Salvation Not Possible Without Works
- Thread starter SeaBass
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Where did the body of Christ promise to "guard and preserve" the Gospel?, it is clear man cannot be trusted to do such by your own argument, the preservation of the Word of God is providential or we would not have it :
Psalms 12:6-7 (NKJV) [SUP]6 [/SUP] The words of the Lord are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. [SUP]7 [/SUP] You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.
No, I agree, division is of men, it is what Paul spent most of his career trying to thwart off, if men would read the bible themselves and leave out the creeds, catechisms, manuals and confessions of faith (or in other words some other mans idea of what the bible says) we would not have division, we would always have different ideas on interpretation of some scripture, but would not have division...
If you and I read the bible with no difference of interpretation it would not take long for the bible to get boring, it is there for you and I to study until He comes again, not to be puffed up and go our separate ways.
To believe that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not sufficient is to call the Holy Spirit a liar when he said it was to make "the man of God complete" and "thoroughly equipped", if word of God was insufficient, then the Holy Spirit is a liar, it the word of God is incomplete and locked away in some Vatican or other lock and key, then God failed at his providential preservation.
Psalms 12:6-7 (NKJV) [SUP]6 [/SUP] The words of the Lord are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. [SUP]7 [/SUP] You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.
No, I agree, division is of men, it is what Paul spent most of his career trying to thwart off, if men would read the bible themselves and leave out the creeds, catechisms, manuals and confessions of faith (or in other words some other mans idea of what the bible says) we would not have division, we would always have different ideas on interpretation of some scripture, but would not have division...
If you and I read the bible with no difference of interpretation it would not take long for the bible to get boring, it is there for you and I to study until He comes again, not to be puffed up and go our separate ways.
To believe that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not sufficient is to call the Holy Spirit a liar when he said it was to make "the man of God complete" and "thoroughly equipped", if word of God was insufficient, then the Holy Spirit is a liar, it the word of God is incomplete and locked away in some Vatican or other lock and key, then God failed at his providential preservation.
YOur preaching to the choir here. But my question would then be, why do you hold to OSAS which has never been a teaching of scripture, but a manufactured notion based on another false supposition, predestination. Why do you use the early Church for one thing, but not everything?
Why do you not accept the Church's definition of the Gospel meaning of "the Body of Christ"?
Why do you not accept the mysteries of the Church as established by the Apostles in the first century?
Why do you accept the false teaching of a man, on Original Sin. The Satisfaction theory of Atonement, rather than what the early Church believed?
Why do you not understand or accept the Incarnation as taught by the early Church and went through three false teachings to keep it as it was given in the beginning?
Why do you pick and choose?
Comman claim.
But is not borne out when discussions begin. It is true that some hold the same false theories as part of their belief system.
The Trinity is a word that they use. However, NONE of your theology is based on the concept of the Trinity. The same goes for the Incarnation as I was so well enlightened by many, including many who were not Calvinists.
Just an example. The very first two Reformers are completely opposite in their theologies, Luther and Calvin, then when you add in the Arminians, you have three that do not even agree with the majors, let alone what you all minors. That always raises the question, who is determining what is major and what is minor.
The problem you have is that man has imposed his authority upon scripture. To even consider anything false when others are using the very same principle, make the same claims, is to either declare that your own is false, or everyone else is also false, thus all are false. The practice has essentially individualized the gospel into personal truths only.
One would of necessity need to declare all others false to substantiate his own, because if you accepted any part of another would mean your own in part would be false.
If what you say, that the majors are alike, tell me why you have never achieved any unity between any two groups. But just the opposite happens, more and more sects, denominations, groups are being formed all based on scripture.
But is not borne out when discussions begin. It is true that some hold the same false theories as part of their belief system.
The Trinity is a word that they use. However, NONE of your theology is based on the concept of the Trinity. The same goes for the Incarnation as I was so well enlightened by many, including many who were not Calvinists.
Just an example. The very first two Reformers are completely opposite in their theologies, Luther and Calvin, then when you add in the Arminians, you have three that do not even agree with the majors, let alone what you all minors. That always raises the question, who is determining what is major and what is minor.
The problem you have is that man has imposed his authority upon scripture. To even consider anything false when others are using the very same principle, make the same claims, is to either declare that your own is false, or everyone else is also false, thus all are false. The practice has essentially individualized the gospel into personal truths only.
One would of necessity need to declare all others false to substantiate his own, because if you accepted any part of another would mean your own in part would be false.
If what you say, that the majors are alike, tell me why you have never achieved any unity between any two groups. But just the opposite happens, more and more sects, denominations, groups are being formed all based on scripture.
Cassian, can you prove this claim: "And you make the same two claims that every sola scripturist makes.
Scripture is my authority, in fact, sole authority, and their personal interpretation is as the Holy Spirit gives to them."
I really am not interested in arguing over words, like how to define sola scripturist. I have associated for many years now with men who believed that the only source of God's Word they had was the Bible of 66 books. But I don't recall any of them raising their interpretations to the status of God's Word. Asking the Lord by His Spirit to help one understand is in order as 1 John says that all Christians have an anointing.
Now Cassian, I ask you to either prove this next one or retract: "Thus scripture has hundreds of meanings, and the Holy Spirit has deceived every one except one, but no one knows who was not deceived. From Luther to Lorber, they all make the same claim as you do."
I have associated and been taught by men with the spiritual gift of teaching who did not regard their teaching as infallible. And they surely believed in studying to show oneself approved of God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word. We compare scripture with scripture and study context. BTW, RCC scholars who wud probably deny the sola script, differ much on Bible interps. Just go to a RCC college library and compare RCC commentaries on verses.
You say: :At least scripture says there is ONLY one faith, not thousands. So which one is it, YOURS? Can your prove yours is the correct one and not the Jehovah Witnessess and every other sect, group and denomination that uses scripture as their authority along with the Holy Spirit?"
The only group in the Bible to belong to is the One Body of Christ, the Church, which is no denomination. Christ is the head. We all get in it by baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).
Scripture is my authority, in fact, sole authority, and their personal interpretation is as the Holy Spirit gives to them."
I really am not interested in arguing over words, like how to define sola scripturist. I have associated for many years now with men who believed that the only source of God's Word they had was the Bible of 66 books. But I don't recall any of them raising their interpretations to the status of God's Word. Asking the Lord by His Spirit to help one understand is in order as 1 John says that all Christians have an anointing.
Now Cassian, I ask you to either prove this next one or retract: "Thus scripture has hundreds of meanings, and the Holy Spirit has deceived every one except one, but no one knows who was not deceived. From Luther to Lorber, they all make the same claim as you do."
I have associated and been taught by men with the spiritual gift of teaching who did not regard their teaching as infallible. And they surely believed in studying to show oneself approved of God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word. We compare scripture with scripture and study context. BTW, RCC scholars who wud probably deny the sola script, differ much on Bible interps. Just go to a RCC college library and compare RCC commentaries on verses.
You say: :At least scripture says there is ONLY one faith, not thousands. So which one is it, YOURS? Can your prove yours is the correct one and not the Jehovah Witnessess and every other sect, group and denomination that uses scripture as their authority along with the Holy Spirit?"
The only group in the Bible to belong to is the One Body of Christ, the Church, which is no denomination. Christ is the head. We all get in it by baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).
Last edited:
Cassian, you made a post and asked a lot of questions.
1) You ask about OSAS and assert it has never been a teaching of scripture. Well, Cassian, I have read my whole Bible through countless times beyond counting. How many times have you read it to know what scripture teaches? In one of my Bibles, I read it all, marking in pink all the verses on salvation, including verses claimed by persons who disagree with my POV. So I ask you since you assert it has never been a teaching of scripture, that you prove that one.
Actually, do you realize that you don't even mean by salvation the thing I mean? Salvation is first a new birth, a transformation from sinner to child of God right now in this life. Salvation means I have now eternal life -- it doesn't mean I have a chance, depending on some judgment on my works in the future. "should not perish, but have everlasting life."
But I wait for you to prove you case, since you made the assertion.
2) Then you refer to predestination as a false supposition. But election and predestination are clearly taught in the Bible. Do you have a concordance or access on the internet? Check out your terms.
3) What should we use the Early Church for? To get God's word requires prophetic writings. Kindly prove to us how we should use the Early Church (which no longer exists)?
4) You ask: "YOur preaching to the choir here. But my question would then be, why do you hold to OSAS which has never been a teaching of scripture, but a manufactured notion based on another false supposition, predestination. Why do you use the early Church for one thing, but not everything?
5) "Why do you not accept the Church's definition of the Gospel meaning of "the Body of Christ"?"
I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that the Church defines the Gospel as "the Body of Christ"?
The Body of Christ is a synonym for the Church. 1 Cor 12:13 says all Christians are in it by baptism of the Holy Spirit. What makes you think that the Church is supposed to give the definitions instead of scripture? Do you suppose that the Church is the superior source of truth to the Scripture? If so, then you can't argue it from Scripture, as the inferior source can't prove the superior source. Are you saying that the RCC provides infallible truth superior to the Bible? How do you know that it does that?
"Why do you not accept the mysteries of the Church as established by the Apostles in the first century?"
Mysteries? The Church is called a mystery itself in the NT. We accept that the 66 books are God's Word. Do you agree? Can you prove that there is some other source of God's Word not in the Bible and commonly available to men? If so, let's see that proof.
"Why do you accept the false teaching of a man, on Original Sin. The Satisfaction theory of Atonement, rather than what the early Church believed?"
How do you know that Christ did not satisfy God's wrath due man for sin? Is "propitiation" in your Bible? What do you make of Isaiah 53? On Original sin, do you accept Romans 5?
You state: "Why do you not understand or accept the Incarnation as taught by the early Church and went through three false teachings to keep it as it was given in the beginning?"
What is your proof for these claims? The Bible says that God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Do you have proof for something else?
You ask: "Why do you pick and choose?"
What is your proof that he picks and chooses?
1) You ask about OSAS and assert it has never been a teaching of scripture. Well, Cassian, I have read my whole Bible through countless times beyond counting. How many times have you read it to know what scripture teaches? In one of my Bibles, I read it all, marking in pink all the verses on salvation, including verses claimed by persons who disagree with my POV. So I ask you since you assert it has never been a teaching of scripture, that you prove that one.
Actually, do you realize that you don't even mean by salvation the thing I mean? Salvation is first a new birth, a transformation from sinner to child of God right now in this life. Salvation means I have now eternal life -- it doesn't mean I have a chance, depending on some judgment on my works in the future. "should not perish, but have everlasting life."
But I wait for you to prove you case, since you made the assertion.
2) Then you refer to predestination as a false supposition. But election and predestination are clearly taught in the Bible. Do you have a concordance or access on the internet? Check out your terms.
3) What should we use the Early Church for? To get God's word requires prophetic writings. Kindly prove to us how we should use the Early Church (which no longer exists)?
4) You ask: "YOur preaching to the choir here. But my question would then be, why do you hold to OSAS which has never been a teaching of scripture, but a manufactured notion based on another false supposition, predestination. Why do you use the early Church for one thing, but not everything?
5) "Why do you not accept the Church's definition of the Gospel meaning of "the Body of Christ"?"
I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that the Church defines the Gospel as "the Body of Christ"?
The Body of Christ is a synonym for the Church. 1 Cor 12:13 says all Christians are in it by baptism of the Holy Spirit. What makes you think that the Church is supposed to give the definitions instead of scripture? Do you suppose that the Church is the superior source of truth to the Scripture? If so, then you can't argue it from Scripture, as the inferior source can't prove the superior source. Are you saying that the RCC provides infallible truth superior to the Bible? How do you know that it does that?
"Why do you not accept the mysteries of the Church as established by the Apostles in the first century?"
Mysteries? The Church is called a mystery itself in the NT. We accept that the 66 books are God's Word. Do you agree? Can you prove that there is some other source of God's Word not in the Bible and commonly available to men? If so, let's see that proof.
"Why do you accept the false teaching of a man, on Original Sin. The Satisfaction theory of Atonement, rather than what the early Church believed?"
How do you know that Christ did not satisfy God's wrath due man for sin? Is "propitiation" in your Bible? What do you make of Isaiah 53? On Original sin, do you accept Romans 5?
You state: "Why do you not understand or accept the Incarnation as taught by the early Church and went through three false teachings to keep it as it was given in the beginning?"
What is your proof for these claims? The Bible says that God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Do you have proof for something else?
You ask: "Why do you pick and choose?"
What is your proof that he picks and chooses?
DO THE HOMEWORK, look up their Doctrinal Statements of FAITH, and ACTUALLY READ THEM; and you will find out that someone has fed you a bunch of half-truths and some down right lies, about what we teach and believe.
Here, I will get you started:
First Baptist Church of Glenarden - What We Believe
Statement of Faith | Indian Hills
Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches
Church of the Nazarene - Articles of Faith
Articles of Religion | The Wesleyan Church
EFCA Statement of Faith | EFCA
Mennonite Confession of Faith; Summary
etc.
etc.
I TOLD YOU THE TRUTH, our main core of beliefs, reads almost identical, throughout mainline Christian Denominations.
Thanks for correcting me Cassian. Indeed what you posted seemed to me congruent w/ RCC. So are you Eastern Orthodox? -- have fun and correct me again. But really, let's interact with the content of what you posted. It is a significant treatise.
Cassian says: "Scripture is but the written portion of God's revelation to man. The Apostles were not instructed to write a manual, a theological treatise then hand out printed copies of what you have called the Bible(scripture)."
Cassian, would you mind proving your claims instead of just saying them. You can be sure that just as you will dismiss what I say, so it is useless for you to just say things as if we would believe each other's theological claims just because we say it.
Now you claim (no proof) that "
"The Apostles taught that revelation orally. They established that Gospel and the practices that supplement that Gospel."
As a matter of fact, God created the scripture. To be sure He used prophets (including apostles) to produce the writing, but God is the author. All scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed or expired by God, breathed out by God, figure of speech for His creation). It is not the men or apostles who were "inspired," but the Scripture that is "inspired" (actually expired, breathed out). Proof is 1 Tim 3:16: "πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος"
Now Cassian claims (no proof again)
"He tells Timothy specifically to guard both Tradition and epistle."
Prove this and prove what "tradition" means in context. We know that Christ condemned tradition in the sense of sayings of religious leader of old. " And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites,"
Paul to Timothy:
"Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you."
Now prove that "traditions" here means anything other that the Word of God that came by prophecy. These are teachings delivered by a prophet (Paul), not human traditions of mere religious leaders.
Cassian speaks about canonization, but he just says things and gives not proof. This canonization concept is a faulty concept. It is obvious from reading the epistles that the readers were required to believe that it was the Word of God immediately, not to wait 300 years for ecclesiastics to determine it. "My sheep hear my voice." Peter already endorsed Paul's writings as scripture -- not 300 years later (2 Peter).
Cassian says: "There was no intent to write out"
Now what is your proof of the intent? If you speak of intent, the will of man, note what Peter says: "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
Scripture is not the product of human intent. And since it is all from God, it is to be interpreted in the light of all of God's word, not as private, isolated passages.
The fact that the scripture was in individual codexes of individual books or portions is irrelevant. The date of its first binding together in one volume is irrelevant to the recognition of the sheep of the shepherd's voice. The Church (the persons who trust Christ as Savior) endorsed it at once.
Cassion claims, but fails to prove: "To dismiss the Church Fathers is to dismiss what scripture means."
To add human non-prophet writings to the Bible is a big error. So-called Church fathers disagree with each other and have errors. That is like the error of the Pharisees in promoting human tradition. Since these later Church Fathers were not alive when God gave His scripture, dismissing these "fathers" in no way effects the meaning of scripture.
Now dear Cassion, you go on just saying things, but not proving them. So there is little point in my back-quoting them all to you.
You claim, but do not prove, "nor has any single man imposed his beliefs upon that Gospel over the last 2000 years."
All kinds of persons have imposed their beliefs. But we sheep hold to God's Word.
Cassion claims (but does not prove):
"Even a Council does not have last authority, it is the Body of Christ that is infallible, the Holy Spirit working in and through Christ's Body."
God is infallible. Now what proof do you have that the Church is infallible? Why believe it if you have no proof? What is obvious is that while Christians agree on the basics, they disagree greatly on many things -- I don't care if it is within one denomination. There is and always has been plenty of debate.
Now to disprove the POV that only the 66 books are the Word of God, again, you have to prove that something else is God's Word. Would you care to admit that you cannot?
Cassion claims:
"Arius and his opponents to this day would still be arguing"
Now we sheep believe in settling arguments the way the Lord Jesus did with, "It is written."
Cassion claims, but does not prove: "the sola scripturist do today, totally ignoring that Scripture has had a singular meaning from the beginning."
What is your proof of that? How do you know that persons who maintain that the only commonly and generally available source of God's word is the Bible thus ignore the concept of singular meaning? Yet I don't care what denomination you are in, men in that denomination debate the meaning of Bible verses -- unless you are in a cult! We all see through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13). There are passages hard to understand as Peter says about Paul. But if you endorse the "singular meaning" hermeneutic, at least that should cure you of spiritualizing and allegorizing historical and didactic passages.
Cassian states (again with no proof): "It has been preserved as He promised, no man has yet changed that unified Gospel, not destroyed the Body of Christ."
All kinds of men have tried to change the gospel -- I think you have from your apparent rejection of Saint Anselm's great teaching on the atonement of Christ.
Indeed the gospel is that God the Son became a man, died on a cross for our sins, rose from the dead and now offers free salvation to whosoever believes in Him (John 3:16). This has not changed.
Cassion claims: "the Body is the pillar and ground of that Truth."
The verse does not say, "the Body," but the ekklesia. The verse dos not say "that" truth, but truth. How do you know that ekklesia in the verse is not the local church but the universal church? Whatever it means, it does not mean that the Scripture is ekklesipneustos -- it is created by God, not the any human beings, even those in the Church, as 2 Peter tells us. I suggest you read the B.B. Warfield materials on Inspiration at BibleAndTheology a dot com. Of course the Church hold up truth.
Cassion again claims forcefully, without any proof:
"neither was the text, called the Bible given to man to abuse, to impose their personal authority over it. "
Indeed, persons with a RCC POV seem to try to put man's authority above the Bible. I think the Orthodox do too.
Again, I suggest that you stop disparaging sola scriptura, until you prove that something besides the 66 books is God's Word.
But I wish you the best. Stop and think Cassion, can you really prove any of your claims?
Remember: the true one and only Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, everyone who trusts Christ as only and sufficient savior (apart from works), baptized with the Holy Spirit. The Church is NOT some denomination or organized movement within Christendom.
Cassian says: "Scripture is but the written portion of God's revelation to man. The Apostles were not instructed to write a manual, a theological treatise then hand out printed copies of what you have called the Bible(scripture)."
Cassian, would you mind proving your claims instead of just saying them. You can be sure that just as you will dismiss what I say, so it is useless for you to just say things as if we would believe each other's theological claims just because we say it.
Now you claim (no proof) that "
"The Apostles taught that revelation orally. They established that Gospel and the practices that supplement that Gospel."
As a matter of fact, God created the scripture. To be sure He used prophets (including apostles) to produce the writing, but God is the author. All scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed or expired by God, breathed out by God, figure of speech for His creation). It is not the men or apostles who were "inspired," but the Scripture that is "inspired" (actually expired, breathed out). Proof is 1 Tim 3:16: "πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος"
Now Cassian claims (no proof again)
"He tells Timothy specifically to guard both Tradition and epistle."
Prove this and prove what "tradition" means in context. We know that Christ condemned tradition in the sense of sayings of religious leader of old. " And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites,"
Paul to Timothy:
"Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you."
Now prove that "traditions" here means anything other that the Word of God that came by prophecy. These are teachings delivered by a prophet (Paul), not human traditions of mere religious leaders.
Cassian speaks about canonization, but he just says things and gives not proof. This canonization concept is a faulty concept. It is obvious from reading the epistles that the readers were required to believe that it was the Word of God immediately, not to wait 300 years for ecclesiastics to determine it. "My sheep hear my voice." Peter already endorsed Paul's writings as scripture -- not 300 years later (2 Peter).
Cassian says: "There was no intent to write out"
Now what is your proof of the intent? If you speak of intent, the will of man, note what Peter says: "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
Scripture is not the product of human intent. And since it is all from God, it is to be interpreted in the light of all of God's word, not as private, isolated passages.
The fact that the scripture was in individual codexes of individual books or portions is irrelevant. The date of its first binding together in one volume is irrelevant to the recognition of the sheep of the shepherd's voice. The Church (the persons who trust Christ as Savior) endorsed it at once.
Cassion claims, but fails to prove: "To dismiss the Church Fathers is to dismiss what scripture means."
To add human non-prophet writings to the Bible is a big error. So-called Church fathers disagree with each other and have errors. That is like the error of the Pharisees in promoting human tradition. Since these later Church Fathers were not alive when God gave His scripture, dismissing these "fathers" in no way effects the meaning of scripture.
Now dear Cassion, you go on just saying things, but not proving them. So there is little point in my back-quoting them all to you.
You claim, but do not prove, "nor has any single man imposed his beliefs upon that Gospel over the last 2000 years."
All kinds of persons have imposed their beliefs. But we sheep hold to God's Word.
Cassion claims (but does not prove):
"Even a Council does not have last authority, it is the Body of Christ that is infallible, the Holy Spirit working in and through Christ's Body."
God is infallible. Now what proof do you have that the Church is infallible? Why believe it if you have no proof? What is obvious is that while Christians agree on the basics, they disagree greatly on many things -- I don't care if it is within one denomination. There is and always has been plenty of debate.
Now to disprove the POV that only the 66 books are the Word of God, again, you have to prove that something else is God's Word. Would you care to admit that you cannot?
Cassion claims:
"Arius and his opponents to this day would still be arguing"
Now we sheep believe in settling arguments the way the Lord Jesus did with, "It is written."
Cassion claims, but does not prove: "the sola scripturist do today, totally ignoring that Scripture has had a singular meaning from the beginning."
What is your proof of that? How do you know that persons who maintain that the only commonly and generally available source of God's word is the Bible thus ignore the concept of singular meaning? Yet I don't care what denomination you are in, men in that denomination debate the meaning of Bible verses -- unless you are in a cult! We all see through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13). There are passages hard to understand as Peter says about Paul. But if you endorse the "singular meaning" hermeneutic, at least that should cure you of spiritualizing and allegorizing historical and didactic passages.
Cassian states (again with no proof): "It has been preserved as He promised, no man has yet changed that unified Gospel, not destroyed the Body of Christ."
All kinds of men have tried to change the gospel -- I think you have from your apparent rejection of Saint Anselm's great teaching on the atonement of Christ.
Indeed the gospel is that God the Son became a man, died on a cross for our sins, rose from the dead and now offers free salvation to whosoever believes in Him (John 3:16). This has not changed.
Cassion claims: "the Body is the pillar and ground of that Truth."
The verse does not say, "the Body," but the ekklesia. The verse dos not say "that" truth, but truth. How do you know that ekklesia in the verse is not the local church but the universal church? Whatever it means, it does not mean that the Scripture is ekklesipneustos -- it is created by God, not the any human beings, even those in the Church, as 2 Peter tells us. I suggest you read the B.B. Warfield materials on Inspiration at BibleAndTheology a dot com. Of course the Church hold up truth.
Cassion again claims forcefully, without any proof:
"neither was the text, called the Bible given to man to abuse, to impose their personal authority over it. "
Indeed, persons with a RCC POV seem to try to put man's authority above the Bible. I think the Orthodox do too.
Again, I suggest that you stop disparaging sola scriptura, until you prove that something besides the 66 books is God's Word.
But I wish you the best. Stop and think Cassion, can you really prove any of your claims?
Remember: the true one and only Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, everyone who trusts Christ as only and sufficient savior (apart from works), baptized with the Holy Spirit. The Church is NOT some denomination or organized movement within Christendom.
Last edited:
Jabberjaw,
It is perserved within His Body, the Church. I Tim 3:15. The authority and power lies in its Head, Christ. He works with the Holy Spirit who dwells with the Body, HIs Body. The HOly Spirit does operate with individuals, but the entire Body. Which is why individual men have never been able to impose their innovative ideas upon HIs revelation, part of which is scripture.
Yes, which scripture is ONLY PART of those words.
Yes, and Paul also stated prophetically that the most dangerous wolves are going to come from within. Historically that has been absolutely true. Bishops, Patriarchs, lay individuals as well, but all false teaching has come from within the Church. But in each case it was the Body, past and present that has declared any notion or innovative idea as false.
What a sola scripturis does is assume it is a naked text. They categorically deny the original meaning of scripture, then formulate their own interpetation. Each one has done so until today we have thousands of man made ideas all claiming to be the meaning of scripture. I would thing it is quite obvious.
The Bible is not a comic book. It is the witness of the Truth, it is NOT the Truth. You cannot separate the authority of scripture from scripture and its full content which was the Gospel as given and instituted by the Apostles. The Church does not need to interpret what it means, it was given all of God's Revelation. Some of it was written.
The Church, which is Christ, gave the Gospel for the benefit of those who entered for their instruction, and rebuke as II Tim 3:16 states, but it included the meaning.
You and I were supposed to be reading and studying of how to apply what it means to our life, to our living, to our help in being perfected, to be healed as human beings within His Body. It was the whole purpose of Christ to call men out of the world into His Body so that they could be healed and perfected.
Where does it say it is sufficient. Seems you are adding to the text. But you are only applying a bare text, then spending a lot of your effort and life time trying to figure it out first, then you can get around to using it as it was intended. However, your problem, as with any other sola scripturists is that you are teaching and rebuking with hundreds of differing interpretations of the same text.
We may extend vs 16 to include the NT, but Paul was refering ONLY to the OT. He is telling Timothy that what he was taught in his childhood is what vs 16 is actually inferred. At the time of these letters only Pauls writing were extent. He was in prison and knew he would not be aquitted. At that time none of the Gospels nor the what are known as the pastoral books of Peter, James, and at the end,John's work.
So, it would be quite absurd to think that the early Church was using scripture as you do.
There is nothing is scripture that even hints, implies, definitely never states that God's revelation would be given to all men individually and surely not a text that was not even inclusive of all the Revelation given, then to do with it as they wished, trying to deduce what it might mean.
I think God knows man better than you give him credit. Assuming you are an American, does the People, who are the real authority over the Constitution, permit each individual to interpret the constitution as he sees fit. Why would God drop a text into your lap, not a treatise, not a compendium, not even a textbook of sorts, and have an introduction that says, this, it will be up to each individual that reads this text to determine what it might mean for himself.
Another assumption you make is that the Word of God is ONLY scripture.
Food for thought....
It is perserved within His Body, the Church. I Tim 3:15. The authority and power lies in its Head, Christ. He works with the Holy Spirit who dwells with the Body, HIs Body. The HOly Spirit does operate with individuals, but the entire Body. Which is why individual men have never been able to impose their innovative ideas upon HIs revelation, part of which is scripture.
Yes, which scripture is ONLY PART of those words.
Yes, and Paul also stated prophetically that the most dangerous wolves are going to come from within. Historically that has been absolutely true. Bishops, Patriarchs, lay individuals as well, but all false teaching has come from within the Church. But in each case it was the Body, past and present that has declared any notion or innovative idea as false.
What a sola scripturis does is assume it is a naked text. They categorically deny the original meaning of scripture, then formulate their own interpetation. Each one has done so until today we have thousands of man made ideas all claiming to be the meaning of scripture. I would thing it is quite obvious.
The Bible is not a comic book. It is the witness of the Truth, it is NOT the Truth. You cannot separate the authority of scripture from scripture and its full content which was the Gospel as given and instituted by the Apostles. The Church does not need to interpret what it means, it was given all of God's Revelation. Some of it was written.
The Church, which is Christ, gave the Gospel for the benefit of those who entered for their instruction, and rebuke as II Tim 3:16 states, but it included the meaning.
You and I were supposed to be reading and studying of how to apply what it means to our life, to our living, to our help in being perfected, to be healed as human beings within His Body. It was the whole purpose of Christ to call men out of the world into His Body so that they could be healed and perfected.
Where does it say it is sufficient. Seems you are adding to the text. But you are only applying a bare text, then spending a lot of your effort and life time trying to figure it out first, then you can get around to using it as it was intended. However, your problem, as with any other sola scripturists is that you are teaching and rebuking with hundreds of differing interpretations of the same text.
We may extend vs 16 to include the NT, but Paul was refering ONLY to the OT. He is telling Timothy that what he was taught in his childhood is what vs 16 is actually inferred. At the time of these letters only Pauls writing were extent. He was in prison and knew he would not be aquitted. At that time none of the Gospels nor the what are known as the pastoral books of Peter, James, and at the end,John's work.
So, it would be quite absurd to think that the early Church was using scripture as you do.
There is nothing is scripture that even hints, implies, definitely never states that God's revelation would be given to all men individually and surely not a text that was not even inclusive of all the Revelation given, then to do with it as they wished, trying to deduce what it might mean.
I think God knows man better than you give him credit. Assuming you are an American, does the People, who are the real authority over the Constitution, permit each individual to interpret the constitution as he sees fit. Why would God drop a text into your lap, not a treatise, not a compendium, not even a textbook of sorts, and have an introduction that says, this, it will be up to each individual that reads this text to determine what it might mean for himself.
Another assumption you make is that the Word of God is ONLY scripture.
Food for thought....
It was posted: "almost identical, throughout mainline Christian Denominations."
Well, I agree as to historical position of most of the denominations. But nowadays, how many in mainline denominations believe the basics of the faith? Are they not mostly apostate now? Is it not now widespread to have Sodomist minsters?
I was raised in a Mainline denomination where one was supposed to believe that Jesus was the Son of God (nothing else necessarily). But as one of their ministers told me, Yes, I believe Jesus is the Son of God -- so are you and I, we are all sons of God! I don't recall ever hearing the word "salvation" from the pulpit; it was not really a topic; one did not get saved, but "joined the church." You were supposed to imitate Christ. To think you were saved was likely to get you called something like presumptuous or self-righteous, since no one could know that until after the sheep and goat judgment of our works.
Well, I agree as to historical position of most of the denominations. But nowadays, how many in mainline denominations believe the basics of the faith? Are they not mostly apostate now? Is it not now widespread to have Sodomist minsters?
I was raised in a Mainline denomination where one was supposed to believe that Jesus was the Son of God (nothing else necessarily). But as one of their ministers told me, Yes, I believe Jesus is the Son of God -- so are you and I, we are all sons of God! I don't recall ever hearing the word "salvation" from the pulpit; it was not really a topic; one did not get saved, but "joined the church." You were supposed to imitate Christ. To think you were saved was likely to get you called something like presumptuous or self-righteous, since no one could know that until after the sheep and goat judgment of our works.
I will have you know , sin separates us from God
God has not changed he still hates sin so why must I like it, why should I sin against my God. Do you really think God spirit will dwell in someone submerged in sin. Then Christ has died in vain.
2 Cor 6
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
[SUP]16 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
God has not changed he still hates sin so why must I like it, why should I sin against my God. Do you really think God spirit will dwell in someone submerged in sin. Then Christ has died in vain.
2 Cor 6
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
[SUP]16 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
There is hope for you my friend there is much work to be done.
[h=3]Revelation 2[/h]King James Version (KJV)
2 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
[SUP]2 [/SUP]I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
[h=3]Revelation 2[/h]King James Version (KJV)
2 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
[SUP]2 [/SUP]I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Atwood,
The phrase is found in all of the various churches creeds or statements of belief.
As to the level of God's word, when anyone interprets scripture in declaring that it means as they interpret it, yet hundreds of others don't have the same interpretion, yet, I assume, one thinks that scripture has one meaning, or how can it be ONE Faith. But all interpretations differ, thus of necessity claiming it is what scripture means, namely putting it on the very same level of God inspired, which many also claim. There is nothing in scripture that states the Holy Spirit is giving Revelation constantly over and over to each individual, but based on a text that, at best, one could say was an outline. The assumption by all the sola scripturist I have come into contact with, though unwittingly, make themselves the infallible interpreter of scripture.
Just your statement of I John referring to "anointing". I can assure you that your interpretation is not near what the Church understands and has practiced since the beginning. So, this would be a good example of lifting your interpretation as to the level of God's Word. It supercedes that of the Holy Spirit.
Listen to the posters in this forum and any forum. Then read the writings of all these innovators, actually, just look at the introductions of only a few, none differ from each other. Just go through all the topics on this forum, and see how many differing views there exist on just one topic.
The most telling quip of a sola scripturist is this: Don't put words in my mouth about what I believe, or "how would you know what I believe".
Good questions if one did not claim to be a Christian. But if one is making that claim, since their is ONLY ONE GOSPEL, I would think that every person would of neccessity know what every other believer believed, but also what every believer has believed from the beginning, the ONE same FAith, the ONE same Gospel.
If what you say is so, then over the last 500 years all these people of wisdom should have come to an agreement over what scripture means. Yet, instead of being more unified, it is becoming more fractured all based on men who think their interpretation is the infallible meaning of scripture.
I don't think you will find RCC scholars who differ with the doctrines of the RCC. It they do, they will not be permitted to teach them. If it happens to blatant difference with the norm of the RCC, I can assure you the Church will separate themselves from that person.
Again interpretation. You have the right statements, but the Holy Spirit set up His Church here on earth for a purpose. He is sharing His authority, since He is the Head, with those who have been appointed "presbyters (bishops) to assist in caring for His Church here on earth. The Church is an ontological extension of His Incarnation. After all, believers are the Body, His Body, in its physical manifestion here on earth.
NOw, to say that one gets in by the baptism of the Spirit itself is much different that the Apostles established as the foundation of the Church. Now anyone can make the claim they are a member, and guess what, every denomination, sect, group makes that claims. I had a long discussion with a client, as Christian Science, who believed she was also a member of Christ's Body. She had different idea of how one entered, but that is the nature of sola scripturists. They can create whole new theologies, whole new faiths,different Christs, who all save differently, assign scriptural words to them, after all, they are in scripture.
You asked. Food for thought.
The phrase is found in all of the various churches creeds or statements of belief.
As to the level of God's word, when anyone interprets scripture in declaring that it means as they interpret it, yet hundreds of others don't have the same interpretion, yet, I assume, one thinks that scripture has one meaning, or how can it be ONE Faith. But all interpretations differ, thus of necessity claiming it is what scripture means, namely putting it on the very same level of God inspired, which many also claim. There is nothing in scripture that states the Holy Spirit is giving Revelation constantly over and over to each individual, but based on a text that, at best, one could say was an outline. The assumption by all the sola scripturist I have come into contact with, though unwittingly, make themselves the infallible interpreter of scripture.
Just your statement of I John referring to "anointing". I can assure you that your interpretation is not near what the Church understands and has practiced since the beginning. So, this would be a good example of lifting your interpretation as to the level of God's Word. It supercedes that of the Holy Spirit.
Listen to the posters in this forum and any forum. Then read the writings of all these innovators, actually, just look at the introductions of only a few, none differ from each other. Just go through all the topics on this forum, and see how many differing views there exist on just one topic.
The most telling quip of a sola scripturist is this: Don't put words in my mouth about what I believe, or "how would you know what I believe".
Good questions if one did not claim to be a Christian. But if one is making that claim, since their is ONLY ONE GOSPEL, I would think that every person would of neccessity know what every other believer believed, but also what every believer has believed from the beginning, the ONE same FAith, the ONE same Gospel.
If what you say is so, then over the last 500 years all these people of wisdom should have come to an agreement over what scripture means. Yet, instead of being more unified, it is becoming more fractured all based on men who think their interpretation is the infallible meaning of scripture.
I don't think you will find RCC scholars who differ with the doctrines of the RCC. It they do, they will not be permitted to teach them. If it happens to blatant difference with the norm of the RCC, I can assure you the Church will separate themselves from that person.
Again interpretation. You have the right statements, but the Holy Spirit set up His Church here on earth for a purpose. He is sharing His authority, since He is the Head, with those who have been appointed "presbyters (bishops) to assist in caring for His Church here on earth. The Church is an ontological extension of His Incarnation. After all, believers are the Body, His Body, in its physical manifestion here on earth.
NOw, to say that one gets in by the baptism of the Spirit itself is much different that the Apostles established as the foundation of the Church. Now anyone can make the claim they are a member, and guess what, every denomination, sect, group makes that claims. I had a long discussion with a client, as Christian Science, who believed she was also a member of Christ's Body. She had different idea of how one entered, but that is the nature of sola scripturists. They can create whole new theologies, whole new faiths,different Christs, who all save differently, assign scriptural words to them, after all, they are in scripture.
You asked. Food for thought.
I don't, I believe what the HOLY SPIRIT reveals to me through the Word of GOD.
You are the one that denies the Bible means what it Says.
John 14:9
New King James Version (NKJV)
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
You are the one that denies the Bible means what it Says.
John 14:9
New King James Version (NKJV)
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Atwood,
I speaking of the original meaning. Scripture means hundreds of things, including Mormonism.
When I am refering to what scripture means it is as it was understood in the beginning and has since, unchanged.
OSAS has not been a teaching of The Church. No one even knew what it would have been. Historically, it is derivative of Calvin's presdestination theory that became the foundation, umbrella of his whole system. It is held by only Calvinist obviously, and I have come to understand that some who are not even Calvinist have inserted the theory into whatever they have interpreted as to how a person is being saved. A strange bedfollow to say the least.
which is wholly a protestant interpretation as well. You will find no one prior to the Reformation that held such a view of salvation.
= who can deny the words exist, but the use of them under the doctrine of predestination as ONLY developed by Calvin does it exist. The root of the teaching flows from Manicheanism to Augustine, then to Calvin who is the fifst to employ it into a faith system, theology.
Interpretation. For me that statement means Christ no longer exists. He somehow, somewhere completely disappeared. Christ is the Head of the same Body, His Church that was established at Pentecost, and I believe He still exists today along with the Holy Spirit. Christ had not abandoned His Body as He promised and the Gospel has been preserved unchanged from the beginning.
That was some statement. See what I mean about interpretation.
I asked it but never got an answer. It was not addressed to you however, but maybe you have an answer.
The Church is Christ. The Holy Spirit gave us the Revelation to the Apostles. They established the foundation, they established the practices the definitions that were taught, then practiced from the beginning.
Yes, I do indeed believe that the Church, the Body of Christ over which He is the Head is far superior to a text, that is a witness to that Truth.
Scripture is derived from the Revelation given to the Apostles. scripture was given to you via the Holy Spirit by the Apostles, the foundation of that Church.
Since I am not RCC, I cannot speak for them. I'm Orthodox. However, Christ is far more superior, as is the Holy Spirit than the text.
See how you differ from the early Church, the same Church that exists today, has never not existed with the very same Gospel guarded and preserved by the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ.
I know that scripture uses the word, Body of Christ, and consequently every sect, group, denomination can claim it for themselves as well. They all establish some nebulous, mythical, philosophical definition of a church. Has no shared authority with Christ, has not power and authority over Christ's Gospel, had nothing even remotely similar to the early Church as established by the Apostles. By the way, that very same Church is still in Jerusalem also. Even Antioch and a lot of other places, never left and the Gospel has never changed.
See the Church. Christ established His Church, His Body in this world. That Body is the pillar and ground of Truth. I Tim 3:15.
Scripture states that is NOT the reason He came. Original Sin theory was developed by Augustine. Again part of the melding with his previous pagan background. Rom 5 has nothing dealing with the theory of Original Sin. It fact it clearly denies the theory. Christ did more than propitiate sin also.
Those are words. However, the statement is made on the basis of many discussion with several on this forum as well as others, by their stated theology does not accept the Incarnation alaong with its salvific content.
For all Protestants, the theory of Original Sin precludes the Incarnation as scripture describes either one. For Calvinists one tenet of Limited Atonement, theologically, whether they actually understand it, categorically denies the Incarnation as scripture describes it and its salvific content.
I speaking of the original meaning. Scripture means hundreds of things, including Mormonism.
When I am refering to what scripture means it is as it was understood in the beginning and has since, unchanged.
OSAS has not been a teaching of The Church. No one even knew what it would have been. Historically, it is derivative of Calvin's presdestination theory that became the foundation, umbrella of his whole system. It is held by only Calvinist obviously, and I have come to understand that some who are not even Calvinist have inserted the theory into whatever they have interpreted as to how a person is being saved. A strange bedfollow to say the least.
which is wholly a protestant interpretation as well. You will find no one prior to the Reformation that held such a view of salvation.
= who can deny the words exist, but the use of them under the doctrine of predestination as ONLY developed by Calvin does it exist. The root of the teaching flows from Manicheanism to Augustine, then to Calvin who is the fifst to employ it into a faith system, theology.
Interpretation. For me that statement means Christ no longer exists. He somehow, somewhere completely disappeared. Christ is the Head of the same Body, His Church that was established at Pentecost, and I believe He still exists today along with the Holy Spirit. Christ had not abandoned His Body as He promised and the Gospel has been preserved unchanged from the beginning.
That was some statement. See what I mean about interpretation.
I asked it but never got an answer. It was not addressed to you however, but maybe you have an answer.
The Church is Christ. The Holy Spirit gave us the Revelation to the Apostles. They established the foundation, they established the practices the definitions that were taught, then practiced from the beginning.
Yes, I do indeed believe that the Church, the Body of Christ over which He is the Head is far superior to a text, that is a witness to that Truth.
Scripture is derived from the Revelation given to the Apostles. scripture was given to you via the Holy Spirit by the Apostles, the foundation of that Church.
Since I am not RCC, I cannot speak for them. I'm Orthodox. However, Christ is far more superior, as is the Holy Spirit than the text.
See how you differ from the early Church, the same Church that exists today, has never not existed with the very same Gospel guarded and preserved by the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ.
I know that scripture uses the word, Body of Christ, and consequently every sect, group, denomination can claim it for themselves as well. They all establish some nebulous, mythical, philosophical definition of a church. Has no shared authority with Christ, has not power and authority over Christ's Gospel, had nothing even remotely similar to the early Church as established by the Apostles. By the way, that very same Church is still in Jerusalem also. Even Antioch and a lot of other places, never left and the Gospel has never changed.
See the Church. Christ established His Church, His Body in this world. That Body is the pillar and ground of Truth. I Tim 3:15.
Scripture states that is NOT the reason He came. Original Sin theory was developed by Augustine. Again part of the melding with his previous pagan background. Rom 5 has nothing dealing with the theory of Original Sin. It fact it clearly denies the theory. Christ did more than propitiate sin also.
Those are words. However, the statement is made on the basis of many discussion with several on this forum as well as others, by their stated theology does not accept the Incarnation alaong with its salvific content.
For all Protestants, the theory of Original Sin precludes the Incarnation as scripture describes either one. For Calvinists one tenet of Limited Atonement, theologically, whether they actually understand it, categorically denies the Incarnation as scripture describes it and its salvific content.
The definition of the Church and how it is structured is based on the Trinity. Since no protestant accepts the Biblical definition of what constitutes the Body of Christ, and as established by the Apostles, it is a true statement.
That is more explained in the previous post of mine to you. The word "catholic" does not mean "what the RCC says it means as a primary definition. They no longer are actually catholic in their organization, but it means complete whole. It is based on the "many are one". Every single congregation is the manifestation of the Body of Christ. Without going way beyond this thread, simply no protestant church or group, denomination holds that meaning.
That is more explained in the previous post of mine to you. The word "catholic" does not mean "what the RCC says it means as a primary definition. They no longer are actually catholic in their organization, but it means complete whole. It is based on the "many are one". Every single congregation is the manifestation of the Body of Christ. Without going way beyond this thread, simply no protestant church or group, denomination holds that meaning.