Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter suzyq_psu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicea325 said:
What on earth makes you believe Jesus is making reference to Sola Scriptura or defending it? No offense,but **you are not a reliable source **to explain scriptural verses.
Click to expand...
Then in your opinion who is a reliable source?
 
suzyq_psu said:
Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the essential catholic survival guide by the staff at catholic answers, it answers every question I ever had especially on Peter as the rock and scripture alone.

amazon.co.uk/The-Essential-Catholic-Survival-Guide/dp/1888992816/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334825092&sr=8-1
 
Shall we dust off the line? This discussion is pivotal on Mt. 16 , including the Petrine Pun. If the keys of authority are given to Peter the Apostle and his apostolic progeny, every religious entity outside that pervue is usurping authority–which is no authority at all.

Within the realm of: “who got the keys?”, one must also ask: Rome or Constantinople? Or: none of the above. They are both in essence claiming to be separate orthodox, authorized entities defining what God said. (There is an authority schism regarding the bishop of Rome-- for nearly a thousand years)

What if, for the sake of discussion, Peter was not the personal receiver of the keys?

All sides of this issue cannot be right. All could be wrong. What is the standard? The word of man or the Word of God? Man is fatally corrupted–it shows in everything he does. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Where will we be in 100 years?

Even so come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

James Least
 
James_Least said:
Shall we dust off the line? This discussion is pivotal on Mt. 16 , including the Petrine Pun. If the keys of authority are given to Peter the Apostle and his apostolic progeny, every religious entity outside that pervue is usurping authority–which is no authority at all.

Within the realm of: “who got the keys?”, one must also ask: Rome or Constantinople? Or: none of the above. They are both in essence claiming to be separate orthodox, authorized entities defining what God said. (There is an authority schism regarding the bishop of Rome-- for nearly a thousand years)

What if, for the sake of discussion, Peter was not the personal receiver of the keys?

All sides of this issue cannot be right. All could be wrong. What is the standard? The word of man or the Word of God? Man is fatally corrupted–it shows in everything he does. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Where will we be in 100 years?
Even so come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

James Least
Click to expand...
Least,

You are correct. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, the first among equals. In 100 years it will be 2112.🙂
 
Arizona_Samson said:
Then in your opinion who is a reliable source?
Click to expand...
AzSam,

Opinions are rampant. I believe that a change in mind is what is reliable. Focusing on who is a reliable source will cause insanity. The proper question for the proper answer is in my opinion as follows.:cool:

What is a reliable source?:confused:

How do I find it?🙂
 
Nicea325 said:
Certainly not 1voice. If you cannot distinguish between biblical exegesis and eisegesis, then that is where the discussion ends.
Click to expand...
The OP asked the question at the beginning. Sola Scriptura, help to refute this.
Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.
Click to expand...
It appears that ofthesons has admitted it is not proveable. It is refuted because by admission the only way to prove it is to accept it as a supposition. If you like suppositions then you are on your merry way.🙂
 
Rina_Badal said:
Peace be with you.
Allow me to share this.
Peace,
Rina
Click to expand...
:rotfl: That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I hope it’s OK that I swiped it. I know I’ll be able to use it in the future.

Thanks.

Oh - as it didn’t show up in my post I’m adding it:
 
sami1066 said:
I suggest you read the essential catholic survival guide by the staff at catholic answers, it answers every question I ever had especially on Peter as the rock and scripture alone.

amazon.co.uk/The-Essential-Catholic-Survival-Guide/dp/1888992816/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334825092&sr=8-1
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link to the book. Here it is for those of us who don’t live in the UK:

amazon.com/Essential-Catholic-Survival-Guide-Anwers/dp/1888992816/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334946236&sr=1-8

I just bought it, used. It’s not expensive. I’m looking forward to reading it. I was surprised to see that the book was put out by guess who? Catholic Answers!
 
James_Least said:
Shall we dust off the line? This discussion is pivotal on Mt. 16 , including the Petrine Pun. If the keys of authority are given to Peter the Apostle and his apostolic progeny, every religious entity outside that pervue is usurping authority–which is no authority at all.
Click to expand...
This is the first time I have run across the “Petrine Pun.” I googled it and have become nothing but confused - probably because I’m not any sort of expert on the languages used in Biblical times.

But it seems, from what little I have read, that Peter had a sense of humor. Good for him. It’s a shame that it can’t be translated easily but that’s the way it goes sometimes.

I’m doing a lot of thanking in this thread and I’ll continue. Thanks for mentioning the Petrine Pun. You’ve helped me start to put another piece of a very complicated, multi-dimensional jigsaw puzzle into place.
 
CopticChristian said:
The OP asked the question at the beginning. Sola Scriptura, help to refute this.

It appears that ofthesons has admitted it is not proveable. It is refuted because by admission the only way to prove it is to accept it as a supposition. If you like suppositions then you are on your merry way.🙂
Click to expand...
If 1voice believes it is biblical, then why so much dodging to present scriptural verses? 🤷
 
suzyq_psu said:
Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558
Click to expand...
suzy,

There are numerous history books that can help you out on this.

Scripture of course teaches that our church was built on Peter and the other apostles. Eph 2:20 and Rev 14:21 confirm this even if they do not confirm that it was Peter alone.
Scripture does not however teach succession and in fact the history books teach that Peter was never a bishop of Rome. There is nothing wrong however in claiming succession from Peter since all christians in my mind are successors of the apostles.

Regarding doctrines and dogma it is important to follow scripture as the Word of God. Nobody teaches that dogma taught otherwise is equal to the Word of God, not even the Catholic church as I interpret Vatican II.

Peace, JohnR
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Isn’t it sad how sola scriptura proponents are so adamant about not being under the direction of any other person?
Which one of us can claim a direct lineage to the Apostles line?
What Churches can claim a direct lineage to their teaching? Ultimately to Christ’s teachings?

.
Click to expand...
Isaiah,

My church claims a lineage from the apostles no less direct than yours. History teaches that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and even Catholic scholars are redefining the meaning of apostolic succession in the light of this. All pastors and bishops who take on the tasks of the apostles are successors of the apostles.

My church as councils to guide us and of course we are under the Holy Spirit.

Peace, JohnR
 
highrigger1 said:
suzy,

There are numerous history books that can help you out on this.

Scripture of course teaches that our church was built on Peter and the other apostles. Eph 2:20 and Rev 14:21 confirm this even if they do not confirm that it was Peter alone.
Scripture does not however teach succession and in fact the history books teach that Peter was never a bishop of Rome. **There is nothing wrong however in claiming succession from Peter since all christians in my mind are successors of the apostles. **
Regarding doctrines and dogma it is important to follow scripture as the Word of God. Nobody teaches that dogma taught otherwise is equal to the Word of God, not even the Catholic church as I interpret Vatican II.

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
John,

Can you really believe this? All Christians are successors of the Apostles therefore all Christians express the fullness of Faith as delivered from the Apostles and we see that expression in unity…where?:confused:
 
highrigger1 said:
Isaiah,

My church claims a lineage from the apostles no less direct than yours. History teaches that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and even Catholic scholars are redefining the meaning of apostolic succession in the light of this. All pastors and bishops who take on the tasks of the apostles are successors of the apostles.

My church as councils to guide us and of course we are under the Holy Spirit.

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
High,

I recall the movie working girl. In that movie is a scene where one girl says to the other…“just because you sing in the shower doesn’t make you Madonna”…

Mohammed claims to be a Prophet
Joseph Smith claims to be a Prophet

Does claiming something make it true? John Wesley was an Anglican and he departed from the Anglicans. The Anglicans departed from ???

If what you say is true then John Wesley should have started “The Church Of Apostolic Succession of all Christians”…but he did not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top