NOT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURES.

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
It is my opinion. But it makes sense. It did take much longer for the early church to accept James, 2 and 3rd John, et. al. as Scripture.
Alright---just remember--you are the one who brought the horse out of the barn so now we are going to ride it.

Which Church are you talking about when you cite that the "Early Church took longer to accept James?" Do you mean the Lutheran Church? If not, which Church do you mean?
I never said there is anything like that in the Bible. I wrote "I think that such books...". Perhaps you need to clean off your glasses.
What does your opinion have to do with anything?
Of course we are to follow the moral law. But in Ephesians 2:8-10, in context, Paul is talking about GOOD works, not works of the Jewish Law of Moses. He also makes this plain in Titus where he writes "He saved us, NOT on the basis of works we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy..."

Works done in righteousness are good works, are they not?
As I said: no good work can merit the gift of Faith. But once we are given the gift of Faith, that Faith works in love. Thus, works are saving.
A living faith leads to our wanting to do God's will and show love for others--not because we must, but because we want to.
No kidding!
If people see Jesus Christ in us, due to our good works done in love, then Jesus will be glorified and so will His Father in Heaven. They could also lead an unbeliever to Jesus Christ and salvation.
Great. 100% agreed.
False. Paul said "and NOT by works." Not, not, not. Works do not save us; they vindicate our faith, that it is genuine and living, plus they serve our neighbor.
I guess the question is: once we are given the gift of Faith, and that Faith works in love, how could it NOT be saving?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Alright---just remember--you are the one who brought the horse out of the barn so now we are going to ride it.

Which Church are you talking about when you cite that the "Early Church took longer to accept James?" Do you mean the Lutheran Church? If not, which Church do you mean?

I think that would be obvious which "church" I am talking about--the pre-RCC church.
What does your opinion have to do with anything?

Have I not a right to my opinion on here? But it makes sense to me that the anti-legomena books should be read in light of the homolegomena books--those that were accepted in the early church almost as soon as they were written down.

Here is something I put on this board earlier, on another thread, that a church historian, Dr. Nolan, wrote to me about the canon and what Luther thought about it:


James only seems on the surface to contradict what Paul wrote--but only if taken out of context and if the rest of the NT is ignored.
As I said: no good work can merit the gift of Faith. But once we are given the gift of Faith, that Faith works in love. Thus, works are saving.

You are wrong, as Paul wrote. What part of "NOT by works" do you not get? What part of "He saved us, NOT on account of works which we have done"--past tense--"in righteousness, but on account of His mercy."

What part of "not on account of works we have done in righteousness" do you not understand?
No kidding!

Great. 100% agreed.

Then if you agree, why did you write this: "Since Jesus and Jesus alone is the judge, what difference does it make what others think? The only person we need to prove our Faith to is Jesus. What difference does it make if we can "vindicate" our Faith before others?"
I guess the question is: once we are given the gift of Faith, and that Faith works in love, how could it NOT be saving?
Because what if someone does more good works than someone else, in faith? Is that person more saved than that other fellow? How does one know when one has done enough saving works in faith, to stay saved? What is the measuring stick? How do we know?

No, relying on our works to stay saved makes us the savior of us, instead of Jesus Christ, Who alone saves. Far better to rely on the promises of Jesus Christ that "for God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

Here is one terrific sermon that explains why we dare not rely on our works to save us or keep us saved. I put a link to it earlier on this board, but don't know where now. But here it is again:


Did you read it earlier? If you did, then my apologies for repeating it on here.

No, the works we do IN RIGHTEOUSNESS do not save us. They are the result of salvation, not the cause. I hope someday you discern the difference. May the HS enlighten you.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
I wasn't speaking from the perspective of a moderator. When I said "You aren't allowed..." I was pointing out that the poster wants to have her cake and eat it.

As a Lutheran, the Protestant wants to deny the authority of the Church and Tradition and claim to go by the Scriptures alone, except when she wants to appeal to the authority of Church and Tradition when she doesn't want to go by the Scriptures alone.

No--see--you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You cannot appeal to Tradition, yet turn around and tell Catholics they can only appeal to the Bible.
You cannot appeal to Tradition, yet turn around and tell Catholics they can only appeal to the Bible.

This is you STILL not understanding Sola scriptura. No one says you can ONLY appeal to scripture. After all these years you'd think you would know that by now apparently not.

Your rant is unwarranted.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I wasn't speaking from the perspective of a moderator. When I said "You aren't allowed..." I was pointing out that the poster wants to have her cake and eat it.

The part about judging the antilegomena books by the homolegomena books was my opinion. I made that plain. I wrote in post no. 92: " I think such books should be judged in light of the ones that were NOT "spoken against"--like Romans." I also said in my next post that it was MY OPINION and do I not have a right to my opinion?
As a Lutheran, the Protestant wants to deny the authority of the Church and Tradition and claim to go by the Scriptures alone, except when she wants to appeal to the authority of Church and Tradition when she doesn't want to go by the Scriptures alone.

I didn't appeal to any church authority or Tradition but made it plain it was my opinion. I think it has merit. But your rant here is unwarranted because we still accept James as Scripture and fully inspired. But James should be read in light of Romans or any other book in the NT. ALL of Scripture is a cohesive whole.
No--see--you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You cannot appeal to Tradition, yet turn around and tell Catholics they can only appeal to the Bible.
Again, it was my opinion. I wrote it was what I think. I never said one word about "tradition" in my church or any other.

Perhaps a trip to the optometrist is in your future, Romish. :)
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
So, you purposefully tried to slander me by claiming that I'm a protester of Rome when that not what being a Protestant meant? It was a protest against religious persecution?
did you read/reread the first part of your link?

Are you going to interact with my comment, or are you just going to officiate my point by fixating on the modern genetic use of the term that has no relevance to me protesting Rome itself? We are not protesters of Rome, no matter how often Rome says this. It is a term that developed in an historical context that doesn't imply what you are using it to imply. In this way, you are clearly wrong.

God Bless
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
The part about judging the antilegomena books by the homolegomena books was my opinion. I made that plain. I wrote in post no. 92: " I think such books should be judged in light of the ones that were NOT "spoken against"--like Romans." I also said in my next post that it was MY OPINION and do I not have a right to my opinion?
You have a right to your opinion. But if you are going to give an opinion on such an important matter, shouldn't you be citing Scripture? You see, you believe your opinion is correct, and you believe I am in the wrong.
I didn't appeal to any church authority or Tradition but made it plain it was my opinion. I think it has merit. But your rant here is unwarranted because we still accept James as Scripture and fully inspired. But James should be read in light of Romans or any other book in the NT. ALL of Scripture is a cohesive whole.
See, no. In other words--you seem to want to take a position on something--and then turn around and claim "It is just opinion!" when challenged.

You strike me like the comedians on TV who do fake news programs. They want to comment on the news of the day and be taken seriously. Then when people challenge them, they want to turn around and claim "No, I am just a comedian! I am not a real news person!"

In other words--you want to hide behind "It is just opinion" when it suits you.
 

Misfit

Well-known member
With all due respect it seems you are deflecting because of your not feeling the need to test what others tell you, even your own church and their leadership.
That's right, because I believe my church was/is the Christian Church, the visible church on this earth that was established by Jesus Christ. I don't test Jesus and His claim that He is the Messiah, the Savior of the world either. I accept both (Jesus and the Church) on the basis of faith. So no, I am not deflecting, this is how I feel about it.

The Christian faith was not newly emerging. It was established with Christ's death on the cross,
Yes, it was established by Jesus on the Cross, the New Covenant of which He spoke. But I will maintain that it was newly evolving, post His death and resurrection, and post the Apostles through the earliest centuries. Things concerning the Christian way were thought out by the theologians of those days, debated by the bishops of the Christian Church of those days, and then put into practice. The Christian Church has never remained stagnant, not with the first great schism in the 11th century, nor with the other great schism in the 16th century.

The HRCC has declared IT is the only true representative of Christ on earth and remember as you advised in your first response to me,
Jesus set the Church up and the Bishops of the Catholic Church confirmed it. To be exact, this is what I said, to wit: "Nope, He did not do that. He set up the Church and you would be wise to listen to it". (Post #16)
I know you will not give quarter on this dogma but out of love I want you to see you are believing a lie.
With all due respect, you are only giving your opinion on this issue here and I do not believe it is a lie. It is a teaching that has stood the test of time for over a millennium and a half (and to this very day), believed by all of Christendom for all that time. It was only when some men rose up in the 16th century and thought they knew better, that only they now had the "truth" on this issue that this belief was changed. It is a solid and true orthodox teaching right from Jesus Christ Himself. It is the basis of orthodox Christian belief and the summit of orthodox worship. We will forever remain in disagreement on this issue. (At least until you stand before Him in heaven and He sets you straight) LOL!
It was established as a dogma at Trent to correct an error of Thomas Aquinas so it is much more then "simply a word". The claim of the RCC is this is a belief that the "church" has believed from its beginning which is not true
This is not a big thing for me one way or the other. Whatever it is called is irrelevant to me as I accept this truth of the "Real Presence" as a matter of faith. If Jesus can rise from the dead, if He can raise others from the dead, if He can ascend into heaven on a cloud, if he can do all the things that are impossible for humans to do, things that are hard for men to comprehend, He can make Himself as the permanent Memorial we know as Holy Communion. Such a thing is accepted on the basis of faith, nothing more, nothing less.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
You have a right to your opinion. But if you are going to give an opinion on such an important matter, shouldn't you be citing Scripture?
Oh, this is RICH! Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture to cite such important doctrines as Mary's PV, IC, Assumption into heaven, and being crowned Queen of Heaven? Only hope for sinners?

Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture supporting the necessity of being subject to the pope for salvation? Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture to support something as important as praying to the dead in tbe Lord? Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture that Clergy MUST be single and remain single?

Pot, meet kettle!
You see, you believe your opinion is correct, and you believe I am in the wrong.

At least I freely admit it is my opinion. You wrongly assumed I was talking about Tradition, because you did not read me very carefully.
See, no. In other words--you seem to want to take a position on something--and then turn around and claim "It is just opinion!" when challenged.

I admitted it is my opinion.
You strike me like the comedians on TV who do fake news programs. They want to comment on the news of the day and be taken seriously. Then when people challenge them, they want to turn around and claim "No, I am just a comedian! I am not a real news person!"
Your analogy falls flat. Fake news purveyors set out to deceive. I do not. I have been above board and honest.
I admitted it was my opinion. I hid nothing. Nothing was fake.
In other words--you want to hide behind "It is just opinion" when it suits you.
In other words, you are hiding behind this one minor point, so as not to deal with the rest of what I posted:

1. James is Scripture.
2. Paul's epistles are Scripture.
3. All Scripture must be taken as a whole, not isolated.
4. James must be read as a whole, not just a few verses, not building a doctrine around them, and ignore what Paul wrote.

Paul wrote "NOT by works" and "NOT on account of works we have done in righteousness."

What part of "NOT" don't you get?

Now, how about answering my questions in post no. 104 and dealing with my other points in it, hmmm? And did you read the sermon in the link?
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Oh, this is RICH! Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture to cite such important doctrines as Mary's PV, IC, Assumption into heaven, and being crowned Queen of Heaven? Only hope for sinners?

Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture supporting the necessity of being subject to the pope for salvation? Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture to support something as important as praying to the dead in tbe Lord? Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture that Clergy MUST be single and remain single?

Pot, meet kettle!


At least I freely admit it is my opinion. You wrongly assumed I was talking about Tradition, because you did not read me very carefully.


I admitted it is my opinion.

Your analogy falls flat. Fake news purveyors set out to deceive. I do not. I have been above board and honest.
I admitted it was my opinion. I hid nothing. Nothing was fake.

In other words, you are hiding behind this one minor point, so as not to deal with the rest of what I posted:

1. James is Scripture.
2. Paul's epistles are Scripture.
3. All Scripture must be taken as a whole, not isolated.
4. James must be read as a whole, not just a few verses, not building a doctrine around them, and ignore what Paul wrote.

Paul wrote "NOT by works" and "NOT on account of works we have done in righteousness."

What part of "NOT" don't you get?

Now, how about answering my questions in post no. 104 and dealing with my other points in it, hmmm? And did you read the sermon in the link?
And what part of "We are NOT saved by Faith alone" do you not get?
 

mica

Well-known member
Bonnie said:
Oh, this is RICH! Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture to cite such important doctrines as Mary's PV, IC, Assumption into heaven, and being crowned Queen of Heaven? Only hope for sinners?

Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture supporting the necessity of being subject to the pope for salvation? Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture to support something as important as praying to the dead in tbe Lord? Shouldn't YOU be citing Scripture that Clergy MUST be single and remain single?

Pot, meet kettle!

At least I freely admit it is my opinion. You wrongly assumed I was talking about Tradition, because you did not read me very carefully.

I admitted it is my opinion.

Your analogy falls flat. Fake news purveyors set out to deceive. I do not. I have been above board and honest.
I admitted it was my opinion. I hid nothing. Nothing was fake.

In other words, you are hiding behind this one minor point, so as not to deal with the rest of what I posted:

1. James is Scripture.
2. Paul's epistles are Scripture.
3. All Scripture must be taken as a whole, not isolated.
4. James must be read as a whole, not just a few verses, not building a doctrine around them, and ignore what Paul wrote.

Paul wrote "NOT by works" and "NOT on account of works we have done in righteousness."

What part of "NOT" don't you get?

Now, how about answering my questions in post no. 104 and dealing with my other points in it, hmmm? And did you read the sermon in the link?
And what part of "We are NOT saved by Faith alone" do you not get?
those who believe that are not saved. believers know that it is by faith alone in Christ alone.

you should read your own posts to see how you contradict yourself.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
So, Paul contradicts James? Paul should be ignored? We should throw out Paul and just use James?
No. There is no contradiction. There is only a contradiction when you try to make your fundamentalist theology (square peg) fit into a round hole.

Paul is taking about how one is initially justified. James is talking about what happens AFTER one is justified.

One is justified by Faith alone. Once one is justified, that Faith through which we are justified merits heavenly rewards because after justification, Faith works in love.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
So, Paul contradicts James? Paul should be ignored? We should throw out Paul and just use James?
Well, the RCC and its sycophants do ignore Paul and the rest of the Bible, unless they can use it to support their theology. 😕 The RCC believes that it is the master of the Bible, not the other way around. ("We brought the Bible together!" "We are the only authorized interpreters!" "We are the only way to God!" et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.) Truly, it's the religion of the world - "Let us build a tower to reach Heaven!"

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
That's right, because I believe my church was/is the Christian Church, the visible church on this earth that was established by Jesus Christ. I don't test Jesus and His claim that He is the Messiah, the Savior of the world either. I accept both (Jesus and the Church) on the basis of faith. So no, I am not deflecting, this is how I feel about it.

Good morning. I hope you and your family are well. So, here I go;

And on this we part ways also. I do not believe the RCC is the church of our Lord and Savior. Do born-again Christians belong to this institution? I would venture yes.

Yes, it was established by Jesus on the Cross, the New Covenant of which He spoke. But I will maintain that it was newly evolving, post His death and resurrection, and post the Apostles through the earliest centuries. Things concerning the Christian way were thought out by the theologians of those days, debated by the bishops of the Christian Church of those days, and then put into practice. The Christian Church has never remained stagnant, not with the first great schism in the 11th century, nor with the other great schism in the 16th century.

What was evolving?

Matthew 28:16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [f]always, even to the end of the age.”

Don't misunderstand me. Theology is an important aspect of our faith. It defines the essentials of it. Would we be here if we weren't concerned about proper theology...however, when "theologians", ecclesiastical authorities" depart from Scripture and establish another gospel Paul tells us:

Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel, 7 which is not just another account; but there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, even now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

The Gospel had already been preached. Said and done. It has been given, already, in its fulness so I struggle with the additional "necessities" added by self-appointed institutions like the RCC.

Psalm 62
5 Rest in God alone, my soul,
for my hope comes from Him.
6 He alone is my rock and my salvation,
my stronghold; I will not be shaken.
7 My salvation and glory depend on God, my strong rock.
My refuge is in God.
8 Trust in Him at all times, you people;
pour out your hearts before Him.
God is our refuge. Selah
9 Men are only a vapor;
exalted men, an illusion.
Weighed in the scales, they go up;
together they are less than a vapor.


Jesus set the Church up and the Bishops of the Catholic Church confirmed it. To be exact, this is what I said, to wit: "Nope, He did not do that. He set up the Church and you would be wise to listen to it". (Post #16)

Yes, I didn't quote the last sentence correctly. Apologies for using my memory rather then pulling the quote directly from your comment. But that said, I don't put my faith in men, a religious institution. I put my faith in Christ as revealed in Scripture through the Holy Spirit. You know...2 Timothy 3:16-17. :)

With all due respect, you are only giving your opinion on this issue here and I do not believe it is a lie. It is a teaching that has stood the test of time for over a millennium and a half (and to this very day), believed by all of Christendom for all that time.

It was only when some men rose up in the 16th century and thought they knew better, that only they now had the "truth" on this issue that this belief was changed. It is a solid and true orthodox teaching right from Jesus Christ Himself. It is the basis of orthodox Christian belief and the summit of orthodox worship. We will forever remain in disagreement on this issue. (At least until you stand before Him in heaven and He sets you straight) LOL!

Tertullian:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

There isn't a way to hold water in a sieve and that is what you are trying to do with the RCC teaching of transubstantiation. It doesn't hold water. You only believe it because your religious institution tells you to. But that said, irrespective of what we believe about communion it is not an essential for salvation for that is by Grace, thru faith and not of works. Communion is to be done in remembrance when we gather.

This is not a big thing for me one way or the other. Whatever it is called is irrelevant to me as I accept this truth of the "Real Presence" as a matter of faith. If Jesus can rise from the dead, if He can raise others from the dead, if He can ascend into heaven on a cloud, if he can do all the things that are impossible for humans to do, things that are hard for men to comprehend, He can make Himself as the permanent Memorial we know as Holy Communion. Such a thing is accepted on the basis of faith, nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing is impossible for God. Your conclusion is true. And your faith is placed in what the RCC tells you to believe. I don't. I don't believe or hold the RCC as the (only) authoritative representative of Christ on earth. It is not the church He established. The body of Christ is. His children. His co-heirs. Born-again followers of they way.
 

4Him

Administrator
Staff member
No. There is no contradiction. There is only a contradiction when you try to make your fundamentalist theology (square peg) fit into a round hole.

Paul is taking about how one is initially justified. James is talking about what happens AFTER one is justified.

No such thing as initial justification. That is a Catholic lie pushed by your apostate church. Scripture teaches nothing of the sort.
One is justified by Faith alone. Once one is justified, that Faith through which we are justified merits heavenly rewards because after justification, Faith works in love.

Justification isn't a reward for doing good....so justification is always by faith alone.....works simply justify'evidence your faith.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Tertullian:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

There isn't a way to hold water in a sieve and that is what you are trying to do with the RCC teaching of transubstantiation. It doesn't hold water. You only believe it because your religious institution tells you to. But that said, irrespective of what we believe about communion it is not an essential for salvation for that is by Grace, thru faith and not of works. Communion is to be done in remembrance when we gather.
Tertullian continues....

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body…

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretend[ing] the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it.

Tertullian makes clear in multiple places that he believed that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine:

On Modesty, chapter 9:

He (the prodigal who comes back to Christ) receives again the pristine garment,–the condition, to wit, which Adam by transgression had lost. The ring also he is then wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon the fatness of the Lord’s body—the Eucharist, to wit. [CA - Staples]
 
Top