Be ready for lots of words and opinions that don’t say much.
What did the “big three” say about sola scriptura and how were they different?
They pretty much agreed that the Bible was the sole authority. What this meant was a different story. Luther, for example, believed in infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He also followed the policy that if it does not contradict Scripture, it’s okay. For example, he had no problem with the use of images as tools for instruction in a church and as religious art.
Micheal,
Now, if you want to include every spin off in the equation for why sola Scriptura doesn’t work it is only a matter of consistency to include every spin off since the Apostles for why your rule of faith doesn’t work, since you claim it was always the rule of faith. You have the Old Catholic Church, the Feenyites, some Traditionalist, the Eastern Orthodox, and many more smaller groups. These groups relied on your rule of faith and look what happened.
Divisions have existed in Christianity from the start. But the division has always been clear (Orthodox vs. Heretic, Shismatics). When Protestants talk about Catholicism, what are they referring to? The Old Catholics? The Sede Vacantis Catholics? The Feeneyites? No. They are referring to those churches in communion with Rome. They recognize that the Pope speaks for Catholicism and represents true Catholicism. Moreover, the Catholic splinter groups are just a handful compared to the diversity in Protestantism. A diversity that has existed from its very beginning. You may not see a problem with that, and that’s okay. But Christ founded ONE church with ONE set of doctrines.
This is my first objection to sola scriptura: there is no firm definition of sola scriptura. The relativism of the doctrine of sola scriptura PREVENTS one from being formulated.
This sure doesn’t sound like the “we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ” Protestant.
If you examine the theologians and others who have disagreements with official Church doctrine while continuing to claim membership, you will discover that despite their differences, they tend to remain in a fairly tight orbit around the Magisterial teaching of the Church which provides light to their universe.
You’re right. Peter said the same thing.
Division has always existed in Christianity and that proves my point. No rule of faith prevents schisms. Furthermore, you are wrong to say the division has always clear. I’m sure you know most of the church sided with the Arians.
This is self refuting, because you have just as many different beliefs in Catholicism. You can’t even agree if the Scriptues are inerrant or if they are materially sufficient. I’m tired of answering this same self refuting charge.
If scholars who have been appointed by the Popes to high positions believe the Scriptures contain errors then why don’t you believe it? Why is it that sincere conservative Catholics disagree on predestination? Why is it that no Catholic can tell us when and where Popes have spoken ex Cathedra. Why is it Catholics can’t agree on whether the Scriptures are materially sufficient or not?
Why is there error in Catholicism? Who is right you or scholar Raymond Brown about the Scriptures containing errors?
LOL, why hasn’t your objective interpreter withstood every wind of doctrine and error? Catholicism is full of them. I think I’ve told you before that Catholic apologist Mark Shea has boasted of the many different beliefs in Catholicism. He considers it a good thing.
Wrong. There have been splinter groups throughout history, they were present during the times of the Apostles, and moreso afterwards. Later in history they were threaten with death, but they have always been around.
Oh brother.
Until WHICH Church ultimately defeated them?
Are you actually suggesting that each and every member of the PCA is in full agreement with the Westminster Confession? Since my mother was an elder in the Presbyterian Church just a few years ago, I would beg to differ on that point as would she!
If the deck appears stacked it is only because Luther himself was not playing with a full deck and he tried to slip a few Jokers (solas) into the game. It’s not our fault you are at a disadvantage.
Really? Does the Catechism contradict itself on these matters? Could you quote from an official Church document that states that the Bible in NOT inerrant?
These theologians are free to believe whatever they wish on some matters. If they disagree with a clear teaching of the Church, then it is not the Church that is wrong.
The Catholic Church has never taught error. Please provide an example of a single doctrine that is erroneous or that has changed (been reversed) in 2,000 years.
Full of them? I see. Forgive me for noticing, Sola, but aren’t you arguing from assertion? I know how much you hate it when we do that…
Splinter groups? Sure. They’re called heretics. Just because they have always been around or “threaten [sic] with death”, it doesn’t mean they were right.
Oh, brother yourself.
So were does your contention come from. Yea are carnal and are seeking to justify your ideas from a carnal mindset. Paul said it best are you of Paul or of Peter or Mark. They are only fellow ministers of Christ. Did you notice that Paul layed the foundation you know he is the apostle to the gentiles. But then he clarified that in the end stating that Jesus Christ is the foundation that he has build upon. Paul is speaking to people in his authority which is in Christ. So why did he give this word. People were doing the same as you are doing they were seeking to justify there carnal view of things and not seeking the spiritual wisdom of the age.
To live by the letter of the law is death, we are not of the law but of Grace. When you look at all the many churchs of this world what you are seeing are people who are under grace. Noted some are greatly decieved JWs mormans ect. But for the most part they are not. In Judgeing these people do you not sin, Is not God alone judge. Even the prophets of old knew this.
I can take the bible and make it mean so many differnet things, yeat i do not. Paul makes it clear in this passage that not one apostle is over another, that they are co-labors and they are only ministers. That God gives the increase that he Christ is the foundaton that all are build upon. So when you say peter is the rock. That goes directly against sctipture as taught by a apostle of God.
The context of Galatians shows that Paul regarded Peter of such a great authority it is hard to imagine Paul literally rebuking Peter. Galatians 1:18; 2:1-2
Paul did correct Peter. Paul with stood Peter and challanged him on a error of his conduct and teaching. Concerning the law of Mosus and living as Jews. So much for papal authority peter was not with out error. So he was corrected by God thru a apostle, who else would God use. All apostle have the same authority. Peter was trying to lay a on the foundation of christ with a wrong teaching. The reason i point this out is that it flies in the face of all the teaching of the catholic chruch does it not.
Now how can i say that, i have scripture to back it up. That is why Sola Scriptura is so important. The scriptures are required to make sure you are on the right path and following the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. I will assure you that God is working greatly in these chruchs you are denouncing. People are gettign saved every day outside the catholic church. People are getting healed also all over the world and again it is outside the instituation of the catholic church. So if people are being saved blessed and healed and it is taking place outside the catholic church it should reall make you think what is going on. Could it be they have had a encounter with Christ the same as paul did. Paul was changed so is every one who mets Christ. So does God give us the scriptures as a pretty book or is he expecting you to read it and get wisdom from it. You know you are going to be judged on it. Study to show yourself approved.OK Randy, focus like a laser and answer these questions for me.