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

[KathleenGee]

Thanks for the post…I have gone to the local Maronite church a number of times and always experience just a blessing hearing the words of Christ’s own vernacular, Aramaic, when receiving the Eucharist.

There is nothing in Scripture that says you have to look at only the Bible alone.

Again that is man speaking literally ‘alone’, to make Scripture break up into pieces, same with our communion with Christ. The universal faith looks at the Word of God from its entirety, phrase connected to every phrase…speaking always in the eternal moment of God’s time. not our time…that transcends all time.

Yes, Jesus Christ is the literal lifeblood of the Church in His sacraments, including Holy Orders, who represent the One High Priest in sacramental concrete form. The Holy Spirit moves both through the Word and the living Church.

When we commit mortal sin, we are broken off not only from the Church, but from Jesus Christ Himself. Hence, we must go to sacramental confession to be restored to the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist go hand in hand to provide us the Word Made Flesh, guided by His Holy Spirit all done through the ages.

Practically all Jewish households prior to Christ’s coming, did not have Bibles in their homes. The early Christians did not. The material used for the Bible changed through time, but it was still unaffordable and most people not able to read. That is not the fault of Catholic belief and doctrine.

 

[jlhargus]

Some Protestant denominations say the law was nailed to the cross but the Apostle John says: Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God

Col 2:14-15 says the “handwriting of ordinances” were blotted out at the cross and that is a direct reference to the ceremonial law that was written out by Moses. and not the Moral Law written by the finger of God.

JL: Yes the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross. Saturday worship is, ceremonial law, not a NATUAL MORAL LAW. The natural moral law is written on our hearts not on stone.

[Rms2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but **the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; ) ]

Gentiles, who had not the law, yet kept the NATURAL LAW, did not nor could not, by NATURE and conscience, have KNOWN about a ceremonial day of worship. Saturday is NOT a NATURAL MORAL LAW but a ceremonial law.

The following scriptures show sabbaths listed among the ceremonial law. Which was nailed to the cross. Hosea tells us God will cause to CEASE Israel’s sabbaths, new moons and all her solemn feasts.

Is1:11 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; THE NEW MOONS AND SABBATHS, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

Hos2:10 And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. 11 ** I WILL ALSO CAUSE ALL HER MIRTH TO CEASE**, her feast days, her new moons, AND HER SABBATHS, and all her solemn feasts.

Hos2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

[Col2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 **LET NO MAN THEREFORE JUDGE YOU IN MEAT, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, OR OF THE NEW MOON, OR OF THE SABBATH DAYS: 17 WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME; but the body is of Christ.]

Saturday worship was only a shadow or type of the NEW DAY, (creation) to come, the FIRST DAY, SUNDAY. Just as circumcision was instituted for all time. [Gn17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and **my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.]

Circumcision of the flesh was only a shadow or type. Pointing to a new and better circumcision. Christ’s circumcision of the heart, thru baptism, literally cleansing of all sin regenerating a dead soul by the indwelling Holy Spirit. On the FIRST DAY, Sunday, we literally eat the Lamb of God. Not a shadow or type represented by animals.

Our debt was not nailed to the cross. Our debt is taken away when we repent and confess our sins to our High Priest Jesus who is the only mediator between God and mankind.

JL: I would say our debt was nailed to the cross. But we can only appropriate that, GIFT payment, by GRACE. When we believe, repent, baptized for remission of sins and receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, Acts2:38.

 

[ahs]

Ahs said,
The Bible is Truth and does not contradict itself, yet those relying on SS still come to opposing views which are both fully based on Scripture alone. This is an excellent reason to dismiss SS…no one can be certain that the opposing view is wrong because BOTH views are based on someone’s understanding of scripture.

Ahs, since you have agreed that the bible is truth and does not contradict itself, it must then follow that any doctrine, dogma or tradition of the church must by necessity not contradict the Bible in order to also be true. Anything that contradicts truth cannot be true.

That is why a basic rule of Bible interpretation is: “To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error.” If you find your doctrine contradicting any scripture it should be regarded as erroneous and dismissed.

When you read Matt 5:19 where Jesus says no one should break the least of the commandments or teach others to do so, that should be clear enough for any reasonable man to understand. Add to that Psm 111:8, where the commandments are said to stand fast forever and ever , and you have indisputable evidence that changing or removing a commandment of God is forbidden by God. There are many other verses attesting to the immutability of the commandments, as well
You may argue for a doctrine that allows tradition to violate scripture , but then what you are really saying is that tradition is allowed to contradict truth and therefore does not have to be true.

I think you are assuming that I believe in a Doctrine that contradicts Scripture. As my status indicates, I’m Catholic. There are not Catholic Doctrines that contradict Scripture. Perhaps you are relying on your own person interpretation of Scripture (2Pet1:20) to find some contradictions?

Ahs said "…no one can be certain that the opposing view is wrong because BOTH views are based on someone’s understanding of what Scripture is really saying. How does SS resolve this issue?

Be careful in your analysis here, for what you are really saying is that no one can be sure of what is really true. But Jesus said if you did His will you would know the truth. (John 7:17 and 8:31-31) Many people want to know the truth without doing His will, and say they love Him without keeping His commandments (John 14:15).Paul says the scriptures can make you wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:15) and Jesus says you will err in not knowing the scriptures (Matt 22:29) These are powerful verses given validity to sola scriptura and that the Lord has made provision for us to know the truth.

Which of those verses says “sola scriptura”? And which of them indicates that your own private interpretation is just as valid as anyone elses (don’t forget 2Pet 1:20)?

If the doctrines of the Catholic church do not violate scripture , why would you be so adamant in your dislike for SS?

Because SS is contrary to Scripture and has led to countless divisions in Christianity.

If your doctrines are pure, SS would be a powerful argument for your beliefs.

No it wouldn’t, because it would necessarily imply that everyone has the correct understanding of Scripture, even though there are MANY different understandings of Scripture. In other words, my doctrines would only be as pure as my personal understanding of the Scripture that I believe supports them. It necessarily subjects Truth/Doctrine to my own person opinion/beliefs/understandings of Scripture.

The only people who would object to SS would be those who cannot validate their doctrines or traditions through the inspired word of God.

Chapter and verse please that says that all Truth has to be validated through Scripture. Or perhaps the chapter and verse that says that the Inspried Word of God is only in Scripture?

Sola scriptura is the great truth detector for it compares all doctrine to the Bible, and you have already agreed that the Bible is truth.

Yes, the Bible is Truth, but not the SOLE source of Truth. And the Bible does not claim to be.

When you say “no one can be certain” then you are contradicting Christ’s statements saying we are to know the truth : John 8:32 “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Please give me the Scriptural reference that says that your understanding of Scripture is more correct than another Christian who disagrees with you.

Phineas said: Knowing the truth depends on your sincerity and depth of study.
Ahs then asked: Says who? Does the Bible say this? Or is this just an opinion? Using SS, please demonstrate this for me.

Sincerity Jerm 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Depth of Study 2 Tim 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And whose objective standard do we use to define sincerety or depth of study? I can study for years and not learn any truth, if I’m studying with the light turned off and can barely make out the letters.

Remember, SS is not against tradition in general, but rather against tradition that contradicts the scriptures, for anything that contradicts the truth is a lie…

Then SS is a lie, because it contradicts the Scriptures.

 

[jlhargus]

Without sola scriptura men are at liberty to contradict the inspired word at their own discretion and Christ no longer becomes our Lord, but rather men claiming to speak for Him.

JL: Actually you just gave a good description of sola scriptura. How many faith groups has sola scriptura united? How many has it divided and still dividing? Who or what authority, in your faith group, decides what your ONLY authority is teaching. If there is a disagreement in interpretation what authority decides which is right? Paul gives the answer in 2Tm3-4. Paul names three a teaching authority (Church), scripture and Tradition.

As far as, 2Tm3:16-17, teaching scripture ALONE it doesn’t. In fact Paul tells Timothy to USE his teaching authority (magisterial authority) USING both scripture and Oral Tradition. back up to verse 14.

[2Tm3:14 But **CONTINUE THOU IN THE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST LEARNED AND hast BEEN ASSURED OF, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;]

Now pick up VERSE 15-17 and continue into chapter 4. There we see Timothy an overseer (bishop) IS the teaching AUTHORITY. That authority, Timothy, is to PREACH THE WORD, REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT WITH DOCTRINE. Making full use of his MINISTRY.

[Verse:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2Tm4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season, out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT WITH all long suffering and DOCTRINE. 3 For THE TIME WILL COME WHEN THEY WILL NOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 AND THEY SHALL TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, MAKE FULL PROOF OF THY MINISTRY]

[2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And **the THINGS that thou hast HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.]

[2 TIM 1:13 **HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.]

Why do you think Baptist interpret scripture differently than Presbyterians? And Presbyterians differently than Pentecosts, etc. They all have the same scriptures as their SOLE AUTHORITY. All claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation. Each use their own passed on oral traditions handed down to interpret scripture. Sola Scriptura has done nothing but create a Tower of Babel, scattering people of faith into thousands of contentious denominations. All speaking their own faith language no longer understanding the one faith language delivered once to the saints, the Church, 1Tm3:15 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 TRUTH. Sola Scriptura is nothing more than a tradition of men, Satan’s playground. The scriptures their sole authority tells them the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHRUCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

[2THES 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the TRADITION which he received of US.] It seems Paul thought Tradition is of such importance that one who does not follow them are to be shunned. Sounds like,

[Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, **TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

 

[joe370]

I truly want to believe that Roman Catholicism is the way but I also need reassurance, that’s why I brought it here to be refuted, for some peace of mind. My soul has been tortured with this kind of stuff for too long, so I am asking the experts.

I thought it was critical to belong to the same church to which the apostles belonged. Protestantism was born in the 16th century. Catholicism was born on Pentecost in the 1st century. That was my starting point, and I think a good starting point for anyone looking for truth.

 

[Patavium]

I thought it was critical to belong to the same church to which the apostles belonged. Protestantism was born in the 16th century. Catholicism was born on Pentecost in the 1st century. That was my starting point, and I think a good starting point for anyone looking for truth.

That’s an answer our protestant brothers dislike. That also coupled with the fact that our Orthodox brothers have not splintered into many different groups like Protestants, because they hold to our similar traditions as well.

 

[JonNC]

That’s an answer our protestant brothers dislike. That also coupled with the fact that our Orthodox brothers have not splintered into many different groups like Protestants, because they hold to our similar traditions as well.

Or, perhaps, you have held to theirs.

Perhaps protestants such as myself would have an easier time with the answer Joe gives were the schism resolved. As I’ve said bfore, I envy Joe’s coming to terms with it. I haven’t, and I refuse to be a lousy Catholic or lousy Orthodox.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Or, perhaps, you have held to theirs.

Perhaps protestants such as myself would have an easier time with the answer Joe gives were the schism resolved. As I’ve said bfore, I envy Joe’s coming to terms with it. I haven’t, and I refuse to be a lousy Catholic or lousy Orthodox.

Jon

Jon, what would be a lousy Catholic from your perspective? Curious…

 

[JonNC]

Jon, what would be a lousy Catholic from your perspective? Curious…

I would be, Pork, if I could not accept the universal jurisdiction or infallibility (ex cathedra) of the pope. To be confirmed Catholic, and still hold this position would make me a lousy Catholic, and receptive, too. Its ironic, because I respect the CC too much to do that.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

I would be, Pork, if I could not accept the universal jurisdiction or infallibility (ex cathedra) of the pope. To be confirmed Catholic, and still hold this position would make me a lousy Catholic, and receptive, too. Its ironic, because I respect the CC too much to do that.

Jon

Jon, is your infallibility concern strongest on the faith part, moral part or both?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, is your infallibility concern strongest on the faith part, moral part or both?

The faith part, and more specifically, the ecclesiastical part. Scripture aside, it seems to contradictory to the early councils and the early Church that produced them.

Jon

 

[Hamlet123]

I thought it was critical to belong to the same church to which the apostles belonged. Protestantism was born in the 16th century. Catholicism was born on Pentecost in the 1st century. That was my starting point, and I think a good starting point for anyone looking for truth.

Joe I don’t mean to be picky but the Church was born when Christ side was opened it was Manifested on Pentecost. To much trouble to find it in the CCC, but I just read it. Sorry if I am being picky… I don’t know if your mis-fact would affect anything of significance but small items have caused big problems.

God bless you, your response to this fellow was excellent:thumbsup:

 

[stewstew03]

I would be, Pork, if I could not accept the universal jurisdiction or infallibility (ex cathedra) of the pope. To be confirmed Catholic, and still hold this position would make me a lousy Catholic, and receptive, too. Its ironic, because I respect the CC too much to do that.

Jon

Given that you do reject universality and infallibility - doesn’t that make you a lousy catholic any way?

 

[KathleenGee]

Reaffirm here that yes, indeed, the Church came to be at Pentecost through the Holy Spirit at work in the apostles…not the apostles having been anointed by Christ as the beginning.

The Last Supper was the institution of the priesthood and liturgy.

Pentecost was the beginning of the Church, including Blessed Mother and other people, all receiving tongues of fire over them, revealing that the Church comprised of priests, Blessed Mother, the bridge between the Holy Trinity and the common believers.

Subsequently there was a time in the Church, during Arianism, where most bishops initially believed that Christ had a beginning and an end, but the faithful and a small percentage of bishops did not carry the faith. St. Athanasius, bishop and theologian, was exiled 4 times because he opposed Arianism, and was instrumental in creating the Church word, consubstantiated…meaning God the Father, Jesus His Son, and Holy Spirit are all consubstantiated…of the same substance and eternal.

This was all confirmed at the Council of Nicea, thus the final revelation of the total deposit of faith in Christ, 300 years later through the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Given that you do reject universality and infallibility - doesn’t that make you a lousy catholic any way?

No, Stew, at least no more so than any other catholic. Perhaps to be more precise, ISTM to be a good Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I would have to accept his universal jurisdiction and infallibility.

Jon

 

[joe370]

No, Stew, at least no more so than any other catholic. Perhaps to be more precise, ISTM to be a good Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I would have to accept his universal jurisdiction and infallibility.

Jon

Aka, God’s guidance regarding truth…

 

[JonNC]

Aka, God’s guidance regarding truth…

God’s guidance regarding truth. Whether or not universal jurisdiction and infallibility (ex cathedra) are truth is precisely he question, Joe. Tradition is divided.

Jon

 

[joe370]

God’s guidance regarding truth. Whether or not universal jurisdiction and infallibility (ex cathedra) are truth is precisely he question, Joe. Tradition is divided.

Jon

Well, Jesus, as per scripture, did say that He would build His church on Simon, renamed Rock…and guide His church into all truth until the end of time. I suppose that is where faith comes in…

 

[JonNC]

Well, Jesus, as per scripture, did say that He would build His church on Simon, renamed Rock…and guide His church into all truth until the end of time. I suppose that is where faith comes in…

But Christ doesn’t say that Peter has supreme jurisdiction, or that Peter is only in Rome, or that Peter is infallible (ex cathedra). And neither do the early councils.

Jon

 

[joe370]

JonNC;9693798]But Christ doesn’t say that Peter has supreme jurisdiction, or that Peter is only in Rome, or that Peter is infallible (ex cathedra). And neither do the early councils.

Jon

I agree regarding Peter and Rome. Peter is the rock on which Jesus continues to build His church on earth, not just Rome.

Infallibility is nothing more than Jesus’ perpetual guidance…

Ex cathedra are just words adopted by the church to delineate Matthew 16, in my humble opinion…

Like you said, if the east and west re-united, then you would be more open to this idea?

I now have faith that God continues to guide one church into all truth until the end of time. I also believe that He loves and saves all Christians, regardless of church affiliation.