It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MariaG said:
Such a simple thread, yet how many posts later and we still don’t have biblical evidence that scripture is above, sole or whatever you want to define scripture alone. We all can see the value of scripture, but value does not equal sole authority (above etc).
Click to expand...
Well said…I wish just one non-Catholic would admit that Jesus commissioned a body of teachers to teach all that He taught 2000 years ago and that this was to be done in perpetuity…
 
joe370 said:
**10 questions I could not answer as a non-Catholic; perhaps a non-Catholic at this thread can help me out. Just trying to stay on topic:

**
Click to expand...
too many are off topic to reply: but let me just say that the fact the the CC gave the Bible is not as widley accepted as you may think it is. Same applies for Infallible Tradition and Papal Infallibilty.

and BTW 1 Timothy 3:15 means the beleivers, the people, not the building or some organization.
 
**RedBert, you said:
**
too many are off topic to reply: but let me just say that the fact the the CC gave the Bible is not as widley accepted as you may think it is.

**So, where did the bible come from, if not the CC? Be honest, as I was as a former Lutheran. Just answer the question, even if you think they are off topic…of course they are not…PLEASE…
**

Same applies for Infallible Tradition and Papal Infallibilty.

**Is the holy spirit infallible?
**

and BTW 1 Timothy 3:15 means the beleivers, the people, not the building or some organization.

**Not the building…agreed. What is your point?

**Please, just answer the questions, and I will answer your questions!!!
 
REDBERT, YOU SAID :

**THE BELIEVERS ARE THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH.
**

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

i THOUGHT IT WAS THE BIBLE???
 
RedBert said:
bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm

admittedly some of these verses are stronger than others, but taken together as a whole.

The point is that your Church does not accept these.
Click to expand...
It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.

When I taught Sola Scriptura to an adult Bible study class

I used theses for some good references

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Five-Solas/

many of your points are addressed here

carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

once again: The RCC ( and therefore , you ) do not accept them
 
RedBert said:
bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm

admittedly some of these verses are stronger than others, but taken together as a whole.

The point is that your Church does not accept these.
Click to expand...
From the web site::

We invite all those who rely on the organization to interpret the Bible for them including Orthodox, Catholics, and their twin organization, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to think for themselves. If you have the intelligence to read the newspaper, why not the Bible?​

Click to expand...
First deception: JW’s use a different Bible than Catholics and Protestants. JW’s don’t believe that Jesus is divine.
From the web site::

We are in a difficult position with Catholics, Orthodox and Watchtower believers alike, because when we point out the verses that prove sola Scriptura is taught in scripture, they don’t believe they can understand the Bible without their church interpreting it for them… and they say sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. What an amazing system of circular deception the Catholic, Orthodox and Brooklyn New York, churches have invented.​

Sola Scriptura means that you use the Bible alone for doctrine. This means Catholics and Orthodox need not appeal to their** contradictory oral church traditions **and Jehovah’s Witnesses need not rely upon the Watchtower magazine to interpret the Bible for them.​

Click to expand...
2nd deception: Nothing the Catholic or Orthodox Churches teach contradicts itself or the Bible.
From the web site::
1 Cor 4:6: Click for detailed outline. Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build My church” and Paul warned: “in building the church, do not exceed scripture!”

Luke 1:1-4: Click for detailed outline. Luke begins by mentioning uninspired gospels by Christians, then the oral tradition of the apostles and concludes that scripture alone will allow Theophilus to know for certain what the truth is.
Luke 3-4:
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nowhere does it say ALONE. Luke wrote the NT for Theolphilus, he did not write the OT. Luke did not write Paul’s letter to the Romans.
From the web site::
Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: “IT IS WRITTEN” Read it for yourself! If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture.!
Click to expand...
The NT wasn’t even written yet when Jesus said this. Jesus was referring to the OT
From the web site::
** We just with that the Roman Catholic and O**rthodox churches held scripture alone in the same high regard
Click to expand...
What does this mean?
From the web site::
2 Timothy 3:16-17: No matter how traditionalists twist it, it still says that** scripture alone** is all-sufficient to equip us for EVERY good work.
Click to expand...
The NT wasn’t even written yet when Jesus said this. Jesus was referring to the OT
From the web site::
“2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t say the Bible is all sufficient by itself.”
Click to expand...
From the web site::
“How could 2 Timothy 3:16 teach the all-sufficiency of scripture, when several New Testament books were not even written yet?”

Luke 10:26: “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” Jesus expected even his enemies to correctly interpret the Bible by simply reading and studying it. Unlike Jesus, Catholics and Orthodox don’t ask you what you think scripture says, they just tell you how their church interprets it and you have no choice but to accept what they tell you.

Acts 17:11-12: Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the scriptures for the final determination of truth. Oral tradition is worthless without the witness of scripture! Unlike the apostles, Catholics and Orthodox would never send you to scripture, since they don’t think you can even understand it!
Click to expand...
ditto.
 
RedBert said:
It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true.
This is the first problem: the definition of SS is a moving target among its adherents.
You have one opinion, Grace Seeker has another, and the web sites you provided us have yet another. Why? Because it isnt explicitly stated in Scripture, but is a DEVELOPING tradition . So you can claim that SS doesnt require XYZ, but without a static understanding of what SS is, its impossible for us to truly address your comments.
Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
joe370 said:
**10 questions I could not answer as a non-Catholic; perhaps a non-Catholic at this thread can help me out. Just trying to stay on topic:
  1. The Bible was not put under one cover until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage.** It took a monk 10 months to hand copy the Bible. Prior to the Bible being put under one cover, to whom did the early Christians turn for biblical edification? Remember, the Bible did not exist as we know it today.
  2. How did the early Christians each own a Bible if the printing press wasn’t developed until the 1500’s? Even after the printing press was developed how many Christian could afford to own a Bible?
  3. Why does JESUS state the final authority is His church in Matthew 18:15-17?
  4. Where in the Bible does it state that the “Bible” is the only authority for Christians?
  5. For the first 1000 years of Christianity, ( this is the case for some people in some parts of the world today) - how did the majority of the Christians who were uneducated/illiterate, adhere to the 16th century man-made doctrine, sola scriptura? Remember you guys (grace seeker and redbert) - stated that tradition was not infallible like the word of God.
  6. What is the pillar and foundation of truth?
  7. How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct?
  8. Finally, many non-Catholics, such as my sister tell me, when I ask them where the bible came from - from the holy spirit, as opposed to the CC, guided by the holy spirit.
*What’s wrong with that STATEMENT? *
  1. How would this be possible without Jesus’ established church? Did the holy spirit do what God did with Moses and the tablets? If so, where in the bible does it say something like this?
  2. Did the holy spirit place the table of contents in everyone’s bible, or was that put there by the Catholic Church in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage?
Click to expand...
 
Philthy said:
**Its not that we dont accept those verses, **we dont accept your use of them. Big difference!
Click to expand...
Good point. I guess we should ask bY what Authority does the SS website determine what the verses mean? But that is topic for another thread.
 
So far then we have the position that “Sola Scriptura” really means “primarily scripture” or “above Tradition and Church” and this does not need to be “proven” from scripture as it is an extra-biblical tradition not explicitly denied by scripture.

Taking this position “should” preclude those adhering to if from attacking any doctrine as being unacceptable unless it is explicitly denied by scripture. No?

It seems nobody, wisely so I would think, has tried to step up and biblically defend the “Solo Scriptura” position that is want to be taken when attacking Catholic Doctrine.

Does that about sum it up?

Chuck
 
clmowry said:
So far then we have the position that “Sola Scriptura” really means “primarily scripture” or “above Tradition and Church” and this does not need to be “proven” from scripture as it is an extra-biblical tradition not explicitly denied by scripture

nope, it is no more extra-biblical than the Trinity is.

so your next points are irrelevant
Click to expand...
 
the issue with discussing SS in this forum is that SS does not exist by itself in a vacuum:

discussions that involve Sola fide, Sola gratia,Solus Christus, or Soli Deo gloria and the infallibility of the Pope or Tradition or interpretation are considered off topic.

so while there is no SS (just like the Trinity) scripture , that does not mean it is not Biblical

The case for the doctrine SS has been provided.

the “If…then …and therefore” don’t convince you, then nothing will.

reminds me of the “did Mary have other children?” debate; regardless of many “brothers ans sisters of the Lord” verses are presented, it won’t change anyone’s mind

If the RCC wasn’t convinced that some of their traditions were un- biblcal 500 years ago, then they won’t do it today either.
 
RedBert said:
nope, it is no more extra-biblical than the Trinity is.
Click to expand...
Actually, SS contradicts Scripture. Scripture explicitly states that we are to adhere to the oral Traditions as well as the written Traditions.
Titus 1:9:
9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Click to expand...
Titus never wrote anything, nor got anything from Paul, save for the letter written to him.
2 Thessalonians 2:15:
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the** traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle**.
Click to expand...
Acts 8:26-40:
Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch,
a court official of the Candace,…
Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
The Spirit said to Philip,
“Go and join up with that chariot.”
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said,
“Do you understand what you are reading?”
He replied,
"How can I, unless someone instructs me?"
So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
Click to expand...
 
RedBert said:
the issue with discussing SS in this forum is that SS does not exist by itself in a vacuum:
Click to expand...
OKAY!! What fills that vacuum?
RedBert said:
so while there is no SS (just like the Trinity) scripture , that does not mean it is not Biblical
Click to expand...
I agree with the concept, but not with the doctrine, because SS is explicitly refuted in the Bible.
RedBert said:
The case for the doctrine SS has been provided.
Click to expand...
No, your unbiblical interpretation has been provided.
RedBert said:
If the RCC wasn’t convinced that some of their traditions were un- biblcal 500 years ago, then they won’t do it today either.
Click to expand...
That’s because the Traditions of 500 years ago are the same as they were in the times of the Apostles!!!
 
RedBert said:
nope, it is no more extra-biblical than the Trinity is.

so your next points are irrelevant
Click to expand...
That’s not the case at all. There is NOTHING in Scripture that indicates that Scripture is to be held “above” Tradition and the Church.

There is much explicitly in Scripture that indicates that there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that all Three are God.

Chuck
 
clmowry said:
There is much explicitly in Scripture that indicates that there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that all Three are God.

ChuckThere was the Arian argument against the Trinity. Arius was a brilliant priest from Alexandria. How was It determined that Arius’ interpretation of the Bible was heresy? By what standard? Arius died approximately 336 AD. The Bible as we know it today had not yet been compiled.
Click to expand...
 
qui_est_ce said:
There was the Arian argument against the Trinity. Arius was a brilliant priest from Alexandria. How was It determined that Arius’ interpretation of the Bible was heresy? By what standard? Arius died approximately 336 AD. The Bible as we know it today had not yet been compiled.
Click to expand...
That’s a rhetorical question, correct?

Brilliant men can torture scripture to supporting any heresy.

Anyone can make a mistake, it takes somebody really smart to mess things up royally.

It’s been happening since pen was first put to paper (or maybe it was chisel to stone.)

This is why Apostolic Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Church are required if we are to believe that Christ left us a firm rule of faith.

Chuck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top