Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[ibetrippin07]

bible is authoritative yes Catholics blieve this but it is not the sole authority for it in it’s self can not make a judgement. Only those reading the words can do that.
Please do try to enlighten yourself with our true beleifs. Christ’s sacrifice is what is being offered up in the Eucharist. If you actually knew what the Eucharist is you won’t be where you are now.In a sense everything ties to the Eucharist, for it is a matter of truly knowing Christ or not.And you truly do not know Him. For you have rejected His Church for your own logic wrestling the word of God to your own end…

why are you skewing the topic with making judgments? where does sola scriptura claim that?
Christ came to die 1 time. You will have to provide evidence to make such a statement he is sacrificed every eucharist and that thats not offensive to God or a form of idolatry. Im not the one worshiping bread and wine…
Thank you for going through my evidential support refuting it and providing your own. you are a very convincing person
Believe unto the Lord and you will be saved! I do this so im good . of course you can try to improve your self esteem by further saying I dont know someone i interact with all the time

 

[ibetrippin07]

Ibetrippin, do you not remember what you yourself wrote? I’ve quoted it above to help your memory. You said that the Apostles didn’t heal and implied that they couldn’t perform any miracles. Philthy pointed out your error, but instead of addressing it, you attempted to change the subject and make it about something else.That is a dishonest approach and that won’t stand here.

Your error is that you claimed the Apostles did not heal, which is clearly false in light of the many passages of Scripture in which they do that and even greater miracles. Are you going to man up and acknowledge your error in this or are you going to try to buffalo all of us on this forum?

hmh please provide my quoted words stating foolishly “The apostles didnt heal and implied that they couldnt perform any miracles” My stance on sola scriptura tells me yes they did, but it was through the power of Jesus Christ that they did even that much.
I wish you would have captivated my point instead of me having to remake it but ok:
again aleister crowley could do wonders and works too, so can alot of other religious figures, but wheres their power coming from? most dont want to admit it but its through the demons. They give these wicked people the power they have. The Apostles received their power through the same power one gets being baptized of the holy spirit. Same spirit, same abilities, however different level of faith prevent most people from doing the same miraculous things they did. They were not on the same level as Jesus or even close. like I said Jesus but said a word and a person miles away be healed!

 

[ibetrippin07]

@eric
Im assuming then on most things we agree. which only proves that you dont get that far away from what is necessarily in the faith.
You use this example of baptism to somehow make the defining difference and thats fine i guess we can discuss this in particular but its moot and heres why:
A mans salvation no one will claim im sure depends on his position on baptism. you wont find a scripture stating this at all. Its no different than the “when are you truly saved” or could hitler have been saved on his deathbed argument, its purely to just understand a process we go through anyway. are both sides not proponents of baptism? do they not baptize and recommend it? So who cares if they think it happens before or after? once it happens there is no more debate to be had…
as far as how could they come to different conclusions? thats like asking how could two people come to two different opinions lol, i havent studied the human brain enough to know this.
@ the sacramanets
again how martin luther came to his opinion is how any other person comes to an opinion about anything. I disagree with martin luther and thats ok. But at the end of the day, ones stance on anything has nothing to do with sola scriptura. if your going to show sola scriptura is false you should start opening your bible and showing some scriptures because i have already shown an abundance supporting it.
as far as your question, yes. If we were to get the scholars out for a good debate and get to the root meaning of all the words im sure a general conclusion could be met.
I think the bigger question is really to you, does the catholic church have a greater abundance of empirical evidence to say luther is wrong on this one? if so what apart from the bible is their strongest evidence here?

@the ministry post:
well seems like he provided some scarce evidence however i would argue more than 1 scripture is fairly necessary to convince at least me there’s a general stance by God on that issue. Again an debate would be in order, however I see no condemnation for anyone holding either stance…

@divorce: well i would argue he also horribly misinterpreted this scripture.
anyone who DIVORCES HIS WIFE except for MARITAL UNFAITHFULNESS, and marries another woman COMMITS ADULTERY.
I really dont think it gets more clear than this, the man you speak of is committing tons of amounts of adultery if he indeed did divorce her to go marry another. especially if it was he who was unfaithful!

your main point through all of these different topics has remained the same, why do people have opinions? even if they are showed the same topics read the same books why do they have opinions? I would argue that everyone is just different and thats the way it is. but as far as sola scriptura is concerned the bible being the sole authority of God (it was God breathed afterall) still stands.

@ aborition: well heres another one libchrist.com/other/abortion/contents.html
its the job of people like you and me to correct these views and show there is no biblical basis for abortion.

@sex before marriage: and yet how did they get this opinion without even using sola scriptura to find a scripture? listen anyones going to make an argument the bible says this or says that. ancient alien theorists will tell you the biblical accounts are just man interacting with aliens but how do they come to that conclusion if the scriptures are so clear? ever think they may just have an agenda to push of their own? hmh
wonder how they came to that division if the pope, traditions held and scripture all combined had all the tools?

The answer of the necessity of baptism is already in the scriptures and if you do not hold this too we can have a nice separate topic on it in which i will clearly demonstrate how scripture hold its necessity. It takes much bible study and measurement to others who oppose the view. however what side advocated one should not get baptized? if not please explain the difference of the side not believing it to be necessary even though they already do it.

well lets explore the blood of Christ sanctifying you.
I agree that yes this is true
I also agree not everyone is saved. many will say Lord Lord we did this in your name but he will tell them “i did not know you”
The saving grace is bestowed to anyone who accepts Christ and believes he is Lord and savior.
Now even apart from the biblical scripture if one just thinks about it its fairly obvious.
You believe bobby fischer is the greatest chess master of all time so you seek him out. You pretty into chess and you want to be the best, studying under borris spassky will simply not cut it. so you go to fischer and you ask him to teach him everything he knows. because hes a nice guy he takes you under his wing and gives you a set of chess rules what to do in different situations. You explicitly stand by his teachings do you not if you study under him?
so my questions is, if one believes Christ is the son of God this means to well acknowledge this as truth and follow his teachings. in other words you will bear the fruit!
so its pretty simple how its applied. you simply believe and that is truly all there is to it. It was all that was needed for the man on the cross.

no i actually meant the physical man in blue lol. that side was correct.

The bible is necessary to bring man to truth and provide stories and examples of how one should properly live. what else will do this?

 

[ibetrippin07]

@ guan
It isnt uncommon i guess when people hear things contradictory to their core beliefs to start raging.
but this again has nothing to do with sola scriptura. It would be nice if we stayed within the confines of the topic? I know i myself may have gone somewhat out of the way here and there but lets not waste time with trying to 1 up…
" The majority of Catholics are very poorly formed in your faith. You might be an example of one."
again with the rage, please grow up m8.

dang you didnt even respond to any of my posts, why is that?
you come looking for a orderly discussion of the scriptures and instead are met with “I think this would have prevented the misunderstanding above. However, with the degree of disrespect I am seeing in ibe’s posts, it is not likely that he/she will be here long.”

smh will no one actually show me where my scriptures are in error? if not i will repost them.

 

[guanophore]

why are you skewing the topic with making judgments?

The topic is all about making judgements. The human mind interprets everything that is read. The (name removed by moderator)ut goes through the filter of our expereince, and education (or lack of it). The reader makes a judgment (interpretation/discernment) about what the text means. The fact that we have such a plethora of bible churches results from individual judgements of what the text means.

where does sola scriptura claim that?

It is actually a dangerous premise that, on the surface, is not evident to most people that espouse the doctrine. They think they are led by the HS, who is making the judgements.

Christ came to die 1 time. You will have to provide evidence to make such a statement he is sacrificed every eucharist and that thats not offensive to God or a form of idolatry. [Im not the one worshiping bread and wine…

Catholics are the one; that wrote that passage, ibe. Christ is not resacrificed at the Mass. We don’t worship bread and wine, either. Please try to refrain from making statements that reveal your vast ignorance of our faith. It is embarrassing that you make yourself look so ignorant.

Believe unto the Lord and you will be saved! I do this so im good . of course you can try to improve your self esteem by further saying I dont know someone i interact with all the time

Belief unto salvation includes doing all that He commanded.
[/quote]

 

[guanophore]

but it was through the power of Jesus Christ that they did even that much.

Was there some reason you thought Catholics believed that miracles happen apart from Chirst?

Same spirit, same abilities, however different level of faith prevent most people from doing the same miraculous things they did. They were not on the same level as Jesus or even close. like I said Jesus but said a word and a person miles away be healed!

What do you think He meant when He said “greater things than I do will you do, because I go to the Father”?

 

[ibetrippin07]

Im not sure if its that no one here can answer my assertions or point out my error in the choosing of the scriptures I did to support sola scriptura but they must be answered.you wonder how people get different opinions of the scriptures eric? by ignoring points that their opposition makes and proclaiming their view supreme by sayings things like “oh you just cant see”…Is this not the same argument made by lucifarions? Its the same error atheist make, they cling to their doctrine of science but when evidence flys in their face of God and science coexisting its ignored. If your view on sola scriptura is correct (or your churches view?) Then take the following scriptures and show how they are not in support:
john 5:39-41
mark 7:7-13
1 Cor 4:6
luke 1:3-4
2 Tim 3:14-17
Luke 10:25-37
Acts 17:11
Mat 15:9
or really responsed to my posts 726-31 to prevent going in circles.
if its just a time issue i understand, its alot of material and debate to analyze. but by your tone guan i somewhat get the feeling youd rather concern yourself calling me a heretic (or at least implying it) than disproving my assertions.
let me make one thing clear and this is a point i think most Catholics miss. the bible does not exclude traditions to be held so long as they are not thought of being necessary. For example celebrating christmas is not instructed in the bible. really everyday to a proper christian should be a celebration of christmas but regardless do i think im in danger of hellfire for doing so? no. I also celebrate easter which is another tradition passed down outside of the bible. is it necessary to celebrate easter? no, is it okay? definitly. It is when these traditions are said to be necessary and that one will not partake in the kingdom for not participating in them. I do not deny traditions are in the bible, however the instruction for them to be properly done is also in the bible. Passover is one of the earliest ones. So if God has placed a tradition in the bible with explicit teachings on how to celebrate it even, what makes you believe that we are bound to traditions outside of the bible? or even further what is your strongest evidence they are not already there in the text?
now you are talking to one who believes heavily in sola scriptura, how will you convince me its an unholy doctrine? by showing the text itself never meant of itself to be the sole authoritative word. careful how you go about this though, it would be too easy to say that if the bible is not the sole authoritative word then the koran would have an equal chance really of saying its the most recent revelation.

 

[ibetrippin07]

Was there some reason you thought Catholics believed that miracles happen apart from Chirst?

What do you think He meant when He said “greater things than I do will you do, because I go to the Father”?

thankfully some sola scriptura in action!
guess different Catholics do hold different ideas about the eucharist interesting.

 

[guanophore]

Im assuming then on most things we agree. which only proves that you dont get that far away from what is necessarily in the faith.

Who decides what is “necessarily in the faith”?

A mans salvation no one will claim im sure depends on his position on baptism. you wont find a scripture stating this at all.

On the contrary, ibe, this is exactly what the Apostles taught, which is why it is written in scripture.

You have been given misinformation of what it is to be saved.

1 Peter 3:20-22
God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21** Baptism**, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

are both sides not proponents of baptism? do they not baptize and recommend it? So who cares if they think it happens before or after? once it happens there is no more debate to be had...

Except that the Apostles taught that baptism is the normative means by which we are born again of water and Spirit.

as far as how could they come to different conclusions? thats like asking how could two people come to two different opinions lol, i havent studied the human brain enough to know this.

Exactly!

That is why there are so many “bible churches”. They are based on everybody’s different opinions about what the text means.

@ the sacramanets
again how martin luther came to his opinion is how any other person comes to an opinion about anything. I disagree with martin luther and thats ok. But at the end of the day, ones stance on anything has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

Of course it has EVERYTHING to do with SS. SS is the means by which everyone defends their opinons, even when they disagree.

if your going to show sola scriptura is false you should start opening your bible and showing some scriptures because i have already shown an abundance supporting it.

No, IBE. None of the scriptures you gave support SS.

SS is a Reformation invention that is not found in Scripture.

as far as your question, yes. If we were to get the scholars out for a good debate and get to the root meaning of all the words im sure a general conclusion could be met.

On the contrary, the opposite has occurred. That is because this method is based upon fallible human capabilities that are limited.

Jesus, on the other hand, appointed a teaching authority so that individual opinions would not detract from the Truth He has revealed.

I think the bigger question is really to you, does the catholic church have a greater abundance of empirical evidence to say luther is wrong on this one? if so what apart from the bible is their strongest evidence here?

The CC is founded by Christ, ibe, not “empirical evidence”. Jesus committed the Truth to His Apostles, and they to their succesors, up until this day. It comes from the Revelation of God, which is the strongest evidence available to mankind.

well seems like he provided some scarce evidence however i would argue more than 1 scripture is fairly necessary to convince at least me there’s a general stance by God on that issue. Again an debate would be in order, however I see no condemnation for anyone holding either stance…

Truth, ibe, is not determined by debate or majority rule. It is determined by God.

 

[guanophore]

@divorce: well i would argue he also horribly misinterpreted this scripture.
anyone who DIVORCES HIS WIFE except for MARITAL UNFAITHFULNESS, and marries another woman COMMITS ADULTERY.
I really dont think it gets more clear than this, the man you speak of is committing tons of amounts of adultery if he indeed did divorce her to go marry another. especially if it was he who was unfaithful!

That is your opinion,and I happen to share it, but he has as much right to reach his conclusion as you do yours, under SS.

your main point through all of these different topics has remained the same, why do people have opinions? even if they are showed the same topics read the same books why do they have opinions? I would argue that everyone is just different and thats the way it is.

No, ibe, that is not the main point. It is human to have opinions. The main point is, using SS, people with different opinions can all support their beliefs, even if they are diametrically opposed to one another.

but as far as sola scriptura is concerned the bible being the sole authority of God (it was God breathed afterall) still stands.

I think your previous statement that everyone has their own opinion is sufficient to demonstrate that this approach to Scripture is not effective.

…but how do they come to that conclusion if the scriptures are so clear? ever think they may just have an agenda to push of their own? hmh

Exaclty! That is what happens in every beginning of a new “bible church”.

wonder how they came to that division if the pope, traditions held and scripture all combined had all the tools?

People can still be disobedient. Judas did not receive Christ’s mercy. That does not mean there was anything wrong with what Jesus taught.

The answer of the necessity of baptism is already in the scriptures and if you do not hold this too we can have a nice separate topic on it in which i will clearly demonstrate how scripture hold its necessity.

Perhaps you can, but Catholics have a different understanding of baptism than you do . The point is that each disparate point of view is defended with Scripture by those who espouse it.

much bible study and measurement to others who oppose the view. however what side advocated one should not get baptized? if not please explain the difference of the side not believing it to be necessary even though they already do it.

Some people don’t do it. They believe all the scriptures are about the HS, and no water is involved.

The saving grace is bestowed to anyone who accepts Christ and believes he is Lord and savior.

This is different from what the Apostles taught. They taught that even the demons do this.

The bible is necessary to bring man to truth and provide stories and examples of how one should properly live. what else will do this?

Who did it before the NT was written? Those are the same people that do it today.

@ guan

It isnt uncommon i guess when people hear things contradictory to their core beliefs to start raging.

Who decides which elements of the faith are “core” or “essential” and which are “non-essential”. Do you find a list of “core beliefs” in your bible?

You pointed out very well that everyone has a different opinion. Why would someone having a different opinion make them “rage”?

but this again has nothing to do with sola scriptura. It would be nice if we stayed within the confines of the topic? I know i myself may have gone somewhat out of the way here and there but lets not waste time with trying to 1 up…
" The majority of Catholics are very poorly formed in your faith. You might be an example of one."
again with the rage, please grow up m8.

My emotional reaction to the poor catechesis is one of sadness, not rage. When I see people like you misrepresenting the Catholic faith it is painful to watch. I don’t know that I need to grow out of this. When Jesus looked upon the lost masses, He was sad for them. There is nothing wrong with feeling a sense of loss over lost souls.

dang you didnt even respond to any of my posts, why is that?

If I missed any, I will be happy to go back.

Feel free to give me a post number. On the other hand, it may be that you did not see my responses because you have not learned to use the “view first unread” button.

you come looking for a orderly discussion of the scriptures and instead are met with “I think this would have prevented the misunderstanding above. However, with the degree of disrespect I am seeing in ibe’s posts, it is not likely that he/she will be here long.”

smh will no one actually show me where my scriptures are in error? if not i will repost them.

It is not the scriptures that are in error, but the attitude and misinformation you are spewing forth. Please read the forum rules!

I can assure you that we will not have a discussion if you are suspended or banned for not following them.

 

[ibetrippin07]

On the contrary, ibe, this is exactly what the Apostles taught, which is why it is written in scripture.

You have been given misinformation of what it is to be saved.

1 Peter 3:20-22
God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21** Baptism**, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

indeed this is truth, but it still does not suggest that if i believe otherwise im in danger of hellfire

Except that the Apostles taught that baptism is the normative means by which we are born again of water and Spirit.

yep

Of course it has EVERYTHING to do with SS. SS is the means by which everyone defends their opinons, even when they disagree.

no the bible is the means by which everyone defends their opinions. sola scriptura is the word to describe this usage, thats all it really is.

No, IBE. None of the scriptures you gave support SS.

SS is a Reformation invention that is not found in Scripture.

the trinity is not directly in the bible but the Godhead is implied, these scriptures imply ss.

On the contrary, the opposite has occurred. That is because this method is based upon fallible human capabilities that are limited.

Jesus, on the other hand, appointed a teaching authority so that individual opinions would not detract from the Truth He has revealed.

indeed, some are teachers others are not

The CC is founded by Christ, ibe, not “empirical evidence”. Jesus committed the Truth to His Apostles, and they to their succesors, up until this day. It comes from the Revelation of God, which is the strongest evidence available to mankind.

Theres alot of empirical evidence in the bible for a great deal of things. archeology and history for example it provides a wealth of information for empirical evidence in these fields for ancient studies.
and Gods words are equally of strength, what he said is what he wanted. the contrary has not been shown yet…

Truth, ibe, is not determined by debate or majority rule. It is determined by God.

yep, thats why hes a judge. if we knew everything why would he even bother judging anything?
i learned how to multi quote, thank Jesus!

 

[guanophore]

Im not sure if its that no one here can answer my assertions or point out my error in the choosing of the scriptures I did to support sola scriptura but they must be answered.

They have been answered many times here, ibe. Sola Scriptura and it’s errors are common topics here at CAF. I recommend that you go back and read the thread. You will find all the fine arguments of Miguel, who is better educated, more polite, and more skilled in reasoned debate than you all soundly refuted.

 you wonder how people get different opinions of the scriptures eric? by ignoring points that their opposition makes

No, ibe. different opinions are as common as belly buttons. People have them even when they read and study the opposition. The Truth is not a matter of debate, empirical evidence, or even exegetical skill. Truth is revealed by God.

…Is this not the same argument made by lucifarions?

Honestly, I don’t know. I have never argued with one.

If your view on sola scriptura is correct (or your churches view?) Then take the following scriptures and show how they are not in support:

john 5:39-41
mark 7:7-13
1 Cor 4:6
luke 1:3-4
2 Tim 3:14-17
Luke 10:25-37
Acts 17:11
Mat 15:9
or really responsed to my posts 726-31 to prevent going in circles.

Now might be a dandy time for you to read the thread, ibe. that might prevent circles also.

All of these verses were written by, for, and about Catholics. They all support the Catholic view of the Scriptures.

if its just a time issue i understand, its alot of material and debate to analyze. but by your tone guan i somewhat get the feeling youd rather concern yourself calling me a heretic (or at least implying it) than disproving my assertions.

You do not qualify for the status of heretic, ibe. By definition a heretic has once embraced the truth, then willfully and knowing ly rejected it. It seems clear from your posts that you have always suffered from a truncated gospel. The fact that you have embraced heretical views does not make you a heretic. If, after learning what the Apostles REALLY believed and taught you still cling to the heresy you have embraced, at that time you might qualify as a heretic.

I was not warning you about embracing the heresy, I was warning you that you will have your posting privileges withdrawn if you don’t follow the forum rules.

let me make one thing clear and this is a point i think most Catholics miss. the bible does not exclude traditions to be held so long as they are not thought of being necessary.

And whose “thought” counts? Who decides which of the Apostolic command to follow the Traditions we should ignore as “unnecessary”?

what makes you believe that we are bound to traditions outside of the bible?

Because you espouse SS, which is an extrabiblical doctrine. If you had read the thread, you would see that this point has been stipulated.

or even further what is your strongest evidence they are not already there in the text?

I think it has been demonstrated that the text can be twisted to support all kinds of heresies and bad practices.

now you are talking to one who believes heavily in sola scriptura, how will you convince me its an unholy doctrine?

This will probably not be possible. You seem very closed minded and prejudiced.

by showing the text itself never meant of itself to be the sole authoritative word.

Is this not self evident?

careful how you go about this though, it would be too easy to say that if the bible is not the sole authoritative word then the koran would have an equal chance really of saying its the most recent revelation.

It would not be easy for Catholics, because we believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and we do not believe that about the Koran - or any other writings.

 

[guanophore]

thankfully some sola scriptura in action!
guess different Catholics do hold different ideas about the eucharist interesting.

Indeed they do. There are many persons, the majority of American Catholics as far as I can tell, that have embraced heresies.

The Truthg, ibe is not a matter of “majority rule”, but of divine revelation. Those who walk away from divine revelation have left the path of Truth.

 

[ibetrippin07]

That is your opinion,and I happen to share it, but he has as much right to reach his conclusion as you do yours, under SS.

I disagree, he is outright ignoring certain passages and interpreting them in an obviously errorful way…

No, ibe, that is not the main point. It is human to have opinions. The main point is, using SS, people with different opinions can all support their beliefs, even if they are diametrically opposed to one another.

The CC doesnt?

I think your previous statement that everyone has their own opinion is sufficient to demonstrate that this approach to Scripture is not effective.

it only demonstrates what occurs without ss or with it.

Exaclty! That is what happens in every beginning of a new “bible church”.

and has been shown to occur in the cc…

Perhaps you can, but Catholics have a different understanding of baptism than you do . The point is that each disparate point of view is defended with Scripture by those who espouse it.

you eventually have to fall back on sola scriptura for anything m8 as you just somewhat stated here.

Some people don’t do it. They believe all the scriptures are about the HS, and no water is involved.

God be the judge

This is different from what the Apostles taught. They taught that even the demons do this.

James 2:19 i believe is what you are referring to here “You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.”
when did satan receive Jesus as Lord and savior? Im pretty sure he rejects God having any authority and that was the basis for his removal.

Who did it before the NT was written? Those are the same people that do it today.

The OT existed and still is consistent with the NT morals. i see no problem here.

Who decides which elements of the faith are “core” or “essential” and which are “non-essential”. Do you find a list of “core beliefs” in your bible?

God really

You pointed out very well that everyone has a different opinion. Why would someone having a different opinion make them “rage”?

you seemed upset, just my perception. dont let it get to you.

My emotional reaction to the poor catechesis is one of sadness, not rage. When I see people like you misrepresenting the Catholic faith it is painful to watch. I don’t know that I need to grow out of this. When Jesus looked upon the lost masses, He was sad for them. There is nothing wrong with feeling a sense of loss over lost souls.

prove me wrong.

If I missed any, I will be happy to go back.

Feel free to give me a post number. On the other hand, it may be that you did not see my responses because you have not learned to use the “view first unread” button.

I appreciate this and im sure you are doing it atm. i provided the numbers/scriptures thereof

It is not the scriptures that are in error, but the attitude and misinformation you are spewing forth. Please read the forum rules!

what rule did i break?

I can assure you that we will not have a discussion if you are suspended or banned for not following them.

probably not, but that seems a little rash maybe even to a degree childish.

 

[guanophore]

indeed this is truth,

That is interesting for you to say. I just read up the thread where you stated this did not exist…now it is “truth”?

but it still does not suggest that if i believe otherwise im in danger of hellfire

So, how many Apostolic Teachings can a person reject before they become in danger?

no the bible is the means by which everyone defends their opinions. sola scriptura is the word to describe this usage, thats all it really is.

This is not the case, ibe. The bible itself is not a “means” or a “method”. It is the divine revelation by God of Himself.

Opinions are what everyone has, and SS is the most common modern method people use to justify the rejection of the Teaching Authority put in place by Christ. That is all it really is.

the trinity is not directly in the bible but the Godhead is implied, these scriptures imply ss.

I agree. Slavery is implied, the murder of children, enforcement of poverty, abuse of women, etc, etc. There is no end of doctrines and practices that can be “implied” in the Bible. The bible can also be used to deny the Trinity (and has been).

Theres alot of empirical evidence in the bible for a great deal of things. archeology and history for example it provides a wealth of information for empirical evidence in these fields for ancient studies.
and Gods words are equally of strength, what he said is what he wanted. the contrary has not been shown yet…

You are missing the point, ibe. The Truth is not discovered by this empiricle evidence. the Truth is divinely revealed by God.

i learned how to multi quote, thank Jesus!

Amen!

 

[ibetrippin07]

They have been answered many times here, ibe. Sola Scriptura and it’s errors are common topics here at CAF. I recommend that you go back and read the thread. You will find all the fine arguments of Miguel, who is better educated, more polite, and more skilled in reasoned debate than you all soundly refuted.

I guess they have an edge on me then.

No, ibe. different opinions are as common as belly buttons. People have them even when they read and study the opposition. The Truth is not a matter of debate, empirical evidence, or even exegetical skill. Truth is revealed by God.

yep, and it was revealed in the bible. You are yet to show me it was placed elsewhere. truth has evidence on its side. If God is God, evidence will and does show it.

Honestly, I don’t know. I have never argued with one.

its an experience
.

All of these verses were written by, for, and about Catholics. They all support the Catholic view of the Scriptures.

the apostles were not jewish? Did God not write the bible? I disagree in their support.

You do not qualify for the status of heretic, ibe. By definition a heretic has once embraced the truth, then willfully and knowing ly rejected it. It seems clear from your posts that you have always suffered from a truncated gospel. The fact that you have embraced heretical views does not make you a heretic. If, after learning what the Apostles REALLY believed and taught you still cling to the heresy you have embraced, at that time you might qualify as a heretic.

I was not warning you about embracing the heresy, I was warning you that you will have your posting privileges withdrawn if you don’t follow the forum rules.

guess i could say the same for yourself. another moot point

And whose “thought” counts? Who decides which of the Apostolic command to follow the Traditions we should ignore as “unnecessary”?

What God demands of man.

Because you espouse SS, which is an extrabiblical doctrine. If you had read the thread, you would see that this point has been stipulated.

post number? i will respond to it.

I think it has been demonstrated that the text can be twisted to support all kinds of heresies and bad practices.

indeed such as many of the catholic non biblical traditions.

This will probably not be possible. You seem very closed minded and prejudiced

.
you seem equally accepting of my assertions.

Is this not self evident?

? not sure what you mean by this

It would not be easy for Catholics, because we believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and we do not believe that about the Koran - or any other writings.

why? is it not possible Mohammad received the newest possible revelation which is supposedly supposed to be blindly accepted as truth? its only when you leave sola scriptura you will have this problem.

 

[guanophore]

I disagree, he is outright ignoring certain passages and interpreting them in an obviously errorful way…

I agree, but then, SS allows people to do this. You have done this to justify your belief in SS. To those who have retained the apostolic faith, it seems like an “obvious error”. To you, it seems that ignoring certain passages is ok to do.

The CC doesnt?

No. Individual Catholics have opinions, but the Church has the mind of Christ. Individuals can only benefit from the “mind of Christ” to the extent that they are in unity with the revelation of Christ by Himself to the Church.

it only demonstrates what occurs without ss or with it.

without an authoritative teachign authority outside of the Scripture, there is no end to the debate.

nd has been shown to occur in the cc...

No, ibe. If someone chooses to reject the Catholic faith, they depart from Catholicity. If they go out and start their own “bible church” they have “gone out from us”. They don’t remain Catholic in faith.

you eventually have to fall back on sola scriptura for anything m8 as you just somewhat stated here.

No, ibe. no one has to apostasize from the Apostolic faith to embrace heresies. I realize that many do, but they don’t “have to”.They choose to do it, usualy because their itching ears are looking for what they want to hear.

God be the judge

Indeed, He has already done that, by creating an infallilble TEaching Authority for HIs holy Church.

James 2:19 i believe is what you are referring to here “You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.”
when did satan receive Jesus as Lord and savior? Im pretty sure he rejects God having any authority and that was the basis for his removal.

This scriptures nowehre state we must “receive Jesus as Lord and personal savior”. The demons accept that He is Lord and saviour. They don’t like it, but they know who He is.

The OT existed and still is consistent with the NT morals. i see no problem here.

You are claiming that the bible is necessary to teach the Truth. The Aposltes were given the Word of God by Christ.

God really

God wrote a list of core beliefs in the front of your Bible?

you seemed upset, just my perception. dont let it get to you.

Your perceptions as I have previously noted, say a lot more about you than anything else.

prove me wrong.

I can 'prove you wrong" that I am saddened by lost souls? I don’t think that is possible.

what rule did i break?

I pointed all of them out when they occurred. It appears that you are not reading my posts, but that is ok, because I write them as much for others who are willing to learn.

probably not, but that seems a little rash maybe even to a degree childish.

The mods are neither rash nor childish. They will investigate infractions of the forum rules before they suspend or ban you from posting.

The forum rules are neither rash, nor childish. they are here to promote good functioning of the environment. Your disrespect and repeated ignorant comments do not promote helpful debate.

 

[ibetrippin07]

That is interesting for you to say. I just read up the thread where you stated this did not exist…now it is “truth”?

post number?

So, how many Apostolic Teachings can a person reject before they become in danger?

some are not entirely clear which is why you have debate about them. God is a supreme judge and Im sure he understands this. Its why he is the ultimate authority. believing baptisms saves you or does not after or before your acceptance of Christ as Lord I think has nothing to do with salvation.

This is not the case, ibe. The bible itself is not a “means” or a “method”. It is the divine revelation by God of Himself.

Opinions are what everyone has, and SS is the most common modern method people use to justify the rejection of the Teaching Authority put in place by Christ. That is all it really is.

if it is divine revelation by God himself (which it is) then i guess thats a pretty good means and method to use.
anything Christ put in place or meant to put in place would have been written down else it was simply not that important.

I agree. Slavery is implied, the murder of children, enforcement of poverty, abuse of women, etc, etc. There is no end of doctrines and practices that can be “implied” in the Bible. The bible can also be used to deny the Trinity (and has been).

I sharply disagree. There is no biblical support for any of these things. slavery maybe but not in the sense people understand it today. really no different than people being stuck in their dead end 9-5

You are missing the point, ibe. The Truth is not discovered by this empiricle evidence. the Truth is divinely revealed by God.

I agree, which is why the truth is supported with the evidence.

Amen!
ha thanks, appreciate the back and forth. I’ll respond to more tomorrow.
God be with

 

[guanophore]

I guess they have an edge on me then.

We can all learn a lot from Miguel, tenacity not the least.

yep, and it was revealed in the bible.

Yes, God’s Truth is indeed in the Bible. But when you have so many mutually exclusive interpretations, it is clear that the Scriptures, by themselves, do not necessarily reveal the same “truth” to every reader.

You are yet to show me it was placed elsewhere. truth has evidence on its side. If God is God, evidence will and does show it.

God placed His word in the Church, as well. His Word at work in the Church did not disappear just because some of it was committed to writing.

the apostles were not jewish? Did God not write the bible? I disagree in their support.

They began Jewish, and became Catholic. Well, not all of them were Jews. Luke was probably a gentile.

Yes, the primary author of Scripture is God. But those “men”, moved by the HS to speak from God were all Catholic.

guess i could say the same for yourself. another moot point

Indeed you could, and it is far from a moot point. The same forum rules apply to everyone.

What God demands of man.

And who decides what, from Scripture, God is demanding of men? Should women wear veils in the church? Not speak at Church, because it is shameful? Should bishops all be married? These are issues that require an authoritative decision outside of Scripture.

indeed such as many of the catholic non biblical traditions.

I am sure that many Catholic Traditions appear non-biblical to you, since you are coming from a faith tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500+ years. You have lost so much of the faith that it seems to you that Catholics “added to Scripture”.

you seem equally accepting of my assertions.

I am willing to listen to your point of view, and have dialogue with you about it. It is not within my purview to separate myself from the paradosis in order to embrace your modern innovations. Your interpretations are divergent enough from the Apsotolic faith so as to constitute “a different gospel” than the one we received from our Apostles. If I were to embrace them, I would be “anathema” - a state that I am not willing to enter willingly.

? not sure what you mean by this

That the mutually exclusive interpretations of Scripture make it self evident that an extrabiblical authority is needed.

why? is it not possible Mohammad received the newest possible revelation which is supposedly supposed to be blindly accepted as truth?

Because Jesus holds the fulness of God’s revelation to man:

Eph 1:23
the fulness of him who fills all in all.

No “new” revelation is forthcoming. The One Faith has been “once for all” delivered to the saints.

its only when you leave sola scriptura you will have this problem.

No ibe. Scripture is normative, authoritative, inspired, and inerrant. None of these truths about scripture require that we force the Holy Writings into a role they were never intended to play.

 

[guanophore]

some are not entirely clear which is why you have debate about them.

No, ibe, we don’t “have to debate about them”. Debate does not necessarily draw us closer to the Truth.

Truth is revealed by God. It is not a human product of human debate.

God is a supreme judge and Im sure he understands this.

LOL.

It is not He that is lacking in understanding. It is the lack of ability for certain persons to see that He has manifested His revelation through the Church. If people recognized that God authoritatively spoke through the Church there would be no debate.

Its why he is the ultimate authority. believing baptisms saves you or does not after or before your acceptance of Christ as Lord I think has nothing to do with salvation.

We see it differently. Where should we take our dispute?

if it is divine revelation by God himself (which it is) then i guess thats a pretty good means and method to use.

Clearly it is not, since good people with all sincerity use the same method of SS to come up with mutually exclusive answers.

anything Christ put in place or meant to put in place would have been written down else it was simply not that important.

Can you show me where you find this in the Bible? I have looked, but I can’t.

I sharply disagree. There is no biblical support for any of these things. slavery maybe but not in the sense people understand it today. really no different than people being stuck in their dead end 9-5

Maybe not in your opinon, but people have used the bible for centuries. to support all these things.