2 Peter 1
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

That's a terrible translation of 2 Peter 2:20. From the Douay-Rheims version, which is the closest to the original:
"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."

Or let's go with the King James Version if you're so inclined:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

It is a direct contradiction of 2 Peter 2:20 if you argue for sola scriptura.

 

[phattonez]

Acts 20:32
32 “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.[/COLOR]


To claim that only one particular denomination is the "true church" is false teaching. The gifts of God are not limited to only one particular denomination!


1 Cor 12
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

Yet there is one truth, and doesn't Psalm 24 tell us to seek truth to attain the everlasting kingdom?

And since it's all the work of God, everything that's being interpreted or spoken or done will be consistent to His Word.

If they are in conflict with the Scriptures, you bet it's not from God!

We know that the Scripture is infallible, sure, but that's not the point. I'm not arguing against scripture, I'm arguing against it ALONE.

Anyone who preaches THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL - pastors, evangelists, preachers, priests - is given by Christ to equip us that we may do our work, to build up the Body of Christ - which is a metaphor to mean, The Church.

And Christ gave us a Church that He built on Peter and which He promised to be with until the end of time. The only Church that claims that is the Catholic Church.

 

[Manny]

Scripture may be infallible, but the interpretation clearly is not. I heard the debate about Petros vs. Petra. I have my doubts on this matter. Also that Peter denied Jesus 3 times, to me has symbolic meaning. As does the not-so-chance meeting after the crucifixion, in which Jesus informs Peter that he goes "to Rome, to be crucified again." Call me a doubting Thomas.

For this and other reasons I believe there is no organized structure that can sincerely represent the message of Christ. It is by very definition not possible. There is only one head of the 'church', if it exists at all, and that head is Christ alone. All others are mortal and by definition, fallible. What the church has done is an abomination, not only for the acts committed, butfor the result of the millions who have turned away from god by it. Hence you will not see me amongst the congregations. But in my view even the church deserves to be forgiven. Therefore I, small, poor, mortal sinner forgive the Popes.

 

[Monserrat]

Scripture may be infallible, but the interpretation clearly is not. I heard the debate about Petros vs. Petra. I have my doubts on this matter. Also that Peter denied Jesus 3 times, to me has symbolic meaning. As does the not-so-chance meeting after the crucifixion, in which Jesus informs Peter that he goes "to Rome, to be crucified again." Call me a doubting Thomas.

For this and other reasons I believe there is no organized structure that can sincerely represent the message of Christ. It is by very definition not possible. There is only one head of the 'church', if it exists at all, and that head is Christ alone. All others are mortal and by definition, fallible. What the church has done is an abomination, not only for the acts committed, butfor the result of the millions who have turned away from god by it. Hence you will not see me amongst the congregations. But in my view even the church deserves to be forgiven. Therefore I, small, poor, mortal sinner forgive the Popes.

Doubting Thomas turned out to be wrong, he wouldn't accept the facts until Jesus was standing before him with the hole in his side. It's interesting that you would compare yourself to him.

 

[Manny]

Doubting Thomas turned out to be wrong, he wouldn't accept the facts until Jesus was standing before him with the hole in his side. It's interesting that you would compare yourself to him.

I don't doubt Jesus, nor do I doubt that he questioned and criticized the religious authorities of his day. I know what I said is not nice if you're a catholic, so let me step back and say, much good has also been done by the church. I know the priest who runs church down the road from me is a good man. To those who feel a need to go to it, please go to it. My view is, what they have done in the past does not condemn you.

As for Thomas, he's right to question anyone who people claim to be the saviour. Look at all the evil that has come and gone, carried out by those who claim to have authority in his name. That's the way the devil works, you know.

 

[Monserrat]

I don't doubt Jesus, nor do I doubt that he questioned and criticized the religious authorities of his day. I know what I said is not nice if you're a catholic, so let me step back and say, much good has also been done by the church. I know the priest who runs church down the road from me is a good man. To those who feel a need to go to it, please go to it. My view is, what they have done in the past does not condemn you.

As for Thomas, he's right to question anyone who people claim to be the saviour. Look at all the evil that has come and gone, carried out by those who claim to have authority in his name. That's the way the devil works, you know.

I don't take offense to what you said about Catholicism. There have been a lot of horrible, cruel people in the world and some of them have been and I'm sure still are members of the Catholic faith. Being Catholic does not make you perfect nor does it mean that you then must be a good and just human being so acknowledging some of the crappy things done in the name of the Church or by higher ranking Church members is just accepting reality a reality that's true to all of humanity and not just the Church. I don't know if its the case for you but many people use that fact against the Church and try to hold her up to a higher standard than God, which isn't right. It has no scriptural or theological basing.

Thomas turned out to be wrong. A doubting Thomas isn't someone who questions things, it's some who lacks faith which is why I said it's interesting that you would call yourself that.

John 20:29 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[Manny]

Thomas turned out to be wrong. A doubting Thomas isn't someone who questions things, it's some who lacks faith which is why I said it's interesting that you would call yourself that.

I don't see Thomas that way. He was wrong, perhaps but he righted his error. Jesus did not condemn him, rather he tolerated Thomas' doubt and allowed himself to be examined. (Thomas doubted that this person before him was Jesus resurrected, not doubted that he loved Jesus and was ready to die along with him).

Some interesting facts and rumours about Thomas, the twin-
Thomas the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hawkins]

I wrote this a while ago in another site.
======
Bible interpretation is too broad a topic is. The Bible is basically composed of two parts. The most crucial part is "the message of salvation". If you consider this part as complicated, then you must have over stated the situation. It is a very simple core which as long as you accept it, you bear a good chance to be saved.*

The other part is not directly concerning salvation itself. Then, a formal authentic interpretation is not a crucial necessity, so don't over state its importance.

Basically the answer to the question is, God's earthly Church is the authentic party for the interpretations. However, there's a fundamental difference between God's Church and the Catholic Church.

It is said a Temple was built in three days. That's the body of Christ itself. God's Church is another body which is described as the Bride of Christ as it is the Church who will be with Jesus Christ as ONE. It's not any physical church which may go corrupted. It refers to an invisible entity which will stay in Christ and with Christ as one.

Now how can this Church of God be tangibly and precisely defined? You can't. You can speculate up to a certain precision though. There's a fundamental guideline which is the Apostle's/Nicene Creed. The Creed sets a basic standard to identify an entity to be part of God's Church.*

As long as you try to be close to God and listen to the Holy Spirit, plus the simplicity of God's salvation message, you don't need to worry too much about how to define God's Church precisely.


On the other hand, disregarding human incapability in precisely defining such a Church, God's Church does exist on earth. And it's definitely not an equivalent to the Catholic Church. To me, the part of the Church made up of Protestants is actually closer to God.
=======

2 cents.

 

[phattonez]

Bible interpretation is too broad a topic is. The Bible is basically composed of two parts. The most crucial part is "the message of salvation". If you consider this part as complicated, then you must have over stated the situation. It is a very simple core which as long as you accept it, you bear a good chance to be saved.*

Except apparently it is complicated since there is much controversy over the issue of sola fide vs. sola gratia.

The other part is not directly concerning salvation itself. Then, a formal authentic interpretation is not a crucial necessity, so don't over state its importance.

Basically the answer to the question is, God's earthly Church is the authentic party for the interpretations. However, there's a fundamental difference between God's Church and the Catholic Church.

It is said a Temple was built in three days. That's the body of Christ itself. God's Church is another body which is described as the Bride of Christ as it is the Church who will be with Jesus Christ as ONE. It's not any physical church which may go corrupted. It refers to an invisible entity which will stay in Christ and with Christ as one.

Now how can this Church of God be tangibly and precisely defined? You can't. You can speculate up to a certain precision though. There's a fundamental guideline which is the Apostle's/Nicene Creed. The Creed sets a basic standard to identify an entity to be part of God's Church.*

Except for a few issues.
1. Christ explicitly mentions that the Church would be built on Peter. Are all churches built on Peter? As far as I know only the Catholic Church can truly make that claim.
2. The Bible has many references to apostolic succession and how bishops should not be hasty with the laying on of hands. Thus we can assume that the authentic Church is maintained via apostolic succession. That excludes Protestant churches and most other churches.

As long as you try to be close to God and listen to the Holy Spirit, plus the simplicity of God's salvation message, you don't need to worry too much about how to define God's Church precisely.

It does matter. We need to seek the truth. As is stated in the Psalms (24):

Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord?
And who shall stand in his holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to what is false,
and does not swear deceitfully.

On the other hand, disregarding human incapability in precisely defining such a Church, God's Church does exist on earth. And it's definitely not an equivalent to the Catholic Church. To me, the part of the Church made up of Protestants is actually closer to God.
=======

2 cents.

All Protestant churches accept sola scriptura despite the fact that it is never stated in the Bible, the Bible actually states the importance of tradition, and the Bible states that interpretation of scripture is not up to individual prophecy! Apostolic succession is also in there as well as Petrine supremacy. Protestant churches accept none of these teachings, and yet they claim to be closer to the Bible! How is that for irony!

 

[phattonez]

Scripture may be infallible, but the interpretation clearly is not. I heard the debate about Petros vs. Petra. I have my doubts on this matter. Also that Peter denied Jesus 3 times, to me has symbolic meaning. As does the not-so-chance meeting after the crucifixion, in which Jesus informs Peter that he goes "to Rome, to be crucified again." Call me a doubting Thomas.

For this and other reasons I believe there is no organized structure that can sincerely represent the message of Christ. It is by very definition not possible. There is only one head of the 'church', if it exists at all, and that head is Christ alone. All others are mortal and by definition, fallible. What the church has done is an abomination, not only for the acts committed, butfor the result of the millions who have turned away from god by it. Hence you will not see me amongst the congregations. But in my view even the church deserves to be forgiven. Therefore I, small, poor, mortal sinner forgive the Popes.

And Jesus brought Peter back after this denial. John 21:

"15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.[d] 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”"

If you have another plausible interpretation of the keys to the kingdom then bring it forward.

 

[phattonez]

I don't see Thomas that way. He was wrong, perhaps but he righted his error.

As did St. Peter.

 

[Manny]

And Jesus brought Peter back after this denial. John 21:

"15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.[d] 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”"

If you have another plausible interpretation of the keys to the kingdom then bring it forward.

My interpretation is that both Thomas and Peter are human, and therefore fallible. Jesus is capable of forgiving them, but even so, this does not mean they became perfect afterwards. In fact, I don't doubt that they, being human will continue to make mistakes, even commit sins, throughout their lives. Each of us hopefully learns from the mistakes we make, seek forgiveness and redemption, and carry on. But at any time, we are always capable of failing again. It may only take some unusual circumstance to arise, even in old age, a crisis, the death of a loved one, or when we are faced with making an impossible choice and choose the lesser of two evils. Lesser perhaps but evil it still shall be. That is the dilemma of the human creature. And, that is precisely why we have Jesus.

To me, Jesus is the salvation. The church represents our faith and belief but it is not the salvation. One need only look at what the church has done, being run by fallible human beings. It's a shocking example of how humans are capable of turning something into its opposite, and believing in it all the same. I can't think of any worse kind of human being than the Borgia popes. That is not a logical successor of Jesus Christ.

But as I said before the church is not the evil thing that it used to be. The church today has come a long way, which to me only means, we have come a long way. I see the church as representing mankind in its struggle to know God. It offers a means to an end, but it is not the end in itself, and deserves neither to be revered nor worshiped.