Is anyone planning on...............

[Eleanor]

Redemption:

Christians / saints:

Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Hebrews 9:12
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


God is the redeemer:
Psalm 111:9
Psalm 130:7

Christ is redeemer / redemption

Luke 21:28
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Romans 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Redemption all men:

Jn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Lk 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.



Nothing saying redemption is or equals salvation???

Could refer to salvation in a final or future sense, but not a past tense, accomplished sense:

Ephesians 1:14
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Try an English dictionary, or a Greek lexicon:

redemption = deliverance from (e.g., slavery, sin, death penalty)

salvation = deliverance from (wrath of God, Ro 5:9, and punishment for one's sin)

 

[Frank Robert]

Scripture, understood in context and agreement with all Scripture, is self-interpreting.

It is not that simple.

The Reformation gave rise to a multitude of denominations, each with its unique theological perspectives and interpretations of Scripture. These differences are apparent in various ways. A few examples:

Some denominations emphasize salvation by faith alone, while others combine faith and works as necessary for salvation. Disparities arise in church governance structures, as well as in the understanding of sacraments. Divergent interpretations of the end times and Christ's millennial reign also exist.

Some denominations place importance on creeds and confessions, while others prioritize individual interpretation of the Bible. There are varying biblical interpretations on contemporary social and ethical issues like LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, and social justice.

The richness of interpretations within Protestantism is seen, by some, as a reflection of the diverse tapestry of theological thought within the tradition.

 

[Arial]

It is not that simple.

The Reformation gave rise to a multitude of denominations, each with its unique theological perspectives and interpretations of Scripture. These differences are apparent in various ways. A few examples:

Some denominations emphasize salvation by faith alone, while others combine faith and works as necessary for salvation. Disparities arise in church governance structures, as well as in the understanding of sacraments. Divergent interpretations of the end times and Christ's millennial reign also exist.

Some denominations place importance on creeds and confessions, while others prioritize individual interpretation of the Bible. There are varying biblical interpretations on contemporary social and ethical issues like LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, and social justice.

The richness of interpretations within Protestantism is seen, by some, as a reflection of the diverse tapestry of theological thought within the tradition.

I am wondering why a multitude of denominations with unique theological perspectives and interpretations of scripture is used as an argument against scripture interpreting itself? It is an illogical argument that does not even bother to address scripture interpreting scripture and what that means and how it is done.

 

[Eleanor]

It is not that simple.

Indeed, it is if one handles the Scriptures objectively in the light of all Scripture understood in agreement with itself.

 

[Frank Robert]

I am wondering why a multitude of denominations with unique theological perspectives and interpretations of scripture is used as an argument against scripture interpreting itself? It is an illogical argument that does not even bother to address scripture interpreting scripture and what that means and how it is done.

First, the main argument against sola scriptura is it's an inadequate or flawed basis for Christian doctrine and practice. I can state the key reasoning but you know where you can find them.

Secondly, my comment was that understanding "isn't that simple." There is more to interpretation than scripture and that belief in sola scriptura can lead to divergent interpretations of the Bible can indeed lead to churches splintering or experiencing divisions. This has been a recurring issue in the history of Christianity due to the emphasis on individual interpretation and the autonomy of local congregations.

 

[Frank Robert]

Indeed, it is if one handles the Scriptures objectively in the light of all Scripture understood in agreement with itself.

Not all Christians agree that proponents are handing it objectively. Critics argue that it is self-refuting because they believe it cannot be derived from Scripture itself, therefore requiring an external authority (tradition or church) to establish it. Sola scriptura as self-refuting depends on their theological perspective and interpretation of Scripture.

This debate has been ongoing within Christianity for centuries and remains a matter of theological disagreement. Obviously there is not much we do to end the debate. Sometimes, though, on forums like this, I think we forget that as Christians, regardless of denomination, we are already saved by grace. I don't think that believing one way or the other will have any affect on our grace.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Who's faith are we talking about? The Roman Catholic Faith? Do you really believe the RC belief knows Christ?

Roman Catholicism, like Arminianism, and Calvinism, aren't "FAITHS AT ALL".

They're nothing more than "Theological systems".

 

[Eleanor]

Not all Christians agree that proponents are handing it objectively.

Agreed. . .as well as any single institution.

That's why when it is in agreement with all Scripture understood in the light of itself, we have the truth of it.

It's not complicated.

 

[Arial]

First, the main argument against sola scriptura is it's an inadequate or flawed basis for Christian doctrine and practice.

State them. Don't just tell me I know where to go find them. How would you know that? And when you state them try not to fall back on look at all the church splits and varied doctrines that we have with sola scriptura. That assumes that sola scriptura as part of Protestantism is what caused that. It is not the scriptures that are to blame for this, or the authority of the scriptures, or that scripture interprets itself because it is consistent from beginning to end. It quite often deals with any given subject and is also the self revelation of God. It is people who each have their own mind and own thought processes. But scripture remains true and steady as to what it means in spite of all this.

There were schisms even in the NT church, have always been schisms and variant interpretations, and certainly have been and are within the Catholic church and among her adherents, and always will be schisms. Do you think the proper solution is to bind everyone's mind to the same chain and have one denomination steeped in hierarchy, and man made doctrines and traditions determined by them and them alone?

 

[Frank Robert]

State them. Don't just tell me I know where to go find them. How would you know that?

Try the Catholic Catechism. If you make a statement it is your burden to produce the evidence, not mine to go look it up.

 

[Frank Robert]

And when you state them try not to fall back on look at all the church splits and varied doctrines that we have with sola scriptura.

Now you telling me what I should write.

That assumes that sola scriptura as part of Protestantism is what caused that. It is not the scriptures that are to blame for this, or the authority of the scriptures, or that scripture interprets itself because it is consistent from beginning to end. It quite often deals with any given subject and is also the self revelation of God. It is people who each have their own mind and own thought processes. But scripture remains true and steady as to what it means in spite of all this.

Scriptures are not to blame. What likely causes splitting is diversity of biblical interpretations without a mechanism to address them. In The Catholic church differences are regularly addressed by the magisterium.

There were schisms even in the NT church, have always been schisms and variant interpretations, and certainly have been and are within the Catholic church and among her adherents, and always will be schisms.

Yes there have been and will be in future, Yet, Catholics continue to make up the 51% , roughly 2.3 billion, of all Christians. Could it be that the majority are satisfied that the Catholic Church is correct?

Do you think the proper solution is to bind everyone's mind to the same chain and have one denomination steeped in hierarchy, and man made doctrines and traditions determined by them and them alone?

I don't agree with you that Catholics are being blinded. Catholics are encouraged to do their own Bible interpretations. If they want help or are having a problem understanding there is plenty of of help from the clergy, church leaders and scholars. Also many churches have their own bible groups.

 

[Arial]

Now you telling me what I should write.

I am telling you to use a valid argument.

Scriptures are not to blame. What likely causes splitting is diversity of biblical interpretations without a mechanism to address them. In The Catholic church differences are regularly addressed by the magisterium.

Now you are diverging from the topic, which is scripture interpreting scripture. There is a mechanism to address differing interpretations (and some are less life and death than others as they do not affect one's salvation). The scriptures themselves. It is its own authority and no one has authority over another person's mind. The diversity is the result of person's not arriving at interpretation and doctrine by doing the systematic work. They talk a lot about doing as the Bereans did, check the scriptures to see if what is said is true (and the scriptures they had were the OT writings. And that alone should give you an idea of the consistent consistency within the scriptures themselves) but seldom actually do it. Or they start from a premise they like or heard and then read things into the scriptures. Most of all, they leave far more out in coming to an interpretation.

Yes there have been and will be in future, Yet, Catholics continue to make up the 51% , roughly 2.3 billion, of all Christians. Could it be that the majority are satisfied that the Catholic Church is correct?

Those are just numbers that say nothing. I have noticed in posts here numbers are very important to the RC, in spite of the cautionary tale of David counting his troops and trusting in the number instead of trusting God. Why do these numbers mean nothing? Because it says nothing about the people they have on their rolls. How many consider the Catholic church to be the center of their life? How many attend on a regular basis? How many actually believe what the Catholic church teaches? How many even know what it teaches? How many are Catholic because their family has always been Catholic but it really means nothing to them and is not a part of their life? Heck, if history is any kind of an example practically entire mafia families are Catholic due to being Irish and Italian predominantly, and use the Catholic faith as a means of confession, penance, and forgiveness, then go about their day to day until the next time. Not to disparage the denomination or any groups of people, but those are just facts that show your numbers mean nothing. Also wide is the gate to destruction and many there be that find it shows that a volume of people does not mean the right path is being followed.

I don't agree with you that Catholics are being blinded.

I didn't say blinded.

Catholics are encouraged to do their own Bible interpretations. If they want help or are having a problem understanding there is plenty of of help from the clergy, church leaders and scholars. Also many churches have their own bible groups.

What would happen if for example someone questioned the validity of the Catholic priesthood, pointing out in scripture where they think the Bible is saying it is not valid? Or the veneration of Mary and saints. What if they asked where the Bible proclaims the immaculate conception, or that she remained a virgin all her life when the Bible says she had other sons? Would the Catholic regurgitation be the solution. And what if they would not agree. Would they be excommunicated?

 

[Carbon]

Roman Catholicism, like Arminianism, and Calvinism, aren't "FAITHS AT ALL".

They're nothing more than "Theological systems".

Well, okay, thank you Bob.

 

[Mikeuk]

I wasn't taking the argument there. I was pointing out Catholicism's own hypocrisy as you lobbed the accusation at Protestants.

You have lost every argument you have been in for the simple fact that they all come from a false premise. One that has never been verified no matter how many times you are asked to do so. It is it's own and only witness to the premise.

Sola scriptura is the false premise.
It is logically , historically and scripturally false.
And that is a fact you can never challenge
I feel sorry for those trapped by the myth..

You discount the actual faith handed down by those appointed to do it, preferring the divisive writings of uninspired medieaval writers who invented the false man made tradition of sola scripture, Luther even abused the true canon of scripture.
Tell me. If sola scriptura worked , why are there Arminian’s and calvinists??
The reformers couldn’t even agree with each other,

The abusers represent nobody but themselves. Certainly not catholicism.

My suggestion is you read ignatius and iraneus , discover The REAL early church.
Those who were taught by apostles and knew the succession all the way from apostles to them
The succession of bishops of Rome.
Those who conversed with John.
Then you will know the TRUE Eucharist.
They even have a hand in deciding scripture although that was centuries later.

Anyway arial. At this point I will leave you all to your own devices . Farewell.
illuminator was right.

 

[Arial]

Sola scriptura is the false premise.
It is logically , historically and scripturally false.
And that is a fact you can never challenge
I feel sorry for those trapped by the myth..

I have challenged it and I do challenge it. And I do so with the scriptures. The false premise is with you, who cannot/ won't even articulate what your own premise is.

You discount the actual faith handed down by those appointed to do it, preferring the divisive writings of uninspired medieaval writers who invented the false man made tradition of sola scripture, Luther even abused the true canon of scripture.
Tell me. If sola scriptura worked , why are there Arminian’s and calvinists??
The reformers couldn’t even agree with each other,

Completely illogical reasoning. Until you begin making valid points the stalemate remains.

My suggestion is you read ignatius and iraneus , discover The REAL early church.

I think what I will do now is do a refresher dive into Leo the Grrrreat!

 

[Mikeuk]

I have challenged it and I do challenge it. And I do so with the scriptures. The false premise is with you, who cannot/ won't even articulate what your own premise is.

Completely illogical reasoning. Until you begin making valid points the stalemate remains.

I think what I will do now is do a refresher dive into Leo the Grrrreat!

You can’t challenge it. It is false, start with logically false.
For sola scriptura to be logically true, scripture would have to say it. It doesnt
It also identifies truth outside of itself, so dis proving sola scriptura,

it is also a pointless conversation.
Until you study

1/ how the earlt faith was handed down and who did it. The history of succession
2/ the origin and development of the canon of s rupture and how it was approved
3/ the nature of early church doctrine. What it was like.
you will never know true christianiry.
When you do you will become catholic,
Read ignatius and iraneus. Start there.

To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.
Quote Newman

Farewell.

 

[Arial]

You can’t challenge it. It is false, start with logically false.
For sola scriptura to be logically true, scripture would have to say it. It doesnt
It also identifies truth outside of itself, so dis proving sola scriptura,

it is also a pointless conversation.
Until you study

1/ how the earlt faith was handed down and who did it. The history of succession
2/ the origin and development of the canon of s rupture and how it was approved
3/ the nature of early church doctrine. What it was like.
you will never know true christianiry.
When you do you will become catholic,
Read ignatius and iraneus. Start there.

To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.
Quote Newman

Farewell.

Read the history of Christianity yourself. You act like there were no schisms of controversy or disagreeing doctrines until the Protestant Reformation and sola scriptura. Even in the first century and with the ECF and all the way through history there have been schisms within the Roman church as well. Diverse and divisive doctrines and decrees from within the church. Always. Luther and Calvin were Catholic! What was that but a division within the Roman church? And Pope Leo is the one who declared that the Pope was the successor of Peter and that Peter was named the supreme apostle over the church (which Jesus nowhere declares and it is never mentioned in any of the epistles or in Acts.) God did not declare it. A man did. And it declared itself to be the universal church. And it supports its declaration by also declaring itself to be the authority of the interpretation of scripture.

I do know true Christianity and I am not now and never will be Catholic. One more comment like that and it will be deleted and you will be warned.

 

[donadams]

No, but if we expand it to include the rest of the chapter (and we really should), then I can show you the word re-generation. It's in verse 5... συνεζωοποίησεν

Regeneration as in vs 1 & 5 “he brought us to life”?

Thanks

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Regeneration as in vs 1 & 5 “he brought us to life”?

Thanks

Yep, that's the one.

 

[Eleanor]

Sola scriptura is the false premise.

And anyone who thinks Scripture is not the sole judge of all spiritual truth is subject to deception.