If Scripture Alone is sufficient, why do you need a "pastor"?

[SyCarl]

Where is this said in Scripture?

Catholics will quote John 20:30 but they don’t go on to deal with verse 31.

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
(John 20:30-31 NASB)

John tells us that his book does not contain everything but he then goes on to tell us that it contains what we need to believe and have life. If this is true of one book, it is even more true when we look at the entire Bible.

As for the sole rule of faith Paul clearly warns us not to go beyond what is written.

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
(1 Corinthians 4:6 NASB)

 

[Chancellare]

Can we trust Tradition? Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have apostolic succession. The Catholic Church agrees this is true. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox claim to follow Tradition but they don’t agree on the content? How can it be a reliable source?

Martin Luther split from Catholic Church and so did thousands of denoms with him but all these did not add or detract from Holy Traditions.

Are you saying that since some people don’t follow Holy Tradition that makes it unreliable?

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen;3148517:

Seems like an oversimplication and let me explain. Catholics and Bible believers both listen to their pastors but if and when they contradict the Bible or Catholic doctrine, as the case may be, they are not to be listened to over the final authority.
.

LOL!

I don’t think that that has anything to do with Sola Scriptura, but “Common Sensura”!

LOL!

The primacy of scripture comes straight from the Bible, that is why in God’s time, when the Bible became accessible, whole countries and people are practically running out of the Catholic church, I saw a program that said a certain Latin American country used to be almost a hundred percent Catholic and is now almost a 1/3 Protestant. God is doing a mighty work in the world

I’ve also “heard” that same statistic from Protestants as well, but when I’ve researched, it’s been my understanding that The Catholic Church is continually growing (I believe that it grew at a rate of 2%).

Wait, let me come back. I’m going to find out the stat…

Alot of countries are becomming Protestant…and just like The US, prostitution, legalized abortion and homosexual education will be the norm there too. Where ever Protestantism takes hold of a country, it begins to fall apart socially.

 

[mozart-250]

If Scripture Alone is sufficient for personal revelation,
why do you need the following:

• church building
• fellowship
• pastor
• Sunday school
• supporting texts (concordances, Encyclopedias, commentaries, etc…)
• bible studies

According to “Sola Scripturaists”, the bible is supposed to be enough by itself and needs no interpretor.

It can just be read, then The Holy Spirit will guide one into understanding it based on the purity of one’s heart.

If this were so, then there’d be no need for anyone to “pastor” the believers since they could learn revelation on their own, right?

I will stay out of this silly thread…
I will stay out of this silly thread…
.
.

This reminds me of a thread a while back where the thesis was that given “Sola Scriptura” why do you need missionaries. Why don’t you just drop Bibles over the countries in the 10/40 window. These types of threads pop up every so often…where you take a title like “Sola Scriptura”…distort the title into something that isn’t believed…and then knock the false definition down.

Isn’t that called a strawman.

For your information, the title “Sola Scriptura” doesn’t even have a verb. If you want to knock a theological proposition down, at least knock something down that has a verb in it. Sheesh.

Anyway

I will stay out of this silly thread…
I will stay out of this silly thread…
.
.

 

[SyCarl]

Are you saying that the Wikipedia definition was not accurate?

As for your statement that it does “not” deny the role of tradition or the value of oral teaching, doesn’t this make the belief that Scripture Alone is insufficient?

Wait, let me ask you like this…is oral teaching and preaching “essential” to the revelation of Scripture?

Is tradition “essential” to the revelation of Scripture?

No oral teaching or preaching is not essential in that a person can learn what he needs from studying the Bible. That does not mean that oral teaching is not useful or that actually reading the Bible is necessary at all as long as the teaching is in accordance with Scripture.

Tradition has set the day we celebrate Christmas. Is it essential that we know this? No it is not. We can accept tradition but it is not necessary to believe it, which is what the Catholic Church claims.

 

[SyCarl]

Martin Luther split from Catholic Church and so did thousands of denoms with him but all these did not add or detract from Holy Traditions.

Are you saying that since some people don’t follow Holy Tradition that makes it unreliable?

What the Catholic Church calls Holy Tradition may be entirely true. Similarly it could be totally or partially wrong. What is being said is that what it contains is not necessary. I know that some seem to deny any truth to Tradition. I am not one of them. As I don’t believe that the Catholic Church or any other church is infallible, I cannot believe that its passing on of possible Tradition is infallible.

 

[Chancellare]

John tells us that his book does not contain everything but he then goes on to tell us that it contains what we need to believe and have life.

Is this exactly what John said or is it how you interpreted it?

 

[bengal_fan]

I will stay out of this silly thread…
I will stay out of this silly thread…
.
.

This reminds me of a thread a while back where the thesis was that given “Sola Scriptura” why do you need missionaries. Why don’t you just drop Bibles over the countries in the 10/40 window. These types of threads pop up every so often…where you take a title like “Sola Scriptura”…distort the title into something that isn’t believed…and then knock the false definition down.

Isn’t that called a strawman.

For your information, the title “Sola Scriptura” doesn’t even have a verb. If you want to knock a theological proposition down, at least knock something down that has a verb in it. Sheesh.

Anyway

I will stay out of this silly thread…
I will stay out of this silly thread…
.
.

i should pick up your mantra!!

 

[SyCarl]

Is this exactly what John said or is it how you interpreted it?

Well the words are what John wrote. Has the Catholic Church made an infallible interpretation of this verse? If not, if you disagree with me is that not your own interpretation? If it is how can you tell if you are right? You can ask your priest but then he is not infallible is he? You could ask your bishop but he isn’t infallible either is he? Perhaps the Pope might answer your question but unless he makes it an ex cathedra statement it is still just his interpretation. Nobody has been able to tell me how you can ask the ordinary teaching magisterium a question. So in reality you are left with your own or someone else’s fallible interpretation.

 

[2ndGen]

Membership in Christian churches:

Catholic Source:
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=23906

WASHINGTON, D.C. (CNS) -
Total membership in U.S. Christian churches continued to rise in 2005, despite ongoing declines in some of the country’s largest mainline Protestant churches, according to the 2007 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.

Total recorded inclusive membership in 2005 was 165,878,323, up more than 2.4 million from the previous year, the yearbook said.

Protestant Source:
Wow…can’t find a Protestant source that states that The Catholic Church’s membership has grown.

Oh well.

Secular Source:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070217/ai_n18624931

Catholic Church sees growth in Africa, Asia
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Feb 17, 2007
VATICAN CITY (AP) – The Roman Catholic Church experienced its greatest growth in Africa and Asia between 2004 and 2005, according to new statistics released by the Vatican.

 

[2ndGen]

No oral teaching or preaching is not essential in that a person can learn what he needs from studying the Bible. That does not mean that oral teaching is not useful or that actually reading the Bible is necessary at all as long as the teaching is in accordance with Scripture.

Tradition has set the day we celebrate Christmas. Is it essential that we know this? No it is not. We can accept tradition but it is not necessary to believe it, which is what the Catholic Church claims.

So you disagree with the “Scripture” that we are to hold fast to traditions I take it.

 

[SyCarl]

So you disagree with the “Scripture” that we are to hold fast to traditions I take it.

I would hold fast to the traditions as they are recoded in Scripture. As for other traditions whose if any are right? Both the Orthodox and Catholics claim apostolic succession and Holy Tradition. But they can’t agree what that Tradition contains.

 

[2ndGen]

I am perfectly aware of 2 Thessalonians. However Paul does not say that the tradition passed on orally is any different than that which was passed on in writing. In fact we are told by Irenaeus that the tradition was first taught orally and then put into Scripture.

So since Paul does not say it, it’s not “in” the Bible and you can’t believe it.

Can we trust Tradition? Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have apostolic succession. The Catholic Church agrees this is true. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox claim to follow Tradition but they don’t agree on the content? How can it be a reliable source?

How can it be a reliable source?
Hmmm…let’s start with the fact that it is the source for the canonization of The Bible.

If it cannot be trusted, then The Bible cannot be trusted for she created it. Even the Protestants based their bible on ours.

If you can’t trust the religious institution that gave the world The Holy Bible, then you cannot trust it’s fruit.

If the tree is rotten, then the fruit is rotten,

But! If the tree is good,
then isn’t the tree good?

For a bad tree cannot produce a good fruit.

(Oh, and “that’s” scripture!)

 

[2ndGen]

I would hold fast to the traditions as they are recoded in Scripture. As for other traditions whose if any are right? Both the Orthodox and Catholics claim apostolic succession and Holy Tradition. But they can’t agree what that Tradition contains.

There is no limit on Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox have a rightful claim to have been founded by an actual Apostle.

As for traditions, since all truth is not in The Bible and all of Jesus’ teachings are not in The Bible, do you reject any of Jesus’ teachings that have been 'traditionally" handed down by The Apostles that are not found in scripture?

 

[SyCarl]

How can it be a reliable source?
Hmmm…let’s start with the fact that it is the source for the canonization of The Bible.

If it cannot be trusted, then The Bible cannot be trusted for she created it. Even the Protestants based their bible on ours.

If you can’t trust the religious institution that gave the world The Holy Bible, then you cannot trust it’s fruit.

If the tree is rotten, then the fruit is rotten,

But! If the tree is good,
then isn’t the tree good?

For a bad tree cannot produce a good fruit.

(Oh, and “that’s” scripture!)

How do we know that the Catholic Church has authority? And don’t say because the Bible tells us because with your reasoning we can’t have the Bible until the Church has its authority established. How is this established other than on the Church’s say so?

 

[bengal_fan]

There is no limit on Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox have a rightful claim to have been founded by an actual Apostle.

As for traditions, since all truth is not in The Bible and all of Jesus’ teachings are not in The Bible, do you reject any of Jesus’ teachings that have been 'traditionally" handed down by The Apostles that are not found in scripture?

how do you know that? the last verses in John say that He did many other things, not taught many other things. so, not everything Jesus did is in the Bible, but you can’t say that not all of His teachings are in there.

 

[2ndGen]

How do we know that the Catholic Church has authority? And don’t say because the Bible tells us because with your reasoning we can’t have the Bible until the Church has its authority established. How is this established other than on the Church’s say so?

How can we know?

Well, God will tell you like He told me.

I had an epiphany and He revealed to me that The Catholic Church was His Church and that I was right to believe in it as The Catholic Church has presented itself to be.

Now, how do I know that this wasn’t a deceiptful spirit in the guise of an angel of light? The fruits. Judged by the fruits of that experience, my life was converted from Godless to Godfull.

That’s the “spiritual” answer.

The reasonable answer?

Faith.

Empty yourself of the pride of wanting to know for your own desire and ask God to reveal to you what He wants you to know. I did.

Also, judge the tree by it’s fruits.
What has The Catholic Church contributed to mankind?

Not individuals within The Church, but The Church as a uniform group of believers.

The Holy Bible.
Charity.
Hospitals.
Universities.
Evangelization.
The Church Fathers.
The Revelation of the Doctrines of Salvation, Justification, etc…
The Reinessance.

All great contributions to mankind as works of The Church collectively.

Now, scripturally speaking?

Historically, Saint Peter is the founder of The Catholic Church.
Jesus chose Peter to build His Church upon.
Ergo, The Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church.

Matthew 16:18-19
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

 

[SyCarl]

How can we know?

Well, God will tell you like He told me.

I had an epiphany and He revealed to me that The Catholic Church was His Church and that I was right to believe in it as The Catholic Church has presented itself to be.

Now, how do I know that this wasn’t a deceiptful spirit in the guise of an angel of light? The fruits. Judged by the fruits of that experience, my life was converted from Godless to Godfull.

That’s the “spiritual” answer.

The reasonable answer?

Faith.

Empty yourself of the pride of wanting to know for your own desire and ask God to reveal to you what He wants you to know. I did.

Also, judge the tree by it’s fruits.
What has The Catholic Church contributed to mankind?

Not individuals within The Church, but The Church as a uniform group of believers.

The Holy Bible.
Charity.
Hospitals.
Universities.
Evangelization.
The Church Fathers.
The Revelation of the Doctrines of Salvation, Justification, etc…
The Reinessance.

All great contributions to mankind as works of The Church collectively.

Now, scripturally speaking?

Historically, Saint Peter is the founder of The Catholic Church.
Jesus chose Peter to build His Church upon.
Ergo, The Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church.

Matthew 16:18-19
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

I would love to discuss this more but I must go to work tomorrow and am off to bed.

 

[2ndGen]

how do you know that? the last verses in John say that He did many other things, not taught many other things. so, not everything Jesus did is in the Bible, but you can’t say that not all of His teachings are in there.

John 20:30-31
“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book:
But these are written,
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God;
and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

That (“signs”), to me sounds like these things were to teach us and to convince us.

Do you believe that all his teachings are in The Holy Bible?

I don’t.

I believe that there are things He taught to people that “didn’t” contribute to the writing of The New Testament.

 

[2ndGen]

I would love to discuss this more but I must go to work tomorrow and am off to bed.

Vaya con Dios!

C Ya tomorrow.