It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now to be a valid rule of faith or conduct it must not be in conflict with the Bible. It can be an issue the Bible is silent about (yes I know the Church of Christ disagrees with this)
So you’ve successfully defined “Sola Scriptura” to mean that nothing can be true that is in conflict with the Bible but issues the Bible are silent on can also be true…

That reminds me of some other group…oh Yeah…Catholics.

Chuck
 
Derek D states: “it (The Bible) is pillar and support of the truth; it not even difficult to see god entrusted a body of believers to preserve his truth and to use that truth to edifiy and teach and practice his truth.”
It certainly is. But it does not state all the Christ did while onearth - it even says so. The canon of the bible was not even finalized, agreed upon, and approved until the 4th century - by Catholics, mind you. The New Testament you possess was given to you by the Catholic Church, inspired by God. Yes, the Catholic Church gave Protestants the Bible. Luther thanked them for it by removing books which did not jibe with his view on things (Macabees - Purgatory). He wanted to remove James (“faith without works is dead”) due to his belief that humans are “dunghills covered with snow” and are incapable of “doing” (works) good. Hence, the “faith alone” argument. Nowhere in the Bible is this statement to be found, except in James, where it is refuted. Indeed, Luther’s German translation actually inserted the word “alone” to suit his needs. Again, this was just a man making the rules up along the way to fit his own earthly vision - against that of God. Subsequent reformers are just as guilty, because they branched off of Luther’s branch - to each his own.

Protestants - beginning with Mr. Luther - have hacked away at the Bible over the years by removing entire books, distorting it through terrible translations, etc. Heck, now you can buy Joyce Meyer’s interpretation of the Bible if her translation fits your particular worldview. If not, simply get another translation that does. This is not Christianity, my friend. This is not Truth. This is, however, confusion. The Bible was given to you by God, through the Catholic Church, which spread His truth throughout the world for centuries before a Bible was even written. He not only gave us the Bible through the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church to serve as your scriptural interpreter and teacher, as well. There can be only one Truth, not tens of thousands of competing visions of Truth. Please come to understand this.

The Catholic Church (not church, mind you) is Holy and divine. It is not corrupt, and cannot be so. People within the Church can be - and are. The Church itself is pure, as it is Christ’s Church. The Church has lasted 2000 years. It has lasted longer than any other human institution or government. And it will continue to do so. It will be here long after all others are gone. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. They have not, and will not. Only such divine protection can account for the Church’s survival against endless attacks from within and without. This divine protection will ensure it’s continued survival and growth. Indeed, we just added 400,00 members this week, likely to swell to millions more in the months and weeks to come as our Anglican brothers and sisters flee man-made religion to come home to Christ’s Church (no offense to my Anglican brothers and sisters, but it is the truth).

Our friend Mr. Luther headed up a group of people who were upset and bitter over legitimate wrongs and practices taking place within the Church, being done by people within the Church. . Rather than reform the Church (again, not church) from within, Luther was cursed with pride and his new practice now bears his - a mortal man’s - own name. This is why Lutheranism is dwindling away, and will be virtually gone within the next 40/50 years, certainly within the USA, maybe a little later elsewhere. It is a man’s vision of how he wanted things to be, not how Christ wanted things to be. It was doomed from the start. Aforementioned Anglicanism - formed when a king was not allowed an anullment - is dying, as well.

Man-made religion will not cut it. It will rot. As far as “… (The Bible)” being a “pillar and support of the truth; it not even difficult to see god entrusted a body of believers to preserve his truth and to use that truth to edifiy and teach and practice his truth”, who on earth among our feuding, conflicted, contradictory, and self-righteous Protestant brethren is to say what the Bible means? On whose authority do you all rely? The Pentacostal down the street, who believes differently than you, different from the Lutheran, differently from the Episcopal, differently from the 7th Day Adventist, different from the “non-denominational”, different from the Methodist, different from the Assembly of God, different from the…? You get the point (hopefully). It doesn’t end, and never will. God is not the author of this confusion. Protestants often argue that Catholics allow a man to come between them and God when they confess to a priest. What malarkey. Protestants - all, each and every one, of Protestants - have done so. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, on and on. Each with their own “Biblical teaching.”

Protestantism can be boiled down to one’s own interpretation of the text, which is why the reformers have been reformed, and reformed, and reformed, and will always be reformed. Indeed, the truest form of Protestantism is one man, alone with a Bible, understanding it as he sees fit, seeing others as confused and wrong, while believing what he reads (if he can read, comprehend, etc.) as the True Word.

Christ gave humanity a teacher - the Catholic Church. Eventually, most will realize this (as I hope you do) and will come home.
 
You first mistake is also fatal; believing the church was before the word, this contradicts God and common sense.
What? I never said any such thing. I said His Church existed before the New Testament was written.

This is simply a historical fact no matter what your “common sense” tells you that god tells you.
Especially in light of the OT which spoke and pointed to the person of Christ, then the words which Christ spoke were said before the day of pentecost, but were not written down until sometime later. to say the church was before the words of God is plain foolishness and means the holders of this belief are also foolish.
Oh I agree this is a bunch of foolishness. Of course since you are the only one who’s said such a thing you are arguing with yourself.

Create a starwman and then burn it down. Always a fun game to play but, really not a very good may to defend your thoughts.
“in the beginnig was the word and the word was with god and the word was god.”
I’m sure you must have some bizarre interpretation of this to justify your erroneous belief and low expectations of scripture; perhaps i am wrong and you will show that.
So every time you see “word” in the Bible you think it means “scripture?”

If so then according to this interpretation that would make the Bible = God per the verse you quote above.
rather than putting down the interpretation of matthew 4 above perhaps you can give your own interpretation, i noticed you offered none.
I had no need to offer one, I didn’t assert that verse meant anything beyond a literal reading.

'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4

This verse taken all by its lonesome says absolutely nothing at all about “scripture”.

No where are we expected to assume that “word” means “words recorded in a canonical book”.

The “word” of God came to us first through His prophets and in these last days directly from God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Some of the “word that proceeds from the mouth of God” happens to have been written down.

There is nothing in this written word (Old or New testament) that would lead one to conclude that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God has been captured in sacred scripture.

This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.

Thus the OP.

Chuck
 
All you are showing me here is two things, you do not have a high view of scipture in light of your church and second you have a sad understanding of scripture, which is not a good thing for you because it speaks volumes to those that do know the Word of God and place it as the highest authority.
Catholics have a VERY high view of the Word of God which is why we refuse to allow it to be truncated in any way.

You have lopped off Sacred Tradition which is also the Word of God, and you have a truncated canon which is another violence to the Word of God.

Additionally, you have an unacceptably LOW view of the Magisterium of the Church which Jesus Himself established.

Sure, I understand why you think poorly of all the thousands of “ecclesial communities” masquerading as the true Church, but why you think so little of Jesus’ own handiwork built AS PROMISED upon Cephas is troubling.
 
I respectfully disagree with your premise. I can cite an example that I hope clarifies it.

If I am assembling a bicycle. I would hope that my instructions are “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable”. I remain, however a fallible interpreter of these instructions.

Nevertheless, these instructions are very useful in assembling my bicycle. If I interpret them correctly and follow them precisely, I will have as a result a properly assembled bicycle. If my bicycle is not correctly assmembled, I know the that the fault lies with either my understanding or execution of the instructions. So I can go back and fix it.

However, if the instructions themselves are defective, I have absolutely no hope of assembling my bicycle correctly.

So I hope this example shows how an infallible document without a infallible interpreter is not the same as a defective document without an infallible interpreter.
The assembly instructions are not sufficient to ensure that you will assemble the bicycle properly (as any parent working on Christmas Eve will attest).

What if you have dslyexai don’t know how to read at all?
What if you can read but don’t know how to use the tools required for assembly?
What if you don’t know how to read and understand the diagrams?

The assembly manual (like the Bible) is useful, but is not sufficient in and of itself to make the proper assembly of the bicycle a certainty.

Jesus left a Church (not a book), and it is that Church which is tasked with training you to be a complete bicycle technician. That can be accomplished by the Church with or without the technical manual.
 
The assembly instructions are not sufficient to ensure that you will assemble the bicycle properly (as any parent working on Christmas Eve will attest).

What if you have dslyexai don’t know how to read at all?
What if you can read but don’t know how to use the tools required for assembly?
What if you don’t know how to read and understand the diagrams?

The assembly manual (like the Bible) is useful, but is not sufficient in and of itself to make the proper assembly of the bicycle a certainty.

Jesus left a Church (not a book), and it is that Church which is tasked with training you to be a complete bicycle technician. That can be accomplished by the Church with or without the technical manual.
That is not the point that I was trying to make with this example.

The assertion was made that an infallible document without an infallible interpreter is just as useless as a defective document without an infallible interpreter.

If you think on how real life works, that assertion is ridiculous.

Actually I agree that the Bible in itself is insufficient. God designed both the Bible and the church. If the Bible in itself were sufficient, He would not have designed the church and we could grow in Christ all in our lonesome secluded with ourselves.

The issue is and has always been what is the relationship between the two.
 
That is not the point that I was trying to make with this example.

The assertion was made that an infallible document without an infallible interpreter is just as useless as a defective document without an infallible interpreter.

If you think on how real life works, that assertion is ridiculous.
AP-

We already know how real life works with an infallible document and a bunch of fallible interpreters.

It’s called “Protestantism”.
Actually I agree that the Bible in itself is insufficient. God designed both the Bible and the church. If the Bible in itself were sufficient, He would not have designed the church and we could grow in Christ all in our lonesome secluded with ourselves.

The issue is and has always been what is the relationship between the two.
Sort that out, my friend, and you will confirmed in the Church at the next Easter vigil. 👍
 
I respectfully disagree with your premise. I can cite an example that I hope clarifies it.

If I am assembling a bicycle. I would hope that my instructions are “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable”. I remain, however a fallible interpreter of these instructions.

Nevertheless, these instructions are very useful in assembling my bicycle. If I interpret them correctly and follow them precisely, I will have as a result a properly assembled bicycle. If my bicycle is not correctly assembled, I know the that the fault lies with either my understanding or execution of the instructions. So I can go back and fix it.

However, if the instructions themselves are defective, I have absolutely no hope of assembling my bicycle correctly.

So I hope this example shows how an infallible document without a infallible interpreter is not the same as a defective document without an infallible interpreter.
This is a rather bad analogy of your ss doctrine AmateurPianist and in no way assists you in your defence. A poorly assembled bicycle will not work for anyone who decides to give it a try and can easily be noticed just by looking with the eye, whereas as a poor interpretation of Scripture will practically work for anyone who’s comfortable with it and hidden under the disguise of your own understanding. I seriously do not believe you have a way out or can explain your way out of your Bible alone heresy. I’ve never witnessed it in all my years lurking about on Catholic or Christian forums.
 
the bible never mentions the catholic church as even existing much less the pillar and support of the church; this must come form the superior authority of the catholic church above the word of god…at least this is how you all make it seem.
Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about here,

No mention of the Catholic Church in the Bible? Check your Greek New Testament.

Acts 9:31 says
Hort and Westcott
h men oun ekklhsia kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicen eirhnhn oikodomoumenh kai poreuomenh tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhquneto

ekklhsia kaq olhV = Catholic Church
 
Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about here,

No mention of the Catholic Church in the Bible? Check your Greek New Testament.

Acts 9:31 says
Hort and Westcott
h men oun ekklhsia kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicen eirhnhn oikodomoumenh kai poreuomenh tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhquneto

ekklhsia kaq olhV = Catholic Church
I have been away from the forums for awhile, but again, find it so enlightening to check up on any of your threads!

I am humbled. I saw this mentioned by someone else but it really didn’t register. That is awesome. Learn something new everyday! I had thought the first reference was withing the 1st century, but am glad to find out I was wrong!
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]

Okay then if you feel it is wrong to call the Blessed Mother the queen of heaven, who do you feel deserves that roll?
Why do you assume that there HAS to be a “Queen of Heaven”?
 
Again, in real life what we have is reliable documents and fallible interpreters
.Do we? What about the Holy Spirit’s guidance? What about Our Lord’s promise to be with His church always even to the end of the world? What about Our Lord’s promise that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and bring them to our remembrance?
Now admittedly if I were Catholic, I too would be critical of Protestants and their 90 gajillion denominations.
But I have observed that even if Protestants are wrong with their 90 gajillion denominations, it does not follow that Catholics or anybody else is right.
The problem there is that those 90 gajillion denominations came into existence some 500 years ago and exist because they fell for a new wind of doctrines of men called Sola Scriptura and things cascaded downhill from there. That doctrine did not exist before that time and that being the case tells us that the Catholic Church, which has existed from the New Testament to this day is the correct doctrinal source.
And the issue ultimately is what did God design.
There ya go…the Catholic Church. 🤷
Let us assume that God designed a perfectly reliable and infallible document to be interpreted by authoritative members of the Body of Christ (pastors, teachers, apostles, evangelists, prophets) but yet humans who retain the capability of being incorrect, even in interpreting this document. And let us also assume that us as the body of Christ mess this up by dividing up amongst ourselves.
Assumptions based upon fallacies do not lead to true conclusions.
It does not necessarily follow that what God designed is faulty or defective.
Yep…and again… the Catholic Church.
 
Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about here,

No mention of the Catholic Church in the Bible? Check your Greek New Testament.

Acts 9:31 says
Hort and Westcott
h men oun ekklhsia kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicen eirhnhn oikodomoumenh kai poreuomenh tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhquneto

ekklhsia kaq olhV = Catholic Church
Nego maiorem!
(and that transcription of the Greek text really hurt my eyes…)

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία **καθ’ ὅλης **, is the passage.

Now, “καθ’ ὅλης” is not, as you seem to think, one word, and a name. It is two words, a preposition “καθ” (from κατα, here meaning “throughout” ) and an adjective “ὅλης”, from “ὅλος”, “whole”, “entire”.

They are two words, meaning "throughout (the) entire (Judea etc…).

Not even the Vulgata has the understanding of the text that you want it to have. The text of the Vulgata reads:

“ecclesia quidem per totam”

not “ecclesia quidem catholica”, which would be what we would expect, if Hieronymus had read it the way you do.

So, what can we conclude?
You rolled an epic failure. Care to try again?
 
Because there is a King and He has a mother.

Chuck
…and? You’re not going to say that because the mother of the King was queen in the theocratic Israel, then it neccessarily follows that the mother of the King of Heaven is also the queen of Heaven? That’s a non-sequitur.
 
So you’ve successfully defined “Sola Scriptura” to mean that nothing can be true that is in conflict with the Bible but issues the Bible are silent on can also be true…

That reminds me of some other group…oh Yeah…Catholics.

Chuck
Great! Now, if only the RC Church would actually live up to that motto, and also stop contradicting itself, it would be even better…
 
Great! Now, if only the RC Church would actually live up to that motto, and also stop contradicting itself, it would be even better…
And you can of course provide us with all of those teachings that are in explicit conflict with scripture, right?

Chuck
 
…and? You’re not going to say that because the mother of the King was queen in the theocratic Israel, then it neccessarily follows that the mother of the King of Heaven is also the queen of Heaven? That’s a non-sequitur.
No it doesn’t “necessarily” follow, but it does reasonably follow.

Where does scripture explicitly say that this is not the case?

Chuck
 
Okay. So if scripture is the sole INFALLIBLE authority, but the words of a pastor or say a founder of a denomination collide with scripture, that person is in error?

So in Matthew 18 when scripture tells us that when there is a dispute with your brother you are supposed to take it to the Church for final ruling. Yet didn’t the Church do that with Luther and rule against him? You seem to believe that scripture is the final authority but follow the teachings of a man who had a dispute with the Church and the Church tried to correct him to the error of his ways, the man disagreed, and still choose to follow his way as interpreted by him instead of following scripture that tells us to let the Church decide.

And doesn’t Romans 12 tell us to avoid those who create discension? Yet you follow the teachings of a man who started one of the greatest discensions of Christianity. That too seems to contradict scripture, which you say is the sole infallible authority.

And of course throughout scripture, we are urged to be one. Was that just a suggestion? That one can choose not to be one if one disagrees with the Church? But again, that seems to contradict scripture that tells us to take disputes to the Church for final ruling.

Respectfully, even if you believe scripture is the only INFALLIBLE authority, the basic precept of Lutheran denomination seems to have to have been founded CONTRARY to scripture. Luther had a disagreement with people in the Church. Those in the Church took it to the Church. The Church told him he was wrong. He contiuned to believe what he choose, contrary to scripture would urge him to do.

Respectfully,
Maria
Respectfully - could your understanding of what Jesus means when He says “church” be just a little bit biased?
And if you therefore assume what you’re trying to prove (that the RC Church is the church founded by Jesus), you run into a nice medieval hermeneutic circle, where you already know what the truth is, then reads the Bible in that light, and then uses the Bible to argue your understanding of the truth.

IF the RC Church is the church which Jesus founded, and IF the RC Church is everything else it claims to be, then your logic holds (bringing us back to the hermeneutic circle). If it is not, then it crumbles and falls to the ground with a loud “KABOOOM”. Everything rests on whether or not one imposes a meaning into the text which isn’t even there. I can certainly understand why you’d read those passages in the light of the RC Church, because that’s what you’ve been taught, but please also have the courage to consider the idea that people who think differently aren’t stubborn half-wits who want to decide their own truth. …

Classic failure.
 
No it doesn’t “necessarily” follow, but it does reasonably follow.

Where does scripture explicitly say that this is not the case?

Chuck
It does not "reasonably " follow either.

Where does Scripture say that Jesus didn’t take the time to go to America after His ascension?)
WHere does Scripture say that Jesus didn’t dine with a couple of aliens from Alpha Centauri, whom He met on another cloud on His way back up?

See my point? Your argument is flawed. And asking me to point out where in Scripture it says that the RC understanding is incorrect, and claiming that it’s true because I’m unable to do so, is like me asking you to point out where in Scripture it says that Jesus didn’t meet up with a couple of little green men, and then assuming that He did, because you cannot prove otherwise.

Utter nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top