Trying to make sense of the Five "Solas" of Salvation

keano_afc

alma73 wrote: »

There is zero logic for God to die on the Cross, but he did.

You don't look for someone to look after your mother if you have siblings do you?

Eh, what? The cross is entirely logical. Scripture from the Old Testament repeatedly pointed to the cross.

It's illogical to think a woman wouldn't have sex with her husband for the rest of her life. God created sex as something wonderful to be enjoyed in the context of marriage. Mary was an unclean woman, and a sinner, hence her taking part in the cleansing ritual after Christ's birth. The idea that she had to remain some sort of impure vessel, AFTER Christ's birth, makes no sense.

uck51js9zml2yt

Alma said that espousal was marriage. It wasn't.

It was an arranged marriage( as would have been custom) where they agreed to marry.
The angel tells Joseph to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife. In short they hadn't been married yet, therefore it makes sense that they hadn't had sex up to then. For scripture to say that they didnt have sex until after Jesus birth makes perfect sense.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

What is it written in the Bible that we should not assume anything beyond the text? Christ said to Peter lead his sheep, Do you believe that the apostles selected successors?

Good morning all!

I believe the apostles had a special function. There are no apostles today.

What the apostles did after their ministry was to train ministers to lead Christ's church. For example Titus in Crete or Timothy in Ephesus. If you read Paul's instruction to them, it seems like he asked them to minister and to preach the same gospel that they received. Nothing more and nothing less.

So do I think the apostles appointed successors? No. They didn't appoint new apostles. That's a unique role that they shared as eyewitnesses to the Lord. But did they appoint ministers? Yeah, sure.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

I believe the apostles had a special function. There are no apostles today.

What the apostles did after their ministry was to train ministers to lead Christ's church. For example Titus in Crete or Timothy in Ephesus. If you read Paul's instruction to them, it seems like he asked them to minister and to preach the same gospel that they received. Nothing more and nothing less.

So do I think the apostles appointed successors? No. They didn't appoint new apostles. That's a unique role that they shared as eyewitnesses to the Lord. But did they appoint ministers? Yeah, sure.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

So the apostles did name men who would preach the same faith that they taught. These men succeeded the apostles once they died or moved to another location.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

So the apostles did name men who would preach the same faith that they taught. These men succeeded the apostles once they died or moved to another location.

Good morning!

I don't think anyone succeeded the apostles but they did appoint ministers.

They taught the Christian Gospel. That's what Titus and Timothy were commissioned to do.

What's the point here?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think anyone succeeded the apostles but they did appoint ministers.

They taught the Christian Gospel. That's what Titus and Timothy were commissioned to do.

What's the point here?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

My point is that the mission that Christ gave to his apostles did not die with the Apostles.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As Christ gave his mission to his apostles, do did the apostles appoint proven men to carry on this same mission. As the bible says there is a succession of the apostles teaching to men the apostles appointed.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

My point is that the mission that Christ gave to his apostles did not die with the Apostles.



As Christ gave his mission to his apostles, do did the apostles appoint proven men to carry on this same mission. As the bible says there is a succession of the apostles teaching to men the apostles appointed.

Good morning!

I agree that the Gospel is preached from one generation to the next.

This is what all Christians believe. This doesn't mean that the Roman Catholic Church (or any other for that matter) has a special status of indeed that any church can add to the Biblical Gospel.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I agree that the Gospel is preached from one generation to the next.

This is what all Christians believe. This doesn't mean that the Roman Catholic Church (or any other for that matter) has a special status of indeed that any church can add to the Biblical Gospel.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

They Church did add anything, it taught the faith that was always taught.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

They Church did add anything, it taught the faith that was always taught.

Good afternoon!

You're making an assumption that I don't make.

I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ and the apostles. This was simply the Christian church.

Can you please outline your point in full!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

uck51js9zml2yt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

I believe the apostles had a special function. There are no apostles today.

What the apostles did after their ministry was to train ministers to lead Christ's church. For example Titus in Crete or Timothy in Ephesus. If you read Paul's instruction to them, it seems like he asked them to minister and to preach the same gospel that they received. Nothing more and nothing less.

So do I think the apostles appointed successors? No. They didn't appoint new apostles. That's a unique role that they shared as eyewitnesses to the Lord. But did they appoint ministers? Yeah, sure.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Whats your basis for that belief?

Ephesians clearly says God has given 5 ministries to the Church, Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers and Evangelists "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ"

What part of the reasoning for having them is no longer needed by the Church?

Maybe we don't need to be equipped for ministry, or we a have a united faith, or is it we have come to the full knowledge of the Son of God?

Maybe if we dont need Apostles, we also dont need Pastors, Teachers or Evangelists? They are in the same list!

solodeogloria

Rachel Many Couch wrote: »

Whats your basis for that belief?

Ephesians clearly says God has given 5 ministries to the Church, Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers and Evangelists "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ"0

What part of the reasoning for having them is no longer needed by the Church?

The question is a good one.

Maybe we don't need to be equipped for ministry, or we a have a united faith, or is it we have come to the full knowledge of the Son of God?

Maybe if we dont need Apostles, we also dont need Pastors, Teachers or Evangelists? They are in the same list!

Good afternoon!

In Acts we see a lot about the criteria about apostleship. In chapter 1 when Mattias is chosen to succeed Judas we see that they shortlist those who had witnessed the Lord Jesus. In Paul's case he also witnessed Jesus personally in a different way. This is why we consider him Apostle to the Gentiles.

We have the witness of the Apostles today just as they did in the first century. The difference is we all have the written words of the Apostles rather than the first hand witness of Jesus.

Biblically we see no precedent for Apostleship being handed down but we do see ministers being appointed to ensure the furthering of the Gospel in various places in the New Testament.

To get to the heart of this question we need to ask what is the function of an apostle versus a minister in a church.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

uck51js9zml2yt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

In Acts we see a lot about the criteria about apostleship. In chapter 1 when Mattias is chosen to succeed Judas we see that they shortlist those who had witnessed the Lord Jesus. In Paul's case he also witnessed Jesus personally in a different way. This is why we consider him Apostle to the Gentiles.

We have the witness of the Apostles today just as they did in the first century. The difference is we all have the written words of the Apostles rather than the first hand witness of Jesus.

Biblically we see no precedent for Apostleship being handed down but we do see ministers being appointed to ensure the furthering of the Gospel in various places in the New Testament.

To get to the heart of this question we need to ask what is the function of an apostle versus a minister in a church.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nowhere did I refer to a handing down on a Spiritual Gift to another...and you didnt answer my questions?

As for appointments. Its God who appoints and who distributes the Gifts as He wills.
Regarding Mattias, as he's not mentioned again its questionable as to whether he really was Gods appointment and therefore really was an Apostle.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Please be assured I'm trying my best to answer your question.

In order to get into it properly we need to ask what is apostleship. The New Testament picture from what I can see is that apostles are particular people who witnessed the Lord Jesus Christ who were commissioned to take the Gospel into the world. The twelve were called apostles in Matthew 10 for example. Matthias took the place of one of these twelve. Paul was also counted an apostle due to witnessing the Lord Jesus.

I'm not convinced that apostleship is a gift but rather a specific function. This is why we need to get into the nitty gritty of how an apostle is different from a minister.

We need the apostles teaching today just as then. It just happens to come in written form.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

You're making an assumption that I don't make.

I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ and the apostles. This was simply the Christian church.

Can you please outline your point in full!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I know you don't believe that the Catholic Church is not the one founded by Christ. However I find it hard to accept that 1500 after Christ we should follow the interpretations of Holy Scripture of some Catholics who rejected their Church.

I heard the point made that the Church deformed after the apostles, but there is a wide ranging debate among protestants on this.

We know Peter went to Rome, 70 years after Christ's death there are already written records of Peter's Church in Rome.

The successor of Peter did not alter the message given to him

You accept that Linus was in Rome, Right?

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

I know you don't believe that the Catholic Church is not the one founded by Christ. However I find it hard to accept that 1500 after Christ we should follow the interpretations of Holy Scripture of some Catholics who rejected their Church.

I heard the point made that the Church deformed after the apostles, but there is a wide ranging debate among protestants on this.

We know Peter went to Rome, 70 years after Christ's death there are already written records of Peter's Church in Rome.

The successor of Peter did not alter the message given to him

You accept that Linus was in Rome, Right?

Good evening.

Could you please explain what your point is?

My aim for posting on this thread was to defend the cause of the Reformation which is what the original post was criticising. I'm not asking you to "follow" anything. I'm merely stating what the Biblical text says on the varying issues that were being raised. I'm defending my Biblical convictions which were being criticised on this thread.

I don't agree that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Peter, or any of the other apostles. The apostolic Christian church pre-dates Roman Catholicism. Your church doesn't own apostolic history any more than mine does.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

Much of your rejection of the Catholic Churches teaching is directed towards Roman Catholics, (they Church happens to be 23 churches, not just Roman).

The Armenian Church which separated 1500 years ago shares much with the Catholic Church. So much of what you reject was Christian teaching from the first centuries. The Pope didn't invent it.

You are defending an argument that is not written in the bible.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

Much of your rejection of the Catholic Churches teaching is directed towards Roman Catholics, (they Church happens to be 23 churches, not just Roman).

The Armenian Church which separated 1500 years ago shares much with the Catholic Church. So much of what you reject was Christian teaching from the first centuries. The Pope didn't invent it.

You are defending an argument that is not written in the bible.

Good evening!

As I said previously - please state what exactly your point is? Or indeed if you'd like to present something new please do this.

I simply believe what the Bible says about Christ.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

Did the apostles teach their followers only to believe what was written or what they taught?

"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2: 15).

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I've already answered that question earlier in the thread. If there's nothing new to discuss I'm happy to leave the discussion here but I won't repeat myself.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

uck51js9zml2yt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Please be assured I'm trying my best to answer your question.

In order to get into it properly we need to ask what is apostleship. The New Testament picture from what I can see is that apostles are particular people who witnessed the Lord Jesus Christ who were commissioned to take the Gospel into the world. The twelve were called apostles in Matthew 10 for example. Matthias took the place of one of these twelve. Paul was also counted an apostle due to witnessing the Lord Jesus.

I'm not convinced that apostleship is a gift but rather a specific function. This is why we need to get into the nitty gritty of how an apostle is different from a minister.

We need the apostles teaching today just as then. It just happens to come in written form.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Your missing the point Solo.
Paul wasn't an Apostle due to seeing Jesus. He was an Apostle or Sent One because that was his calling and function. Just as others function is to be a teacher, pastor, prophet and evangelist. Whether we call it a function or a gift. I personally go with function, they still need the gifting of the Spirit to exercise the function.

If you want to dispense with the need of Apostles, lets also dispense with the rest of the ministries. Its dangerous territory to start deciding what we need and don't need !!

As to their purpose, Ephesians clearly sets it out to which I referred earlier and you've failed to address it.
Scripture says clearly that all the ministries are needed for the building up of the body, the equipping of the Church for the ministry until we all come to a unity in the faith. All 5 ministries are needed for this to be fulfilled. Which of the reasons for their being have been fulfilled that we can dispense with any of them?

As for Paul being an Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Being a witness of Jesus had nothing to do with their sphere of ministry.
Paul went to the Jews first and then the Gentiles, the latter due to the Jews rejection. Peter went to all the groups, Jews, Samaritans and then the Gentiles. Its interesting to note that was the order of the Commissioning they received from the Lord.
We also note that in Antioch Paul and Barnabas were among other prophets and teachers and it was here that they were separated to the ministry and sent to the gentiles. In this context Barnabas was the senior (first mentioned in Acts 4.3) and more experienced and was mentoring Paul. Both were Apostles, both were "Sent Ones".


Romans 16v7 refers to Andronicus and Junia who were of note among the Apostles. In my studies over the years its been suggested that they were in fact Apostles, its debatable and opinions differ depending on the stance of the authors but nevertheless it's in some peoples thinking. Quote: my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me"

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Rachel Many Couch wrote: »

Your missing the point Solo.
Paul wasn't an Apostle due to seeing Jesus. He was an Apostle or Sent One because that was his calling and function. Just as others function is to be a teacher, pastor, prophet and evangelist. Whether we call it a function or a gift. I personally go with function, they still need the gifting of the Spirit to exercise the function.

Yes, but as I've mentioned earlier. First hand witness seems to be a part of that calling as we see in the case of Acts 1. Ephesians 4 doesn't require that apostles exist in every age. It simply says that God has given us apostles, which is true. The passage in Ephesians 4:1-16 is one of my favourites in the entire Bible.

Rachel Many Couch wrote: »

If you want to dispense with the need of Apostles, lets also dispense with the rest of the ministries. Its dangerous territory to start deciding what we need and don't need !!

To be fair, when did I say that we don't need the Apostles? We do very much. We have the apostolic word that we are reading and quoting from. My only position is that there are no apostles today because there are no first hand witnesses of Jesus today.

Rachel Many Couch wrote: »

As to their purpose,Ephesians clearly sets it out to which I referred earlier and you've failed to address it.
Scripture says clearly that all the ministries are needed for the building up of the body, the equipping of the Church for the ministry until we all come to a unity in the faith. All 5 ministries are needed for this to be fulfilled. Which of the reasons for their being have been fulfilled that we can dispense with any of them?

Again, I've not said that we should dispense with them at all. The apostles work still continues through the words that they have given us.

Ephesians 4:1-16 does not define explicitly the function of an apostle, but rather the general function that all of these roles have. As I said, to get anywhere with this discussion we need to distinguish the role of an apostle rather than a pastor.

Rachel Many Couch wrote: »

As for Paul being an Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Being a witness of Jesus had nothing to do with their sphere of ministry.
Paul went to the Jews first and then the Gentiles, the latter due to the Jews rejection. Peter went to all the groups, Jews, Samaritans and then the Gentiles. Its interesting to note that was the order of the Commissioning they received from the Lord.
We also note that in Antioch Paul and Barnabas were among other prophets and teachers and it was here that they were separated to the ministry and sent to the gentiles. In this context Barnabas was the senior (first mentioned in Acts 4.3) and more experienced and was mentoring Paul. Both were Apostles, both were "Sent Ones".

I disagree that their respective encounters with Jesus had nothing to do with their ministry. Why do you think that Peter discusses his encounter with Jesus at length in 2 Peter 1 and why do you think that Paul discusses it at length in Acts even to King Agrippa in Acts 26?

By the by, Christians are all "sent ones" in one way or another. It doesn't of necessity mean that we are all apostles.

Let me quote Peter. He even distinguishes between "we" and "you":

2 Peter 1:16-21 ESV wrote:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Rachel Many Couch wrote: »

Romans 16v7 refers to Andronicus and Junia who were of note among the Apostles. In my studies over the years its been suggested that they were in fact Apostles, its debatable and opinions differ depending on the stance of the authors but nevertheless it's in some peoples thinking. Quote: my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me"

From comparing a few translations it seems that Andronicus and Junia were highly respected by the Apostles. By the by, it's important to clarify that just because someone isn't an Apostle (not a sent eyewitness of Jesus Christ as far as I can see Scripturally) doesn't mean that they are not valuable in the work of ministry.

As I've said many times, we need to distinguish the call of being an apostle from the call of being a minister to get to the core of this issue.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Hi All

In examining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it seems a lot of things just don't add up. Here are a number of issues which seem especially poignant:

- The passage most Protestants point to is II Tm. 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all.

This verse refers to the Old Testament, as in the previous passage Paul speaks of scripture Timothy learned "from childhood". The Book of Revelation was likely not written at the time Timothy was an adult, yet it is in the Protestant Canon.


2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians.

The verse never teaches the Bible is the sole means of faith. For example,

James 1:4 illustrates clearly the problem with Protestant exegesis of II Tim. 3:16:

And let steadfastness (patience) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to II Tm. 3:16 we would have to say that all we need is patience to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, etc.

Of course, any Christian would immediately say this is absurd. And of course it is. But James’s emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than St. Paul’s emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola to be found in either text. Sola patientia would be just as much an error as is sola scriptura.

3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture.

I Thess. 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The natural interpretation of this would be that words of the Apostles (and their successors in line) would be just as much pronouncements from God as the written Bible. Of course, I am not referring to every odd comment by the Pope or Bishops ect but infallible teachings of the Pope and Magisterium.

- The final arbiter of matters appears to be the Church, not Scripture alone:

If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone … But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you … If he refuses to listen … tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Mt. 18:15-17)

- Circular arguement: The guarantor of the infallibility of a book cannot be the
same book. The Koran and other texts also claim to be infallible, but do we as Christians believe that?

To the question of which Books of the Bible are canonical, sola scriptura provides no answer - questions such as "show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc." spring to mind.

The Catholic arguement lacks this circularity. The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so - "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16).

However, that Jesus' taught and establishied a Church is a historical fact. To know this we do not need the Scriptures - historians like Josephus wrote about Him. This Church compiled the Canon in due time.

I also wonder what do the Protestants understand by this verse: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " (Matthew 16:18).

Peace!

PS Good exposition of the topic found here: http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-protestant-achilles-heel

uck51js9zml2yt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!



Yes, but as I've mentioned earlier. First hand witness seems to be a part of that calling as we see in the case of Acts 1. Ephesians 4 doesn't require that apostles exist in every age. It simply says that God has given us apostles, which is true. The passage in Ephesians 4:1-16 is one of my favourites in the entire Bible.



To be fair, when did I say that we don't need the Apostles? We do very much. We have the apostolic word that we are reading and quoting from. My only position is that there are no apostles today because there are no first hand witnesses of Jesus today.

You've not given me any basis for believing we dont have Apostles now. Ephesians certainly didnt say it, neither does Corinthians . It does say we have them till we all come to the unity of the faith though and were not there yet.

Again, I've not said that we should dispense with them at all. The apostles work still continues through the words that they have given us.

Ephesians 4:1-16 does not define explicitly the function of an apostle, but rather the general function that all of these roles have. As I said, to get anywhere with this discussion we need to distinguish the role of an apostle rather than a pastor.

It doesn't define any of the functions explicitly...whats you point?

I disagree that their respective encounters with Jesus had nothing to do with their ministry. Why do you think that Peter discusses his encounter with Jesus at length in 2 Peter 1 and why do you think that Paul discusses it at length in Acts even to King Agrippa in Acts 26?

They were giving their testimonies to them.

Its clear from Acts that both Paul & Peter went to both Jews and Gentiles but it does also say that they agreed to concentrate on one grouping

By the by, Christians are all "sent ones" in one way or another. It doesn't of necessity mean that we are all apostles.

You ignore 1 Corinthains 12 where Paul sets out the order of the various givings in the Church and then asks "Are all Apostles? Do all speak in tongues? Are all prophets or teachers?"
The obvious answer is no but that doesnt mean that some aren't. As he's asking this in the Corinthian context its reasonable to take it that these giftings were manifested in the Corinthian Church.

"
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tonguesURL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12#fen-NIV-28665d"]d[/URL? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."





[/QUOTE]

What about the other gifts and ministries? Are they gone too?

Delirium

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

Hi All

In examining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it seems a lot of things just don't add up. Here are a number of issues which seem especially poignant:

MOD NOTE

Thread mereged with existing Sola thread.

solodeogloria

Rachel Many Couch wrote: »

You've not given me any basis for believing we dont have Apostles now. Ephesians certainly didnt say it, neither does Corinthians . It does say we have them till we all come to the unity of the faith though and were not there yet.

It doesn't define any of the functions explicitly...whats you point?

They were giving their testimonies to them.

Its clear from Acts that both Paul & Peter went to both Jews and Gentiles but it does also say that they agreed to concentrate on one grouping

You ignore 1 Corinthains 12 where Paul sets out the order of the various givings in the Church and then asks "Are all Apostles? Do all speak in tongues? Are all prophets or teachers?"
The obvious answer is no but that doesnt mean that some aren't. As he's asking this in the Corinthian context its reasonable to take it that these giftings were manifested in the Corinthian Church.

"
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tonguesURL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12#fen-NIV-28665d"]d[/URL? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."

What about the other gifts and ministries? Are they gone too?

Good evening all!

Rachel Many Couch - I never said Ephesians defined the functions of an apostle. I have given you several reasons in my previous posts as to why I believe the apostles were sent first eyewitnesses of Jesus in a way that ministers are not today.

What I think we need to do to progress the discussion is to build up a Biblical picture of what an apostle is versus a minister for example. I'm happy to be convinced that my position that the apostles were specifically chosen eyewitnesses who were sent to take the gospel of Christ to the world is wrong.

I don't think these passages in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians 12 do this. Even if the apostles are no longer with us physically their witness is in received Scripture which is still here now.

I'm happy to say that you disagree with me, but it isn't true to say I've not given you basis or reason for my conviction. I clearly have in my previous posts.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening all!

tatranska - I never said Ephesians defined the functions of an apostle. I have given you several reasons in my previous posts as to why I believe the apostles were sent first eyewitnesses of Jesus in a way that ministers are not today.

What I think we need to do to progress the discussion is to build up a Biblical picture of what an apostle is versus a minister for example. I'm happy to be convinced that my position that the apostles were specifically chosen eyewitnesses who were sent to take the gospel of Christ to the world is wrong.

I don't think these passages in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians 12 do this. Even if the apostles are no longer with us physically their witness is in received Scripture which is still here now.

I'm happy to say that you disagree with me, but it isn't true to say I've not given you basis or reason for my conviction. I clearly have in my previous posts.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria, Out of interest when do you think the Church went wrong so to speak that you don't accept their teaching. When I mean Church I'm talking about the Church of the first Millennium.

uck51js9zml2yt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening all!

tatranska - I never said Ephesians defined the functions of an apostle. I have given you several reasons in my previous posts as to why I believe the apostles were sent first eyewitnesses of Jesus in a way that ministers are not today.

What I think we need to do to progress the discussion is to build up a Biblical picture of what an apostle is versus a minister for example. I'm happy to be convinced that my position that the apostles were specifically chosen eyewitnesses who were sent to take the gospel of Christ to the world is wrong.

I don't think these passages in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians 12 do this. Even if the apostles are no longer with us physically their witness is in received Scripture which is still here now.

I'm happy to say that you disagree with me, but it isn't true to say I've not given you basis or reason for my conviction. I clearly have in my previous posts.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

My gut feeling is that you believe the spiritual gifts ceased with scripture and in that case we'll never agree.
Apart from saying that the only Apostles were those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus then that has no substance . Paul for the record never actually saw Jesus.



Neither have you answered me about the verse in Ephesians saying that we had these functions until we came to the unity of the faith....we're not there yet!
Saying we have the Bible doesn't cut it. The writers were writing letters to people and churches and groups for various purposes , they weren't writing the Bible.

solodeogloria

Good evening all!

tatranska wrote: »

My gut feeling is that you believe the spiritual gifts ceased with scripture and in that case we'll never agree.
Apart from saying that the only Apostles were those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus then that has no substance . Paul for the record never actually saw Jesus.

Firstly - when did I say that spiritual gifts ceased?

Secondly - why does it have no substance? I've presented my case for why I believe this. You're perfectly entitled to challenge it. I've stated clearly that in order to progress with this discussion we need to look to what the Bible's criteria for being an apostle is.

Thirdly - why must we agree on every issue? The Bible clearly says that there are secondary issues that we will disagree on. See Romans 14 for example.

tatranska wrote: »

Neither have you answered me about the verse in Ephesians saying that we had these functions until we came to the unity of the faith....we're not there yet!
Saying we have the Bible doesn't cut it. The writers were writing letters to people and churches and groups for various purposes , they weren't writing the Bible.

The section in Ephesians (that I love by the by) doesn't say that there will be people who are apostles with us until we attain maturity of the faith. The object in verse 13 is the equipping, not that all the roles specified will remain until we attain maturity in the faith.

Ephesians 4:11-16 wrote:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

The tense in verse 11 is gave, which is past tense and not present tense. Verse 12 and 13 describe the function of the roles. It doesn't say anywhere that apostles will be there in every age. We see that ministers however will be, because Paul gives instructions for appointing them.

I believe the writers who wrote the New Testament letters were writing the Bible. In fact Peter regarded Paul's letters as Scripture in his second letter:

2 Peter 3:14-18 wrote:

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

The Bible was written by human hands, but is God breathed. To quote Peter again from the earlier part of this letter:

2 Peter 1:16-21 wrote:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honour and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”, 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

Hi All

In examining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it seems a lot of things just don't add up. Here are a number of issues which seem especially poignant:

- The passage most Protestants point to is II Tm. 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all.

This verse refers to the Old Testament, as in the previous passage Paul speaks of scripture Timothy learned "from childhood". The Book of Revelation was likely not written at the time Timothy was an adult, yet it is in the Protestant Canon.

Peter seemed to understand that Paul wrote Scripture. Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will reveal Himself to the Apostles in John's gospel:

John 16:12-15 wrote:

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

It is true that Timothy would have understood the Scriptures as the Old Testament, but it doesn't follow that there is no reason from the Bible to believe that the New Testament is authoritative.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians.

The verse never teaches the Bible is the sole means of faith. For example,

The James passage seems to be referring to sanctification, therefore I fail to see the strength in the authors example.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture.

I Thess. 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The natural interpretation of this would be that words of the Apostles (and their successors in line) would be just as much pronouncements from God as the written Bible. Of course, I am not referring to every odd comment by the Pope or Bishops ect but infallible teachings of the Pope and Magisterium.

I've asked previously in this thread concerning this verse. What is the source of the apostolic tradition? On the face of it the only reliable witness we have from the apostles is contained in the pages of the New Testament. It is possible to see this verse in light of the traditions given to us in the apostolic writings. For example The Lord's Supper and Baptism. It doesn't follow from this verse that the Papacy is an infallible authority.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

- The final arbiter of matters appears to be the Church, not Scripture alone:

If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone … But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you … If he refuses to listen … tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Mt. 18:15-17)

Most Protestants I know of don't object to church discipline. You're making a systematic error of presuming that "the church" refers to the Roman Catholic Church.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

- Circular arguement: The guarantor of the infallibility of a book cannot be the
same book. The Koran and other texts also claim to be infallible, but do we as Christians believe that?

The guarantor of the authority of the Bible isn't the Bible itself but rather the God who breathed it.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

To the question of which Books of the Bible are canonical, sola scriptura provides no answer - questions such as "show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc." spring to mind.

I've answered the point on the Council of Nicea previously in this post.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

The Catholic arguement lacks this circularity. The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so - "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16).

I disagree that "the church" in the New Testament refers to the Roman Catholic Church. This is the assumption that no Roman Catholic I've spoken to seems to be able to resolve.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

However, that Jesus' taught and establishied a Church is a historical fact. To know this we do not need the Scriptures - historians like Josephus wrote about Him. This Church compiled the Canon in due time.

Why assume that the New Testament church is the same thing to the Roman Catholic Church which seems to have emerged under Constantine?

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

I also wonder what do the Protestants understand by this verse: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " (Matthew 16:18).

It means that the Christian church will prevail against the gates of hell.

Jaelyn Rough Cloud wrote: »

PS Good exposition of the topic found here: http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-protestant-achilles-heel

Your post seems to be directly lifted from it for the most part. You should think about this stuff for yourself directly from the Scriptures rather than secondhand.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

I read an interesting article about the mediaeval view of salvation on the Gospel Coalition yesterday and it said the following.

There was an interesting infographic and an interesting comment.

the view of salvation in the medieval period is not officially codified until the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which met after the Reformation

Is this an accurate reflection on Roman Catholic theology?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

keano_afc

I've been attending a short course run by IBI in Swords baptist church for the last 3 weeks, on church history. Its a brilliant course, and last night we covered Luther and the Reformation. When going over the 5 solas I thought of this thread, and the the lecturer covered the explanation well. It was similar to the explanation earlier in the thread that showed how the solas stand alone yet are linked together.

I would encourage anyone to take the course, its a fascinating insight into the birth, growth and scattering of the church.