RELIGION....(part 2)

[mannyamador]

---

What?? It is COMPLETE enough and contains enough information for us to know if we have eternal life (1 Jn 5: 13 )

You just wrote that "While NOT everything is chronicled in The Books..." That is a clear admission that there are other truths that are NOT written in the Bible. And just saying we know enough to know if we have eternal life is, of course, a platitude. You can know all that by just reading a single Gospel. But does that mean the rest of the Bible is unnecesary? Obviousily not. In the same way, it also shows that there are other teachings of Christ through His Aposltes which are NOT in the Bible but have been given to the Church by Apostolic Tradition. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot!

Otherwise salvation can be professed when one has it (1 Jn 5: 13, Rom 10: 9, Jn 3: 16 ), it has to be WORKED OUT with fear and trembling (Philippians 2: 12 - 13 ) work out, NOT worked for (Rom 11: 6) but as hard as it is to one can ACCEPT that he doesn't have it if he disobeys (Jn 3: 36 ).

But that is just word play. The fact is that good works are REQUIRED for salvation. Faith alone just won't cut it. Your other foot has a hole in it too now.

[mannyamador]

This is ambiguous there are books where figurative language is used and we should be open to our spiritual eyes and ears, otherwise if it is portraying an event as it is it should be taken literally - save for some of the figurative language spoken by the characters in those events.

And therein lies the problem! What makes YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS any more authoritativer than anyone else's?

The fact is that all throughout protestant history, there have been devout, Bible-reading and Bible-believing christians who just got it all wrong and led others to disaster. Martin Luther, Calvin, Jim Jones, etc. are just some of the more extreme examples.

There are also tens of thousands of such sects and churches, all with different interpretations. Yet all of them make the same claims of discernment and guidance by the Holy Spirit as you. But not all of them can be right, unless the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself. So you have no way of hsowing that your perosnal interpretation is really superior to theirs.

The bottomline: sola scriptura (the principle of using "scripture alone" to define Christian doctrine) and personal interpretation are VERY UNSCRIPTURAL and IRRATIONAL

[fingolfin]

some people just take the bible too literally...tsk.tsk.tsk..

RIGHT!! i think the bible is not something that we should follow, literally. it is just merely a guide, or probably and eye-opener for what is righteous. just for an example, is was said in the bible that God told abraham to kill his son. does that mean that all of us has to kill all our siblings too? its stupid right? what was meant is being obedient to God, live in righteousness and a moral life.

God gave us minds, we should use it

..agree. people who interpret the bible on a literal scale tends to get lost and as what manny said personal interpretations sets in which of course clouds their mind.

[Cardinal Bunal]

The fact is that good works are REQUIRED for salvation.

Show me your faith without deeds and I'll show you my faith by what I do. - James 2: 18
See how one is justified by deeds and NOT by faith alone - 2: 24

This affirms that faith IS manifested through deeds, through helping others (James 1: 27 ) and of course part of those deeds are fleeing temptation and pursuing holiness....... but works are NOT the basis of being saved per se (Rom. 11: 6, Eph. 2: 9 )

We are justified by it because it shows our faith; take note how James illustrates it with the example of Abraham sarificing his son...... it wasn't just faith, it was TRUST.Â*

No one can display his faith by what he does without trusting in God. Belief, trust, and reliance are important - then with all those three would follow obedience.

-----

Romans 10: 9 for example is often distorted by easy believists..... no one has confessed that Jesus is the Lord of their lives if they don't display repentance! Same is true if they don't obey what he has commanded! But Paul writes second, that someone should believe in his heart that God rasied him from the dead and then he will be saved....

You just wrote that "While NOT everything is chronicled in The Books..." That is a clear admission that there are other truths that are NOT written in the Bible. And just saying we know enough to know if we have eternal life is, of course, a platitude. You can know all that by just reading a single Gospel. But does that mean the rest of the Bible is unnecesary? Obviousily not. In the same way, it also shows that there are other teachings of Christ through His Aposltes which are NOT in the Bible but have been given to the Church by Apostolic Tradition. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot!

What?? In John 20: 35, 21: 25 John was speaking in context of Jesus performing miracles and showing himself so that others may believe.... while NOT all of these events are chronicled enough is DEPICTED and RECORDED through written word for everyone to have Salvation in His Name (John 20: 35 ) in other words, the Word expressed through writing, found in The Books is sufficient enough for the most important truth of all: Eternal Life in the Son of God (1 Jn 5: 13 )

What "truths" are you talking about? Events? Or doctrinals?

The Scriptures alone are sufficient enough for doctrinal instruction, training in righteousness and rebuking error... And that I leave to the Bereans.

What we need to know is written all in the New Testament.

[dacs]

Show me your faith without deeds and I'll show you my faith by what I do. - James 2: 18
See how one is justified by deeds and NOT by faith alone - 2: 24

This affirms that faith IS manifested through deeds, through helping others (James 1: 27 ) and of course part of those deeds are fleeing temptation and pursuing holiness....... but works are NOT the basis of being saved per se (Rom. 11: 6, Eph. 2: 9 )

This is an NIV translation of 2 Peter 1:5-8 'For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.Â* For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ'.Â* Here is the KJV version of the same verses : 'And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ'.Â* Note the cross-refence between love and charity.

Here is the NAB version : 'For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion, devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love. If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ'.Â* Love is rendered in Latin as caritatem (charity).

Love/Charity is added up to faith!Â* This is a sure support of the delineation made by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13 between faith, hope and love (and the greatest is love or charity).Â* So Catholic, don't you think so?

We are justified by it because it shows our faith; take note how James illustrates it with the example of Abraham sarificing his son...... it wasn't just faith, it was TRUST.Â*

No one can display his faith by what he does without trusting in God. Belief, trust, and reliance are important - then with all those three would follow obedience.

Bro, read again James 2:24 'See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone'.Â* A person is therefore justified by both faith and charity - not by either faith or charity nor by faith that produces charity.

The Bible says it again : charity supplements faith.Â* Charity is therefore separate from faith.

-----

Romans 10: 9 for example is often distorted by easy believists..... no one has confessed that Jesus is the Lord of their lives if they don't display repentance!

Let us continue that quotation to verses 14-15 : 'But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? And how can people preach unless they are sent?'.Â* How does the early Christian appoint presbyters?Â* Read 1 Timothy 4:14.Â* Can your pastor trace his office to the apostles by the imposition of the hands?Â* It is very unfortunate that this could not be done.

Same is true if they don't obey what he has commanded! But Paul writes second, that someone should believe in his heart that God rasied him from the dead and then he will be saved....

Who are the 'easy believists' again?

What?? In John 20: 35, 21: 25 John was speaking in context of Jesus performing miracles and showing himself so that others may believe.... while NOT all of these events are chronicled enough is DEPICTED and RECORDED through written word for everyone to have Salvation in His Name (John 20: 35 ) in other words, the Word expressed through writing, found in The Books is sufficient enough for the most important truth of all: Eternal Life in the Son of God (1 Jn 5: 13 )

John 20:35Â* I missed that.Â* Could you repeat that, please?

John 21:25 'There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.'

Did the Gospel of John only mentioned miracles?Â* No.Â* In fact, in John 21:15-17, it re-tells the dialogue between Jesus and Peter where Peter was commissioned by Christ to feed Christ's lambs and feed and tend Christ's sheeps.Â* Only Peter the Pope!

What "truths" are you talking about? Events? Or doctrinals?

Since the testimony of John involves both beliefs and events, both must comprised the 'many other things that Jesus did'.

The Scriptures alone are sufficient enough for doctrinal instruction, training in righteousness and rebuking error...

It sure gives full support of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

And that I leave to the Bereans.

What we need to know is written all in the New Testament.

Ah, the Bereans...


WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA
by STEVE RAY


A prominent anti-Catholic organization out of Oregon, with Dave Hunt at the helm, publishes a monthly newsletter entitled The Berean Call. The title is taken from Acts 17, where Paul refers to the Bereans in Asia Minor as "noble-minded," and Hunt chose the title to promote his belief in sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura, or the "Bible only," is a Protestant doctrine invented in the fifteenth century. It declares the Bible is the sole source of revelation and the only and final judge in all matters of the Christian faith. Martin Luther developed it as a reaction to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Fathers of the first centuries. Luther rejected the authority of the Church and the apostolic tradition and so was left with sola scriptura—the Bible alone.

In reality, though, Hunt has turned the episode in Berea on its head, since the noble-minded Bereans actually condemn his sola scriptura position. This Bereans passage has been commandeered by Fundamentalists for too long, and it is time Catholics reclaim it. Many have been troubled by this text, and many explanations from a Catholic perspective have been mediocre at best. Not only can the text be explained easily by Catholics, but it is actually a strong argument against sola scriptura and a convincing defense of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

We are told that the Bereans were more noble-minded (open-minded, better disposed, fair)—but more noble-minded than whom? The Thessalonians! It is convenient for Fundamentalists to pull this passage out of context and force it to stand alone. That way their case seems convincing, but the context tells the real story. Before we look at the Bereans, let’s take a look at those they are compared to, the Thessalonians. What did the Thessalonians do that made them less noble-minded?

We find out in Acts 17:1–9: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and, taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go."

The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that others believed. They treated Paul with contempt and violence, throwing him ignominiously out of town. Why? "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" in the synagogue, as was his custom. They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong. We must remember that many were proclaiming a wide variety of new teachings, all supposedly based on the Scriptures and revelations from God. Heresies, cults, and sects were as numerous in the Roman Empire as they are today. The Jews in Thessalonica had a right to be skeptical.

Now let’s look at Luke’s comment about the noble-minded Bereans: "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17:10–12).

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 12.

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a "tradition," it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an "extension" of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the "other Scriptures," which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.

By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed. Those who held to sola scriptura rejected Paul because he claimed to be the voice of "additional revelation."

Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded. The Bereans passage, therefore, is hardly a proof text for those who espouse sola scriptura. This text proves too much for Fundamentalists. Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans, but the example of the Bereans actually condemns their exegesis. Luke’s praise of the Bereans cannot be applied to Fundamentalist Protestants, who resemble rather the Thessalonians, who held to sola scriptura and rejected the oral word of God contained in Tradition and in the teaching authority of the Church.

To be consistent with his novel theology of sola scriptura, Dave Hunt ought to rename his monthly newsletter. Let me suggest a new title: The Thessalonian Call.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Ray engages in apologetics work in Michigan. He joined the Catholic Church in 1994. He is the author of Crossing the Tiber (Ignatius Press).


God bless you, bro.

[RuSteD]

some people just take the bible too literally...tsk.tsk.tsk..

RIGHT!! i think the bible is not something that we should follow, literally. it is just merely a guide, or probably and eye-opener for what is righteous. just for an example, is was said in the bible that God told abraham to kill his son. does that mean that all of us has to kill all our siblings too? its stupid right? what was meant is being obedient to God, live in righteousness and a moral life.

God gave us minds, we should use it

..agree. people who interpret the bible on a literal scale tends to get lost and as what manny said personal interpretations sets in which of course clouds their mind.

did you know guys that religion is a good business? Imagine you can dictate people on how much to give for it is being stated in the bible. Not to mention its tax free.

[Cardinal Bunal]

It sure gives full support of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Not really.

-----

What Paul is writing in First Timothy - he is NOT referring to presbyters who practice the questionable unorthodox doctrinals that originated from the apostates......

Take note in the same epistle to the young man, he speaks of people who will NOT put up with sound doctrine...... and in verses 4: 1 - 4 orchestrate strange teachings such as abstinence (Lent) and somehow forbidding marriage eventually (celibacy)
And it isn't Biblical that elders of a congregation MUST be celibate. (1 Cor. 7: 9 )

And of course the elders in the Roman clergy are - the priests, the nuns, et cetera.

While the Roman church can indeed trace it's origins way back, it doesn't mean their teachings are all true..... In context of what the apostasy Paul and the other apostles have predicted (2 Cor. 11: 3 - 4) and Isaiah predicting that Israel would return to sin and slavery.... indeed Israel has.... for about 15 centuries.

[dacs]

did you know guys that religion is a good business? Imagine you can dictate people on how much to give for it is being stated in the bible. Not to mention its tax free.

Not in the Catholic Church.

[dacs]

It sure gives full support of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Not really.

-----

What Paul is writing in First Timothy - he is NOT referring to presbyters who practice the questionable unorthodox doctrinals that originated from the apostates......

Take note in the same epistle to the young man, he speaks of people who will NOT put up with sound doctrine...... and in verses 4: 1 - 4 orchestrate strange teachings such as abstinence (Lent) and somehow forbidding marriage eventually (celibacy)
And it isn't Biblical that elders of a congregation MUST be celibate. (1 Cor. 7: 9 )

And of course the elders in the Roman clergy are - the priests, the nuns, et cetera.

While the Roman church can indeed trace it's origins way back, it doesn't mean their teachings are all true..... In context of what the apostasy Paul and the other apostles have predicted (2 Cor. 11: 3 - 4) and Isaiah predicting that Israel would return to sin and slavery.... indeed Israel has.... for about 15 centuries.

Sorry, bro, but you have just lost credibility in arguing your case. You show no proof of your assertion.

In the court of law, you have no case.

Case closed.

[Cardinal Bunal]

Sorry, bro, but you have just lost credibility in arguing your case. You show no proof of your assertion.

In the court of law, you have no case.

Case closed.

Naa oi...... it's in Isaiah I think, where Israel (the universal church) would turn their backs on Christ and walk hand in hand back to the yoke of sin, slavery and deception and only a remnant would return.

Those who have their allegiance on Jesus Christ alone and His Gospel in it's unadulterated form, those without errors of hedonistic easy believism or heterodox or Gnosticism and et cetera, but those who abide in His teachings. They are the remnant.