Skip to comments.Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
Posted on 04/04/2008 11:29:53 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
click here to read article
God sure did allow Luther and those Protestants to go their way, so apparently He did not intend for Catholic rule over this globe.
“It certainly wasn’t necessary to come up with a whole new religion to do what was already being done.”
Well yes, maybe it was necessary. Because of Jesus Christ, who was Jewish, and had Jewish followers, no gentiles to speak of at this point, all Jewish, who believed him to be the Messiah. Therefore, those Jews believing Jesus Christ to be the prophesized Messiah differentiated themselves from their fellow Jews who didn’t believe Christ was the Messiah. At that point, the two different groups of Jews went their divergent ways in religious belief and traditions, which was inevitable, as the squabble over whether Christ was the Messiah or not was not going to be solved. Hence it was really an internecine battle between Jews that split apart. Hence “Christ”ianity, Jewish followers of Christ as versus Jews who did not acknowledge Christ as the Messiah. So if a “new religion” as you put it was created, it was created by Jews, those that believed the Messiah prophesized in the OT had arrived on earth. And the Jews that rejected it stuck with the old traditions that were not built around the idea of the actual coming of the Messiah, obviously. And the Jews that believed in Christ built their traditions around the fact that Christ was the Messiah. Obviously the Torah, by inference, and the Old Testament (written by Jews and a basic component of Christian religious belief) is included in the Christian religion, as the Messiah was prophesized, and the Christians surely believe that happened, don’t they.
“God sure did allow Luther and those Protestants to go their way, so apparently He did not intend for Catholic rule over this globe.”
As we both know, there is the concept of free will. Luther and the Protestants going their own way was an act of free will, just as someone who decides to murder one of his fellow humans is an act of free will, or those who take drugs is an act of free will, or those that become prostitutes and johns is an act of free will. Need I go on? God allows man to make choices in life based on free will, but that doesn’t make those choices all good ones. And the splintering of the Christian religion into a multitude of sects was not a good choice.
Welll now Scripture says 'free will' is more than a concept. Paul says that there are those Ephesians 1:4 'According as He hath chosen us (election) in Him *BEFORE* the 'foundation of the world', (actually a verb meaning casting down - overthrow) that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love:
5 Having *predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the good pleasure of His will,
To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us acceptable in the Beloved:
Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto Him, "Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?"
11 He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the *mysteries* of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is NOT given. Christ then quotes Isaiah 6:9-10
We this day have benefit of the parables and then the private explanation Christ gave the disciples and yet there is still the majority that read right over the explanation or ignore the parables entirely.
“We this day have benefit of the parables and then the private explanation Christ gave the disciples and yet there is still the majority that read right over the explanation or ignore the parables entirely.”
Speak English. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. No bible quotes, just plain English please, so I can try to understand your point.
Isn't that the issue this thread is supposedly addressing, who is doing the speaking, the WORD which we are told is GOD, or what pieces and parts that 'men' select for their authoritarian objectives.
According to Scripture 'before' this flesh age, Peter calls it the age that WAS (IIPeter 3:5,6,7) the 'souls' had a choice, follow the Heavenly Father or the devil. The souls that stood against the devil are those *predestined* or as Paul says chosen - (election) that have been born since the beginning of this flesh age. Remember Enoch Genesis 5:22 Translated without dying .. He prophesied "by faith".
Peter says that judgment will begin at the house of God and we all will be judged individually and we won't be taking our preacher/priests as excuse for our own acts or lack thereof.
We are told that the WORD is GOD and it was so since 'In the beginning', is that NOT instruction for each and every one to learn the WORD if one is to know what the instruction is of the Heavenly Father. Any church can and has taken the WORD and use that WORD for maintaining their positions. We are told NOT to judge but to test the fruit as discernment if what is being taught/preached is in fact the WORD or traditions of a self protection racket.
No -- because in that statement he is contradicting his previous statement that "in matters of importance one should defer to the writings of the apostles".
So which is it???
They cannot both be true unless he is saying that one should obey the priests in unimportant matters, but obey the scriptures in those places where it really matters.
But since the office of a "priest" for the New Testament is not found in any of those writings of the apostles, Irenaeus should have taken his own advice and deferred to the writings of the apostles before penning those words.
St. Irenaeus is only authoritative when he agrees with YOU.
It was the the Catholic Church that codified the Bible. It was men who wrote it, inspired by the Holy Spirit. You can’t take the men nor the Catholic Church out of it no matter how hard you try. The Bible didn’t write itself, and the books of the Bible you follow were chosen by the Catholic Church, not by “the Word”. It wasn’t magically written.
GOD did NOT turn over to anybody ownership of His WORD. Further at the instant Christ's flesh body died upon that cross, the ignored miracle of that veil in the temple being rent from TOP to bottom took place.... NO longer was it prerequisite that anybody have to go before another *flesh* man to have access to the Heavenly Father, Christ became that intercessor for one and all time. Anybody tells you different then they produce NO fruit.
Ok, have now realized that no rational thought is involved here on your part. So, end of discussion, or should I say the lack of it. I’m dealing with a sola scriptura zealot, which means no conversation based on logic, Toodles.
No -- when he agrees with "the writings of the apostles" per his own words.
Well you may find it beneath you to actually discuss what the WORD of God says, but I suspect that you might take the time to look for yourself as to what is WRITTEN that God says who HE is....
Theres no doubt about it.. I'm off the sheep farm(reservation)..
You know into the flock..
Yes.. sheep bleat and form groups whether there is a shepherd or not.. You seem to be in disarray over John ch 10.. and the sheep pens.. Thats a good sign.. Most just eat whatever the hireling gives them to eat.. and are afraid to even consider "outside" the sheep pen.. The "called out ones"(church) for several hundred years had zero bibles to read.. if they could read..
What did THEY depend on to strengthen their faith?..
Answer: the Holy Spirit
O.K. thats what you have been taught.. But thats not true.. non RCC Church history shows something completely different.. i.e. Foxes Book of Martyrs, Millers church history and many other sources.. Every localiy had its own group not under roman authority until about 313a.d. or so... But you would not know that if you depended on RCC authorized sources..ONLY.. The lie or "spin" that authority was handed down by the apostles from Peter is a myth..
It makes no difference. If the Torah was to be "superseded" by merely another legal system then it was unnecessary, whoever founded it.
And it isn't "a vehicle to salvation" today because G-d did not give man a "vehicle to salvation" but commandments to repair and complete the creation. That is still man's duty today.
Most chr*stians, regardless of denomination, insist that the Torah has been "done away with" (and quote Paul to prove it). My point is that at least the antinomian "faith only" people are more consistent than those churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Arminian, restorationist, mormon, etc.) who hold that the Torah was explicitly abolished in order to pray it merely with another set of laws, rituals, and commandments.
Matt 5:17-2017 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
“But you would not know that if you depended on RCC authorized sources..ONLY.. The lie or “spin” that authority was handed down by the apostles from Peter is a myth.”
I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran. Catholicism came later. Half my family was Lutheran, half Catholic, so I probably have experienced the effects of the Reformation a lot more than you have, right in my own family.