Questions for sola Scripturas

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What, then, is the preeminence of the Jew? Or what, the profit of his circumcision? Much, every way:—First, indeed, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
(Rom 3:1-2)

Nowhere in Scripture do we see this 'entrustment' transferred or prophecied to change hands to any other entity than that which it was originally entrusted to...the Jews. All else is usurpation.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Rach - rebellion is never essential. I agree with you that good things have come out of the Reformation - but that is the way God works, He takes a bad situation and makes it better than it was before the bad situation ever occurred; however, it does not mean it was worth it.

The division within Christianity still exists today because of pride on all sides - it is unfortunate.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
108
0
44
Australia
The Reformation was successful in many areas, but God was not done with His Church. It was not a cure-all, but it had many successes and restored certain truths of God's Word to the Church. And if it wasn't a success, why did the Catholic Church initiate the Counter-Reformation?

Axehead

Oh I agree that it wasn't a cure-all....to many people involved for that! And yes, it was my point exactly when I said it was essential for Catholics too, that the Reformation led to the 'Counter-Reformation'. It caused the Catholic Church to leave behind some of its more deadly heresies. That's why despite our differences, many Catholics today are our brothers and sisters.


Rach - rebellion is never essential.

Actually, rebellion is sometimes essential. If not the Israelites would still be slaves in Egypt and Blacks would still be slaves in America. Tyranny that leads to sin must be rebelled against...maybe not physically with violence, but a definite stand must be taken.

I agree with you that good things have come out of the Reformation - but that is the way God works, He takes a bad situation and makes it better than it was before the bad situation ever occurred; however, it does not mean it was worth it.

Aspen, I always have thought and felt that despite you being Catholic you saw Protestant as brothers and sisters in Christ. I am at a loss to understand why all of a sudden you have swung around and are now claiming things that make me your enemy. That Protestant beliefs are corrupt...not worthy of being protected by God. That the Reformation was rebellion against the true Church of God...a bad situation that God made good (you talk as if it was something that only God could make good...like a horrifying earthquake or genocide...there was nothing there that could be seen as good apart from God's work to pull something worthy from it). You seem ready to acknowledge that the Catholic Church was corrupt during the dark ages, yet you say that the Reformation, which came not long afterwards, was barely worth the paper Luther wrote his thesis on. In reality by making that claim, you are basically dismissing and ridiculing every single person who is not Catholic. What justification can you possibly have for this? I am confused in the extreme...

The division within Christianity still exists today because of pride on all sides - it is unfortunate.

Actually, I think that a lot of the division could be traced to statements like this:

" the only difference is that Catholic doctrine was protected from corruption by God - the same cannot be said for Protestantism."
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Rach - rebellion is never essential. I agree with you that good things have come out of the Reformation - but that is the way God works, He takes a bad situation and makes it better than it was before the bad situation ever occurred; however, it does not mean it was worth it.

The division within Christianity still exists today because of pride on all sides - it is unfortunate.

I agree. Rebellion was wrong and unhelpful.

There were many practices that had become wrong or corrupt within the Catholic Church and it needed reforming. To reform the Church you stay within it. But the Reformers did not just want to correct bad practices, they wanted to change doctrines. To do that you have to leave and start your own church. Which is what they did.

Satan tries to destroy the Church by three main means:

1. Internal corruption. There is always ongoing need to for vigilance and reform.

2. External attack, such as Islam and secularism.

3. Internal division. At the Reformation Satan succeded and since then he has been busy dividing those that broke away into smaller and smaller pieces.

By the time Martin Luther broke from the Church reform was already under way, albeit on a very small scale at that point. God was already raising up reforming saints such as Teresa of Avila.

Cardinal Ximinese in Spain, who died in the year Martin Luther began his rebellion, had already been busy reforming his diocese and monasteries & produced a Polyglot Bible. According to Henri-Daniel-Rops it was largely due to his reforming work that Spain was able to resist the Protestant Reformation.
 

verzanumi24

Advanced Member
Aug 17, 2007
775
65
28
62
New Yonk City
What, then, is the preeminence of the Jew? Or what, the profit of his circumcision? Much, every way:—First, indeed, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
(Rom 3:1-2)

Nowhere in Scripture do we see this 'entrustment' transferred or prophecied to change hands to any other entity than that which it was originally entrusted to...the Jews. All else is usurpation.

But do you do realize though that that is referring to the Old Testament/Tora back then and not the New Testament?
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
I agree. Rebellion was wrong and unhelpful.

There were many practices that had become wrong or corrupt within the Catholic Church and it needed reforming. To reform the Church you stay within it.

Jesus has a slightly different take on the religious system (which encompasses all churches that hath agreement with idols).


2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Peter and ALL THE APOSTLES agree that we should obey God rather than man.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

If 2,000 years has proven anything, it has proven that you cannot reform the religious system. Jesus was the first one to find that out. (He already knew that anyway). In fact, the Book of Revelation, is the Lord's triumphal victory over the counterfeit religious system that has existed since Genesis.

Axehead
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Jesus has a slightly different take on the religious system (which encompasses all churches that hath agreement with idols).


2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Axhead,

Why do you quote my post and then not reply to it but move onto a different topic?

But to respond to the above.

The Catholic Church does not have idols so nothing in your post is relevant to it.

Peter and ALL THE APOSTLES agree that we should obey God rather than man.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

And who is disagreeing with that?

If 2,000 years has proven anything, it has proven that you cannot reform the religious system. Jesus was the first one to find that out. (He already knew that anyway). In fact, the Book of Revelation, is the Lord's triumphal victory over the counterfeit religious system that has existed since Genesis.

Axehead
It proves nothing of the sort. We can look back into Church history and see people falling into corruption and then a reformation. It is called sin and repentance.

As I said this applies to practices within the Church. It does not apply to doctrine. Jesus promised that his Church would never fall into doctrinal error and it hasn’t. He never prmised that people would not fall into sin.
 

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But do you do realize though that that is referring to the Old Testament/Tora back then and not the New Testament?
Do you realize that the NT was written by Jews or at least with their oversight? Just because a Jew embraced Yeshua as Messiah did not mean he ceased being a Jew.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Oh I agree that it wasn't a cure-all....to many people involved for that! And yes, it was my point exactly when I said it was essential for Catholics too, that the Reformation led to the 'Counter-Reformation'. It caused the Catholic Church to leave behind some of its more deadly heresies. That's why despite our differences, many Catholics today are our brothers and sisters.




Actually, rebellion is sometimes essential. If not the Israelites would still be slaves in Egypt and Blacks would still be slaves in America. Tyranny that leads to sin must be rebelled against...maybe not physically with violence, but a definite stand must be taken.



Aspen, I always have thought and felt that despite you being Catholic you saw Protestant as brothers and sisters in Christ. I am at a loss to understand why all of a sudden you have swung around and are now claiming things that make me your enemy. That Protestant beliefs are corrupt...not worthy of being protected by God. That the Reformation was rebellion against the true Church of God...a bad situation that God made good (you talk as if it was something that only God could make good...like a horrifying earthquake or genocide...there was nothing there that could be seen as good apart from God's work to pull something worthy from it). You seem ready to acknowledge that the Catholic Church was corrupt during the dark ages, yet you say that the Reformation, which came not long afterwards, was barely worth the paper Luther wrote his thesis on. In reality by making that claim, you are basically dismissing and ridiculing every single person who is not Catholic. What justification can you possibly have for this? I am confused in the extreme...



Actually, I think that a lot of the division could be traced to statements like this:

" the only difference is that Catholic doctrine was protected from corruption by God - the same cannot be said for Protestantism."

All people who believe in the true nature of God as a Trinity and believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior are my brothers and sisters in Christ and part of the Body of Christ. I made the statement about the Reformation in order to point out that we are all in the same boat, as far as human sin influencing how our churches are run. When I said that Protestant doctrine has been corrupted, I was referring the countless cults that have spun off of Protestantism - especially during the 19th century. On the other hand, over the last few months there have been multiple threads criticizing my church and several Protestants continually making it sound as if the Reformation was a necessary improvement on Catholicism - I do not believe it was. In my opinion Rach, several of your Protestant brothers and sisters may need you to confront them about accepting Catholics as part of the Body of Christ - I already believe it. Not sure why you haven't pointed out that Selene and I are both long time members of this forum, friends of yours, and have proven ourselves to be followers of Christ, yet, strangely, you have decided to question my instead, as if you do not even know me.

As far as rebellion is concerned - I do not believe Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church - he was excommunicated. Calvin, John Knox, King Henry XIII, and Zwingli are another story.....
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
108
0
44
Australia
All people who believe in the true nature of God as a Trinity and believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior are my brothers and sisters in Christ and part of the Body of Christ. I made the statement about the Reformation in order to point out that we are all in the same boat, as far as human sin influencing how our churches are run. When I said that Protestant doctrine has been corrupted, I was referring the countless cults that have spun off of Protestantism - especially during the 19th century. On the other hand, over the last few months there have been multiple threads criticizing my church and several Protestants continually making it sound as if the Reformation was a necessary improvement on Catholicism - I do not believe it was. In my opinion Rach, several of your Protestant brothers and sisters may need you to confront them about accepting Catholics as part of the Body of Christ - I already believe it. Not sure why you haven't pointed out that Selene and I are both long time members of this forum, friends of yours, and have proven ourselves to be followers of Christ, yet, strangely, you have decided to question my instead, as if you do not even know me.

As far as rebellion is concerned - I do not believe Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church - he was excommunicated. Calvin, John Knox, King Henry XIII, and Zwingli are another story.....

Aspen, I am very glad and relieved to know you still feel the same way. Indeed I have considered you a friend...still do. But I would perhaps ask you to take a little more care in how you voice things. Some of the things you said above are outright provocative, and I must ask you to understand that I mistook their meaning simply because of how they were put.

I know you and Selene feel 'ganged up' on at times...indeed there are many voices here on this forum out of lines at times. The admins do our best, considering there are few of us and we cannot spend all our time browsing here.

But as far as the Catholic/Protestant debate goes...this is a Protestant board. The admins recognise that many, many Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we endeavour that treatment of all here is the same. You must realise, that despite that, most people here are Protestant, and they disagree with many Catholic doctrines...they are free to do that, just as you are free to disagree about Protestant doctrines. But these differences do not excuse the 'denominational bashing' that goes on and while you are right in that others should not label Catholicism the anti-christ, I'm sure you realise that levelling the same sort of comments against Protestantism will not earn you friends....or a polite conversation!! Diplomacy is a good thing to ask for...but very often it needs to be shown before it is given.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Absolutely spot on...all of it. Well done and amen Foreigner.

-- Thanks, Rach. I appreciate that coming from you.



Neophyte, while I do appreciate your huge cut-and-paste contribution, the number of things wrong within it are as numberous as they are impressive.
I will address a couple issues right off:



"The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not"

-- So the Catholic church has no idea if she died or not......but somehow knows with absolute certainty that she was taken bodily into heaven?

That's like saying, "I have no idea whatsoever if he fell off the cliff, but I can guarantee you that his body is in a crumpled bleeding mass at the bottom of the canyon."



Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

-- So it didn't become doctrine that she was taken bodily into heave, until roughly 1900 years after Mary's death (if she actually did indeed die ;)).
And as far as the "proof".....well, there simply isn't any.
There is assumption, wishful thinking, feelings that she deserved it, and "well, it doesn't say in the Bible that she wasn't"....but nothing else.



"The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

-- This happened one time - at the same time the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom. It has never been recorded to have ever happened again - inside our outside of Scripture short of a zombie movie - yet THIS is what your cut-and-paste offers as the possibility of Mary being taken bodily into heaven on....

The other claim is that since it happened to Enoch and Elijah, it could have also happened to several others including Mary. THIS is the standard of proof necessary within the Catholic church?



"Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ."

-- I have already provided that scripture that show Mary did not die a virgin:

"When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus." - Matt 1:24-25

The KJV says: "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son."

That means that in order for Catholic Church doctrine to be correct, the inspired Word of God in the Gospel of Matthew would have to be wrong.





But what I see it all coming down to is this:

According to the Catholic church, it has not been confirmed whether Mary actually died or not. Likely, but not definitively.
But since she lived a good life, no one knows where her bones are, no one witnessed her die, and - gosh darn it - it just seems fitting, that gives the Catholic church license to declare that she was taken bodily into heaven (dead or not).

Wow.....





the only difference is that Catholic doctrine was protected from corruption by God - the same cannot be said for Protestantism.

-- Yup, he said that.




.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
"Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ."

-- I have already provided that scripture that show Mary did not die a virgin:

"When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus." - Matt 1:24-25

The KJV says: "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son."

That means that in order for Catholic Church doctrine to be correct, the inspired Word of God in the Gospel of Matthew would have to be wrong.

.

Matthew doesn’t have to be wrong. It just means that you misinterpret scripture.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
-- Silly me.

Exactly

"The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

-- This happened one time - at the same time the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom. It has never been recorded to have ever happened again - inside our outside of Scripture short of a zombie movie - yet THIS is what your cut-and-paste offers as the possibility of Mary being taken bodily into heaven on....

The other claim is that since it happened to Enoch and Elijah, it could have also happened to several others including Mary. THIS is the standard of proof necessary within the Catholic church?

neophyte didn’t claim it as proof so don’t distort what he said.

He suggested it shows the possibility of Mary being assumed into heaven. Those examples are precedents
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Neophyte did a cut-and-paste.

I detailed how the cut-and-paste documentation he provided doesn't cut the mustard.

You calling them "precedents" doesn't make it so. Precident does not automatically equal proof. Sorry.

Using that you could say that since Jesus walked on water, the Catholic church can claim that Mary walked on water.

Since Moses parted the Red Sea, that means Mary did the same for the Jordan River.

Since John the Baptist baptized people in the River Jordan, Mary likely did the same.

Since Stephen was stoned to death, Mary was likely stoned to death and that is why she ascended into heaven bodily.

Since Paul was struck off his horse and blinded, Mary likely had the same thing happen to her.


Could be true. After all.....there IS a precedent ;)



.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Neophyte did a cut-and-paste.

I detailed how the cut-and-paste documentation he provided doesn't cut the mustard.

You calling them "precedents" doesn't make it so. Sorry.

Why are they not precendents?

You saying so does not make it so, Sorry

Here is cut and paste giving biblical support for the Assumption.. It is taken from “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary” from Juniper Carol's Mariology:

Pius XII states the dogma is based on the Sacred Writings (Scripture): "All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation." (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus)

And not "amazing" if one considers in Scripture that Enoch and Elijah were "assumed" to heaven, body and soul; and perhaps Moses if we interpret Jude's mention with the apocryphal literature (Assumption or Testament of Moses) as an "assumption" of the body of Moses. Jesus ascended to heaven on his own power, body and soul, and it is only fitting that His own Mother, the holy Mother of God, would also not see corruption. All true Christians will eventually be sinless and bodily assumed (resurrected and glorified) in heaven. The Blessed Virgin Mary, being a type of the Church as all the Fathers taught, is an example of the perfected Christian in heaven (cf. the holy, stainless, blameless Church mentioned in Ephesians 5:25-33; Heb 12:22ff; Rev 21:1ff). Mary received that perfected state (in soul and body) before the rest of Christ's Church by the grace of God.

"Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified'; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven.

"Treating of this subject, they also describe her as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer. Likewise they mention the Spouse of the Canticles 'that goes up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh and frankincense' to be crowned. These are proposed as depicting that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom.

"Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos. Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women,' since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve."
(Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus)

As for biblical evidence for the belief, Pius XII refers to several texts and Marian types: the holy Ark of the Covenant; Psalm 132(131):8; Psalm 45(44):10-14; Song of Songs 3:6; 4:8; 6:9; Rev 12:1ff (cf. 11:19); Luke 1:28. If the "Ark" of Psalm 132:8 or the "Woman" of Revelation 12 is the Blessed Mary, then the Scriptures directly "prove" the Assumption. But scholars interpret these texts different ways. As Pius XII explained, the Church Fathers were "rather free in their use of events and expressions" taken from Scripture. But neither Pius XII nor the Fathers ignored the Scriptures when speaking of Mary's Assumption into heaven:
"These [the "Sacred Writings," the Scriptures] set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing His lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought Him forth, nursed Him with her milk, held Him in her arms, and clasped Him to her breast, as being apart from Him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, He could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honour, not only His eternal Father, but also His most beloved Mother. And, since it was within His power to grant her this great honour, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that He really acted in this way." (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus)

The Scriptures are the ultimate theological foundation for the dogma, according to Pius XII.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
See my last post, big guy. It has been updated and shows your post to be...well....lacking.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
lol Mungo, when you post something that says,
""Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos."

...and it easy to find just as many Doctors who say those findings are full of beans, you have supported nothing.

Sorry, but just because you say, "No its not" over and over again and provide large cut-and-pastes, you are no closer to proving your position.

I gave specifics. You should try it sometime....