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

[Protoman2050]

Catholicism is looking more and more attractive to me. Something about sola scriptura never really sat well with me. You can’t find it in the Bible. 2 Tim 3:16 doesn’t exclude things outside the Bible from being correct.

Protestantism (esp. KJVO, thankfully I am not a part of!) is becoming Bibliolatry, the worship of a man-made falliable collection of infalliable books. The canon didn’t exist until the 3rd century. What were Christians doing before then? Apparently we believe the Bible just materialized. Someone had to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Prima scriptura makes much more sense.

LOL, I’m going to ask my pastor: From the Bible and only the Bible, why is [insert book] included? Luckily, he’s a very intelligent guy, and we all know we only adhere to sola scriptura for doctrine and practice. Not for questions about the Scripture itself.

Oh wait. We don’t adhere to sola scriptura for doctrine either. We adhere to our own falliable minds, and make doctrine appear and disappear.

Sola scriptura is imaginary. No-one ever interprets Scripture alone in a vacuum

Now, on to sola fide and sola gratia! Sola Christus and sola Deo gloria can be left alone, I think.

 

[pablope]

Catholicism is looking more and more attractive to me.

Prima scriptura makes much more sense.

LOL, I’m going to ask my pastor: From the Bible and only the Bible, why is [insert book] included? Luckily, he’s a very intelligent guy, and we all know we only adhere to sola scriptura for doctrine and practice. Not for questions about the Scripture itself.

Now, on to sola fide and sola gratia! Sola Christus and sola Deo gloria can be left alone, I think.

Well, let me give you a tip at which book…the Gospel of Mark…ask him where Mark claims authorship of the gospel (chapter and verse) and ask him why he believes, after finding the chapter and verse, why the Gosple of Mark should be in scripture? or is Biblical, by what basis?

read thiis story too… freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

 

[Protoman2050]

Well, let me give you a tip at which book…the Gospel of Mark…ask him where Mark claims authorship of the gospel (chapter and verse) and ask him why he believes, after finding the chapter and verse, why the Gosple of Mark should be in scripture? or is Biblical, by what basis?

read thiis story too… freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

I’m emailing him as we speak.

Martin Luther removed books that didn’t fit with his theology. Is that honoring “the primacy of Scripture”? Is thatSola Scriptura? Just remove books that you dislike?

Protestant logic: We interpret the Bible literally…except when we don’t. I have no idea how you can interpret Jn 6:52-67 any other way but literally, unless we want to say Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and if we go down that road with one item…we get vague Emergent stuff! Where no one means what they say, nothing is literal, everything is metaphor, and everything refers to nothing.

BTW, I’m writing an interesting story about a troubled Jesuit priest who has to save his town from a deadly viral outbreak. PM me if you want to read it.

 

[Phineas]

The Bible should be considered by all Christians to be the inspired word of God. Today there are many different translations- but in general, most give a fairly accurate portrayal of the original manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments.

The Apostle Paul says that all scripture (OT) is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction (2 Tim 3:16). This should be ample assurance for all Christians that any doctrine that contradicts the inspired word of God should be rejected as false and misleading, and should be corrected…

Our God is the same , yesterday, today and tomorrow. He changeth not. (Heb 13:8) and (Mal 3:6) ,we , therefore, have scriptural assurance that His word stands fast forever.

Psalms 119:89 proclaims, “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.”

Psm 111:7 The works of his hands [are] verity and judgment; all his commandments [are] sure.
111:8 They stand fast for ever and ever, [and are] done in truth and uprightness.

Isaiah 40:8 “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever”

Heb 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Eph 6:17 … and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

When questions of doctrine and church tradition come up, we should be able to defend our church beliefs with a “thus saith the Lord” or “it is written” as Jesus did when questioned by His detractors. We should be ever ready and able to "give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

Satan has not been asleep these many years. He is always trying to bring false doctrines into the church to keep us from worshiping God in spirit and in truth. But thank God we can discern his false doctrines and traditions, because the Lord has mercifully given us the “Great Truth Detector” - the word of God as revealed in the writings of the Old and New Testaments.

Psm 119:105 Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Psalms 119:11 “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee”

2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”

Now we know that sin is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4) and the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). So, it should come as no surprise for us to see that Satan would constantly try and make us sin, and what better way to do that than to have us change the law of God so that we break His law while thinking we are keeping it. This is what false doctrine and tradition make us do,. but this need not be if we study our Bibles and use it as that “great truth detector”.

Isaiah 28:10, “For precept must be upon precept … line upon line; here a little, and there a little.

Psm 19:7 The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

Psm 1:2 But his delight [is] in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Sola scriptura does not mean the church can not have traditions or that new light can not be discovered, but it does mean that any doctrine or tradition that contradicts the word of God should be rejected in a swift and determined manner.

In light of all this, I will attempt to show in succeeding posts, that many of the traditions of both the Catholic and Protestant churches are heretical and blasphemous. I will use only the written word of God to do this, and i would expect anyone who disagrees with me to show me my error by using an “it is written” and not a tradition of your church that cannot be sustained by the word of God.

I do not want anyone to think that i am a big no-it-all, for in the past I have accepted many doctrines and traditions that were not Biblical. I have nothing against Catholics or Protestants, but I have come to see that God is not pleased when we put the traditions of men above the word of God. I want us all to be like Jesus and use an “it is written” to defend ourselves against the enemies of truth.

I welcome to be corrected when wrong, but please do so in a manner befitting a Christian , and I will endeavor to do the same.

In succeeding posts I will attempt to show through the word of God that the 10 commandments, including the Sabbath Commandment, are unchangeable. That the Lord’s day is the Sabbath, and, that some churches have deliberately changed the commandments of God and replaced them with their traditions, thereby imitating the Jewish leaders of whom Jesus said " Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men". (Mark 7:7) and adding that the rulers were “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:13)

 

[SteveVH]

The Apostle Paul says that all scripture (OT) is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction (2 Tim 3:16). This should be ample assurance for all Christians that any doctrine that contradicts the inspired word of God should be rejected as false and misleading, and should be corrected…

What this is ample evidence of is the fact that when Paul said these words he could only have been speaking of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, actually) as the New Testament had not yet been written or canonized as Scripture. No one has argued that the Old Testament is not inspired by God or profitable for doctrine. It doesn’t say that it is completely sufficient as a rule of faith, it says that it is profitable. Catholics would agree wholeheartedly. Elsewhere in the Scriptures Paul also speaks of holding fast to the tradition which they have been given. Maybe you missed that part. You forget that if not for the Catholic Church, you would not even know what is insprired and what is not. And as for Paul’s words, a good portion what he had claimed was insprired by God, you have not accepted. I am speaking of the seven books, and portions of others, which I would bet are not contained in your version of the Bible. Your proof texting is not going get you very far on this forum.

 

[adf417]

In light of all this, I will attempt to show in succeeding posts, that many of the traditions of both the Catholic and Protestant churches are heretical and blasphemous. I will use only the written word of God to do this, and i would expect anyone who disagrees with me to show me my error by using an “it is written” and not a tradition of your church that cannot be sustained by the word of God.

I do not want anyone to think that i am a big no-it-all, for in the past I have accepted many doctrines and traditions that were not Biblical. I have nothing against Catholics or Protestants, but I have come to see that God is not pleased when we put the traditions of men above the word of God. I want us all to be like Jesus and use an “it is written” to defend ourselves against the enemies of truth.

I welcome to be corrected when wrong, but please do so in a manner befitting a Christian , and I will endeavor to do the same.

In succeeding posts I will attempt to show through the word of God that the 10 commandments, including the Sabbath Commandment, are unchangeable. That the Lord’s day is the Sabbath, and, that some churches have deliberately changed the commandments of God and replaced them with their traditions, thereby imitating the Jewish leaders of whom Jesus said " Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men". (Mark 7:7) and adding that the rulers were “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:13)

Cordial Greetings Phineas,

While I applaud your attempt to accomplish this task you have set out to do, I have one simple request. Can you do this in a way that would not HAVE to be read? Reading a written explanation presupposes abilities not everyone, even in this day and age, has.

God bless!!!

 

[CopticChristian]

The Bible should be considered by all Christians to be the inspired word of God. Today there are many different translations- but in general, most give a fairly accurate portrayal of the original manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments.

The Apostle Paul says that all scripture (OT) is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction (2 Tim 3:16). This should be ample assurance for all Christians that any doctrine that contradicts the inspired word of God should be rejected as false and misleading, and should be corrected…

Satan has not been asleep these many years. He is always trying to bring false doctrines into the church to keep us from worshiping God in spirit and in truth. But thank God we can discern his false doctrines and traditions, because the Lord has mercifully given us the “Great Truth Detector” - the word of God as revealed in the writings of the Old and New Testaments.

Psm 119:105 Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Psalms 119:11 “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee”

2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”

Now we know that sin is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4) and the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). So, it should come as no surprise for us to see that Satan would constantly try and make us sin, and what better way to do that than to have us change the law of God so that we break His law while thinking we are keeping it. This is what false doctrine and tradition make us do,. but this need not be if we study our Bibles and use it as that “great truth detector”.

Isaiah 28:10, “For precept must be upon precept … line upon line; here a little, and there a little.

Psm 19:7 The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

Psm 1:2 But his delight [is] in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Sola scriptura does not mean the church can not have traditions or that new light can not be discovered, but it does mean that any doctrine or tradition that contradicts the word of God should be rejected in a swift and determined manner.

In light of all this, I will attempt to show in succeeding posts, that many of the traditions of both the Catholic and Protestant churches are heretical and blasphemous. I will use only the written word of God to do this, and i would expect anyone who disagrees with me to show me my error by using an “it is written” and not a tradition of your church that cannot be sustained by the word of God.

I do not want anyone to think that i am a big no-it-all, for in the past I have accepted many doctrines and traditions that were not Biblical. I have nothing against Catholics or Protestants, but I have come to see that God is not pleased when we put the traditions of men above the word of God. I want us all to be like Jesus and use an “it is written” to defend ourselves against the enemies of truth.

I welcome to be corrected when wrong, but please do so in a manner befitting a Christian , and I will endeavor to do the same.

In succeeding posts I will attempt to show through the word of God that the 10 commandments, including the Sabbath Commandment, are unchangeable. That the Lord’s day is the Sabbath, and, that some churches have deliberately changed the commandments of God and replaced them with their traditions, thereby imitating the Jewish leaders of whom Jesus said " Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men". (Mark 7:7) and adding that the rulers were “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:13)

Phinny,

the Law of God is “embodied in the Ten Commandments”, which continue to be binding upon Christians.

the Sabbath should be observed on the seventh day of the week, specifically, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.

Jesus Christ will return visibly to earth after a “time of trouble”, during which the Sabbath will become a worldwide test. The second coming will be followed by a millennial reign of the saints in heaven. Adventist eschatology is based on the historicist method of prophetic interpretation.

Humans are an indivisible unity of body, mind and spirit. They do not possess an immortal soul and there is no consciousness after death (commonly referred to as “soul sleep”). (See also: Christian anthropology)

Conditional immortality The wicked will not suffer eternal torment in hell, but instead will be permanently destroyed. (See: Conditional immortality, Annihilationism)

The ministry of Ellen G. White is commonly referred to as the “Spirit of Prophecy” and her writings are considered "a continuing and authoritative source of truth

Does the Bible support or negate any of the above?

 

[ofthesons]

Sola Scriptura is self-refuting because it is not found in scripture. It doesn’t get any simpler than that, does it?

Scripture is true on account of itself as it is its own justification (2 Tim 3:16 & 17). We can deduce from Scripture that it is true. We cannot deduce from Scripture that the Church is infallible, but rather that the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can and do state infallible things (for example, that Scripture is true). So even when the Catholics like to inculcate that it was the Church that “determined” what Scripture was, they can’t do this without appealing to Scripture, which states that God would lead his Church unto all truth and that he would raise up elders. But since they don’t appeal to Scripture alone, but Tradition at one point and external and internal historical “evidence” for the Bible at another, they only make their case fallaciously circular. The reason that this seems to be untrue is because they use the fact that people assume the same arbitrary notions that they do as leverage.

Sola Scriptura is not self-undermining as Scripture does furnish evidence of its truthfulness.

The burden is upon you to show or evidence not simply that the Church rightly affirms things that are not explicitly or implicitly stated in Scripture, but rather that the Church is infallible. And see if you can do this without being fallaciously circular.

And we can see the failure of Sola Scriptura in the many protestant denominations, along with the “new age” religions such as JWs, Mormonism, etc.

All this shows is that people get Scripture wrong and that they vary on what constitutes Scripture, which is what has happened before and after Hippo and Carthage. And as I’m always telling Catholics, that doesn’t disprove Sola Scriptura in the slightest. If you wish to keep insisting that it does, please objectively tell me how.

If Christ came to institute a Bible, then it would be evident to all believers and scripture would not refer to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth…

What do you mean by 'institute a Bible"? How do Sola Scripturists affirm this?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Bible should be considered by all Christians to be the inspired word of God. Today there are many different translations- but in general, most give a fairly accurate portrayal of the original manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments.

The Apostle Paul says that all scripture (OT) is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction (2 Tim 3:16). This should be ample assurance for all Christians that any doctrine that contradicts the inspired word of God should be rejected as false and misleading, and should be corrected…

(Snip)

Phineas,

Can you please point me where does Paul explain what all scripture is?
Where does Paul explicitly outlines the books he considers to be scripture?

Unless you can show where Paul explains the above, we have to conclude that he was referring to what was considered scripture at the time: Mostly the Septuagint.

Now can you show me where Paul specifies what books should not be included as Scripture?

Thanks.

In Him.

 

[SteveVH]

Cordial Greetings Phineas,

While I applaud your attempt to accomplish this task you have set out to do, I have one simple request. Can you do this in a way that would not HAVE to be read? Reading a written explanation presupposes abilities not everyone, even in this day and age, has.

God bless!!!

Excpect to be overwhelmed with volumes of verses rather than a coherent, well thought out discussion. I suspect Phineas is Seventh Day Adventist and he just can’t wait to get his digs in about the “man-made” doctrines of the Catholic Church.

 

[onemangang]

Glad to see you haven’t left us Phineas

It seems to me that you are presupposing a completed canon during the time of the Apostles.

I would like to see what books were canon, and which books were not, during the time of the Apostles.

I would also like to see what translation was most often used by the Apostles ie; Greek (Septuagint) Hebrew (Masoretic text) Hebrew (proto-Masoretic text) for correction and reproof of the laity! It should be important to establish, not only what books were being used, but what language and text was being spoken and written in the 1st century culture!

How do we know, (who under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) who wrote the books of the OT and NT?

How was the canon discerned, both Old and New Testaments?

I look forward to hearing your Apologia!

 

[Protoman2050]

Here’s a response from my pastor (his response in italics):

Sola Scriptura is an imaginary doctrine. You can’t find it in the Bible. 2 Tim 3:16 doesn’t exclude things outside the Bible from being correct on faith and morals. How was Paul making an exclusive statement there?’

*I think Sola Scriptura may have been presented to you inaccurately in the past by people. It certainly shouldn’t be used to say we throw out Augustine and Gregory the Great and Jerome and the other church fathers, not at all. You’re completely right, Paul isn’t making an exclusive statement in 2 Tim 3:16. So in its true form, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t either - it doesn’t exclude the notion of there being other authorities which govern our lives. BUT, the big issue is, where there’s a contradiction between those other authorities and scripture, that’s where the problem comes in, and that’s where scripture must come first. So where Augustine or Basil or Jerome contradict scripture, we don’t fret about it, we say ‘whoops, they made a mistake there’ and ignore that little bit (which is in fact exactly how medieval Catholic scholars treated them.)

That way, we always have an unchanging benchmark on which to base our view of who Jesus is. Tradition (certainly in the Catholic church) is prone to change, even if slowly. And that means if we put tradition above Scripture as our authority our view of Jesus can change. Note, this doesn’t mean we have to throw tradition out altogether - just where it contradicts Scripture.*

For example, before the canon, oral tradition guided Christians.

*You’re absolutely right, Doug, before the (NT) canon, oral tradition did guide Christians. But that was dictated by the scriptures they did have access to, i.e. the Old Testament - that’s why the NT writers are so dedicated to proving that Christ doesn’t contradict the OT in any way, in fact he fulfils it. Early believers had a massive respect for OT authority, that went hand in hand with their respect for the words of Christ. *

Also, whenever someone say “this teaching contradicts Scripture”, they are actually saying “this teaching contradicts my interpretation of Scripture.” It’s now opinion against opinion, and I’m going to trust the Church Fathers over some guy who went to Bible college in his church basement.

True, to an extent; but sometimes someone’s interpretation of Scripture is quite clearly the correct one. I.e., if you say the Bible teaches salvation by faith in Christ, and I say it clearly teaches salvation by faith in the big fluffy slippers at the foot of my bed, you just need to interpret it right, one of us is right and the other is wrong! Yes, we ought to respect the ideas of the church fathers - they were brilliant and intelligent men - but they were just men, who weren’t writing words that are God-breathed, and so they could be wrong as well. We ought to respect their ideas the way we respect the writers of brilliant commentaries or the way we respect brilliant preachers - as jars of clay used to hold great truths from God’s word.

 

[Protoman2050]

Also, does 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2 mean nothing anymore?

They certainly do! But I think that’s to do with the apostle Paul in context. After all, he met with Jesus face to face and was appointed by him to preach to the Gentiles. But the cool thing is, the Holy Spirit HAS preserved those oral traditions through his writings in the NT - so really, the NT is oral tradition, it’s just oral tradition inspired by God!

Yes, let the clear interpret the unclear. But which ones are clear and which ones aren’t?

You’re right about this; but we can sift clear and unclear fairly well. For example, the faith and deeds thing. Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, John, and many others would all seem to say, very very clearly, that salvation is by faith in Christ - just following the law can’t save. At first sight, James 2 would seem to contradict that; we have an unclear situation suddenly. So what we do is use the clear teaching (salvation is by faith - our works are essential) to interpret the unclear (wait, how on earth do those two fit together) to get a solution (we are saved only by faith in Christ; once we have put our trust in him, he changes us, so our faith will be shown to be genuine by looking at are we being changed to be more like Jesus?) Does that make sense?

Interesting question: Using the Bible, and only the Bible, prove the Gospel of Mark was authored by Mark, and give reason for why it should be in the canon. Chapter and verse.

*Aha, you’ve got a great point going there! Certainly, the only reason why we know Mark was authored by Mark is because of overwhelming testimony of the church fathers. I have no problem with that! That fits in perfectly with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Also, it’s not a salvation issue - so if the fathers were wrong, which they could feasibly be (like, 0.0001% chance of human error), and Mark wasn’t written by Mark, it wouldn’t be a problem.

Reason it should be in the canon… Well, two reasons I go for. First is, Luke borrows from Mark as massive amount as one of his sources (we know Luke used sources - including oral ones - 1:1-4, and there’s a huge amount of similarities between the two gospels.) Paul is certain Luke is Scripture (Look at 1 Tim 5:18), and as we’ve already discussed Paul thinks Scripture is God-breathed. If Luke is borrowing hugely off Mark and is writing words that are God-breathed, that implies Mark is God-breathed too.
Second reason is simply because it became canon pretty much spontaneously, in a way that wasn’t really man’s design. The church didn’t get together and decide in a meeting Mark passed the test of tradition. They simply recognised what had already happened - everyone, all at once, was saying that Mark was inspired by God. When you read early, pre-Council NT book lists, pretty much all our NT is there, and none of the apocryphal books. It means we can have enormous trust in our Bibles, I think that’s wonderful!*

Martin Luther removed books from the accepted canon of the time that didn’t fit with his theology. Is that honoring “the primacy of Scripture”? Is that Sola Scriptura? Just remove books that you dislike? Scripture wasn’t his highest authority, he was.

Gosh, I didn’t know that. What books did he remove? I don’t know much about him. If he did remove Biblical books, that’s certainly not Sola Scripture!

 

[adf417]

Excpect to be overwhelmed with volumes of verses rather than a coherent, well thought out discussion. I suspect Phineas is Seventh Day Adventist and he just can’t wait to get his digs in about the “man-made” doctrines of the Catholic Church.

If he can do it without the "manditory reading concept’, I will be glad to follow along.

 

[SteveVH]

Scripture is true on account of itself as it is its own justification (2 Tim 3:16 & 17).

When 2 Timothy was written the New Testament was not yet written. Does this then exclude the New Testament? And who, do you suppose, determined what books were to be included in the New Testament and on what basis?

We can deduce from Scripture that it is true.

Really? And how do you do that? Can you also determine what is not true? Were the seven books which were thrown out of the Bible you use true? Christianity, for 1500 years believed they were. And just where did you receive the authority to make this determination, or do you just give this authority to yourself?

So even when the Catholics like to inculcate that it was the Church that “determined” what Scripture was, they can’t do this without appealing to Scripture,

Wrong. The Church received the fulness of truth from the Apostles, not the Bible. The books of the New Testament were held up against this Apostolic Tradition in order to determine their inspired nature. The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is not self-undermining as Scripture does furnish evidence of its truthfulness.

Now that is circular reasoning.

The burden is upon you to show or evidence not simply that the Church rightly affirms things that are not explicitly or implicitly stated in Scripture, but rather that the Church is infallible. And see if you can do this without being fallaciously circular.

All this shows is that people get Scripture wrong and that they vary on what constitutes Scripture, which is what has happened before and after Hippo and Carthage. And as I’m always telling Catholics, that doesn’t disprove Sola Scriptura in the slightest. If you wish to keep insisting that it does, please objectively tell me how.

The following is a quote from John Henry Newman (Inspiration of Scripture) which does a much better job at explaining than I, just from the standpoint of reason alone:

“Surely, then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so systematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility.”(Emphasis mine)

 

[SteveVH]

Phinny,

Quote:

The Law of God is “embodied in the Ten Commandments”, which continue to be binding upon Christians.

I can’t wait for this answer.

 

[onemangang]

Scripture is true on account of itself as it is its own justification (2 Tim 3:16 & 17). We can deduce from Scripture that it is true. We cannot deduce from Scripture that the Church is infallible, but rather that the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can and do state infallible things (for example, that Scripture is true). So even when the Catholics like to inculcate that it was the Church that “determined” what Scripture was, they can’t do this without appealing to Scripture, which states that God would lead his Church unto all truth and that he would raise up elders. But since they don’t appeal to Scripture alone, but Tradition at one point and external and internal historical “evidence” for the Bible at another, they only make their case fallaciously circular. The reason that this seems to be untrue is because they use the fact that people assume the same arbitrary notions that they do as leverage.

Not at all. Christianity is a revealed religion. How has Christ revealed Himself to mankind?
By what medium? What was His method of Operation?

Scripture is not the Only medium!
Christ chose to establish a social order to spread His message to the world, Scripture is a medium of the Church, not the other way around!

Sola Scriptura is not self-undermining as Scripture does furnish evidence of its truthfulness.

The burden is upon you to show or evidence not simply that the Church rightly affirms things that are not explicitly or implicitly stated in Scripture, but rather that the Church is infallible. And see if you can do this without being fallaciously circular.

Untrue! First of all the Catholic Church doesn’t need defending. The burden of proof lies on those, Jonny come lately’s that Protest against Her, and invent new doctrines, those doctrines need to be proved against, the Catholic ones which precedes them!

It is not circular if you believe that Christ has revealed Himself.
That is like saying, prove to me Scripture is infallible without using scripture!

All this shows is that people get Scripture wrong and that they vary on what constitutes Scripture, which is what has happened before and after Hippo and Carthage. And as I’m always telling Catholics, that doesn’t disprove Sola Scriptura in the slightest. If you wish to keep insisting that it does, please objectively tell me how.

People disagree on what constitutes Scripture, which means you cant build a case on Sola Scriptura, if you cant even establish what constitutes Scripture.

Objectively, Christ established a Church, the scriptures bear witness to that. If you accept the Scriptures, the Church must be accepted. To deny the Church, is to deny Scripture and to deny scripture is to deny Christ. The objective Christ,not the one Who is subject to the personal interpretation of relativist, didn’t establish a Church, Who really didn’t mean what He said in John 6, etc, etc!

 

[stewstew03]

Scripture is true on account of itself as it is its own justification (2 Tim 3:16 & 17). We can deduce from Scripture that it is true…

ofthesons, are you familiar with the term “begging the question”?

The burden is upon you to show or evidence not simply that the Church rightly affirms things that are not explicitly or implicitly stated in Scripture, but rather that the Church is infallible. And see if you can do this without being fallaciously circular.

Okay… the Church canonized scripture without an inspired Table of Contents. Also, there’s this verse:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

…If you wish to keep insisting that it does, please objectively tell me how.

I would just direct you to onemangang’s post here.

People disagree on what constitutes Scripture, which means you cant build a case on Sola Scriptura, if you cant even establish what constitutes Scripture.

Objectively, Christ established a Church, the scriptures bear witness to that. If you accept the Scriptures, the Church must be accepted. To deny the Church, is to deny Scripture and to deny scripture is to deny Christ.

 

[Gospel_Man]

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

1)If not Scripture alone, What else is there??.
I don’t see anything in the Bible that says anything else is needed.

2)Jesus never bult His Church on peter, At least not acording to the original Greek.
The Greek has Persons,subject and numbers.

And they all have to agree with each other.
Peter & the Rock are the subjects

“Peter” is the second person, And “Rock” is the third person.
And this is how Matt 16: 18 reads in the Greek.

“Thou are Peter [Petros] 2nd person, And upon this rock, [Petra] 3rd person. I will build My Church”.
The persons have to agree, But Peter, 2nd person doesn’t agree with Rock 3rd person.

So, Jesus built His Church on the Rock [3rd pereson], Not Peter [3rd person].

NOTE what Jesus didn’t say.
“You are Peter, and upon YOU, I will build My Church”.

 

[SteveVH]

1)If not Scripture alone, What else is there??.

Apostolic Tradition found in the Church Christ established.

I don’t see anything in the Bible that says anything else is needed.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” (2 Thess 2:15)

2)Jesus never bult His Church on peter, At least not acording to the original Greek.
The Greek has Persons,subject and numbers.

And they all have to agree with each other.
Peter & the Rock are the subjects

“Peter” is the second person, And “Rock” is the third person.
And this is how Matt 16: 18 reads in the Greek.

“Thou are Peter [Petros] 2nd person, And upon this rock, [Petra] 3rd person. I will build My Church”.
The persons have to agree, But Peter, 2nd person doesn’t agree with Rock 3rd person.

So, Jesus built His Church on the Rock [3rd pereson], Not Peter [3rd person].

NOTE what Jesus didn’t say.
“You are Peter, and upon YOU, I will build My Church”.

Actually, that is exactly what he said.

Sometimes I wonder how many times this has to be explained. “Peter” means “Rock”. Christ changed Simon’s name to “Peter” or “Rock” which is very significant. But lets take your postion for a moment and see just how much sense Christ would have made. Lets change the names for a moment just for argument’s sake. Instead of Peter, let’s use “Gospel Man”, since you suppose that one has nothing to do with the other.

“You are Gospel Man, and upon this Rock I will build my Church”. Why would Jesus say such a thing? Why bring up Peter at all if he was not referring to Peter as the Rock? Why didn’t he just say "Upon this Rock I will build my Church? Because it would not have made any sense. It would beg the question: Which rock? The question was answered in the statement. Peter was the Rock. Simon did not know he was “Peter”, the “Rock” until Christ told him so. The authority of Christ, the true Rock, was being given to Simon who was now Peter, the Rock. He was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven along with the power to bind and loose; to forgive sins. And what was bound on earth was bound in heaven and what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. That, my friend, is extraordinary authority.

Just one more thing. You have no more authority to interpret Sacred Scripture than the kid down the block. Why should one believe your interpretation over the interpretation of the Church? The Church is the only authentic interpreter. This discussion is evidence of the necessity of that authentic interpreter which Christ promised would be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. He didn’t make that promise to you.