Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Church_Militant]

Here I think I must speak up.

It has been my experience as well, that Roman Catholics often point to this passage in 2 Timothy 2:15 and act as if they know something that we do not. But Chosensinner made a great point- and no one has adequately responded to his question.

Maybe not…however, this is not about Sacred Tradition, but about the modern doctrinal error of Sola Scriptura, so it is best to deal with the topic at hand.

2nd Timothy 2:15 is only relevant insofar as it’s plain statement that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and points up that since nothing like that is said of the scriptures, then that appears to be what St. Paul intended to convey to Timothy under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The point has more to do with the authority of interpretation, since St Peter plainly tells us that some things are hard to understand and need the teaching discernment of the church.

How can Roman Catholics appeal to this text, when they cannot give any evidence

that their Church has actually defined, preserved, and practiced these “traditions” up to this present day?This is simply not true. Catholics have cited the writings of the ECF since the day they were penned as to proper interpretation of scriptures and taken in context they are extremely Catholic.

Have you read and studied all of the ECF? If not then how do you expect to ask Catholics to accept and embrace modern teachings of men that contradict them as well as the Bible.

Do Roman Catholics wish to make Protestants blindly accept these “traditions” and yet not even attempt to define them?

No more so than you should expect Catholics to accept a modern teaching of man that cannot be properly supported from the very scriptures that you appeal to for authority for your own beliefs.

In my opinion- this is a dangerous move for any Christian; Protestant or Catholic! This means that the Roman Catholic Church can come up with anything she wishes- and simply point to this text for their “scripture proof” of the authority of “tradition.”

Yet the Catholic Church has not done so, though many anti-Catholic propagandists wish we would.

There is more than ample support for the teachings of the Catholic Church and if you wish to debate any particular one that you feel is exemplary then by all means open another thread on it and we can get into that there so as to not take this thread off topic and get the discussion closed.

I don’t know about you - but to me - that seems pretty fishy . . . and it aint even Friday!

I disagree. In fact I explain why in an article on my blog. But there again…that’s another topic.

 

[2Tim2Ten]

Welcome to CAF. I think, if you remain here, you will be able to learn that a great many things that you have been taught are actually errors and misrepresentations of Catholicism.

Well thank you very much for such a warm welcome. I will do my best to learn all that you are willing to teach me!

Since SS is not in the Bible itself, then I think it certainly qualifies as a tradition.

Who says it is not in the Bible? This is your misunderstanding of Scripture- and of key biblical texts such as 2 Thes. 2:15 and John 20:30, 31- even as chosensinner had demonstrated.

There is no “controversy”. The teaching is clear. There are those who rebel, and choose not to accept the Teaching. It does not invalidate the Teaching, any more than Judas betrayal of Jesus invalidated what Jesus taught.

Well well- we have more in common than I thought we did! You have the same explanation as us! This is so true, and therefore if you can use this reasoning for your defense of Catholic division- certainly you will now understand that Protestant division is not grounded upon the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There is also a difference between those who “disagree” about what the Scriptures teach, and those who “disregard” and therefore “disobey” what the Scriptures teach. Certainly- I would not exclude you from latter group- seeing how you reject the biblical teaching of the Final Authority and Full Sufficiency of Holy Scripture.

The scriptures don;t “teach”. People teach. Everyone who reads them interprets them according to his own perceptions.

Again- we are sounding more and more alike with each comment!

The Scriptures may not teach- but God certainly teaches through them, and equips men to teach according to His word. Those who are taught of God are faithful, and those who are not- pervert the Scriptures. Surely this is the case within Roman Catholicism as well- no? Did you not just assert that the reason that people divide and disagree over what the fathers, councils, and popes teach- is simply because “everyone who reads them interprets them according to his own perception”???

Again- your Church and her claim to infallibility does not solve the problem- it only begs the conflict!

Disagreement and disobedience don’t change the infallible teaching either. This is like saying the disciples that walked away from Christ were a testimony to the fallibility of His words!

Again - I wholly agree! Disagreement and Disobedience to the Scriptures do not change the infallible and inerrant word of God! This is like saying that the disciples that walked away from Christ were a testimony to the fallibility of His words!

Such a statement is not equivalent to Scripture being sufficient to act as an authority in all matters of faith and morals.

Well I am sorry you don’t believe that the Scriptures (being the word of God) are the final authority on matters of faith and practice. Maybe I am missing something . . .

Is there anything that you could teach me (maybe according to your church’s traditions) - that is not contained in Holy Scripture, that has to do with morals?

Can you also share with me something that I need to believe in- order to be saved- (something that is not contained in Scripture)?

That would be a big help- thanks!

 

[2Tim2Ten]

Catholics wrote that text, and it was written to and about Catholics. The fact that you reject the evidence does not prevent the evidence from existing. Those that rejected Christ did not prevent Him from being the Savior to anyone but themselves. Your rejection of Sacred Tradition only makes it inaccessible to you.

So your basically saying that you don’t know which traditions the apostle Paul was referring to - huh? You cannot give me any help (even as a truth seeker) or a single shred of historical evidence that your church has defined, preserved, and still practices the traditions of 2 Thes. 2:15- huh?

Seems that Roman Catholics have their greatest arguments geared toward the historicity of their claims- and yet you are unable to give me any historical evidence that would prove that the Roman Catholic Church even knows which traditions the Apostle Paul was referring to in 2 Thes. 2:15? - - - - wow.

No. Any well informed Catholic will know that faith is a matter of acceptance, produced by grace in the heart by the Holy Spirit. No man can be “made” to believe.

I didn’t ask to be “made” to believe you. I simply asked for you to give me something to be believed! But you refuse.

Imagine me telling someone to believe the gospel, and yet refusing to define the gospel for them. This would be suspicious- would it not?

What if I then told them “NO- I will give you no information. Any well informed Christian knows that faith is a matter of acceptance, produced by grace in the heart by the Holy Spirit. No man can be “made” to believe.” —with all due respect— This is the worst reply I have ever heard! How ridiculous.

Yet Roman Catholics expect Protestants to express “faith” which is really a blind leap- and “accept” these traditions Paul speaks about in 2 Thes 2:15- while they have yet to be defined.

“Don’t worry- we’ll define them as we go along! We discover- I mean define this stuff as the years roll by.”

The Catholic Church is based on the Teachings of Jesus through the Apostles. Nothing is “made up”. All of it is “received” (paradosis).

I agree- all of it is “received” (paradosis). It is received through Holy Scripture!

The wisdom of God is foolishness to men.

Amen! And the wisdom of men is foolishness to God-

 

[guanophore]

Who says it is not in the Bible? This is your misunderstanding of Scripture- and of key biblical texts such as 2 Thes. 2:15 and John 20:30, 31- even as chosensinner had demonstrated.

These passages testify to the sufficiency of the scripture for faith and instruction. They do not relate to authority.

Well well- we have more in common than I thought we did! You have the same explanation as us! This is so true, and therefore if you can use this reasoning for your defense of Catholic division- certainly you will now understand that Protestant division is not grounded upon the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There is also a difference between those who “disagree” about what the Scriptures teach, and those who “disregard” and therefore “disobey” what the Scriptures teach.

Except that Scripture does not “teach”.

Scripture bears witness to the Teachings of Jesus.

Certainly- I would not exclude you from latter group- seeing how you reject the biblical teaching of the Final Authority and Full Sufficiency of Holy Scripture.

This does not concern me, since, for such a “teaching” to be valid, it would need to be found in Scripture, and it is not. Scripture is not able to have “authority” because the exercise of authority requires the act of the will, and Scripture does not choose, make decisions, and discern. These are qualities of the human, and those reflect God, in whose likeness we are made.

The Scriptures may not teach- but God certainly teaches through them, and equips men to teach according to His word. Those who are taught of God are faithful, and those who are not- pervert the Scriptures. Surely this is the case within Roman Catholicism as well- no?

Yes, the Scriptures are most profitable for teaching, reproof, and training in righteousness. These things are done by those that God has authorized and commissioned. Those he “breathed upon”, forming His Church, built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Himself as the cornerstone.

Then there are those not united with those He appointed, who are ignorant, and twist the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Did you not just assert that the reason that people divide and disagree over what the fathers, councils, and popes teach- is simply because "everyone who reads them interprets them according to his own perception"????

I believe I did.

Again- your Church and her claim to infallibility does not solve the problem- it only begs the conflict!

The possessive “your” Church reveals an ignorance of Jesus’ action. He only founded ONE CHURCH, which is His Body. He does not have many mini bodies.

 Disagreement and Disobedience to the Scriptures do not change the infallible and inerrant word of God!

The Scriptures cannot be characterized as “infallible” because such a descriptor requires an act of the will (ability to make choices), which Scripture does not do. Scripture is inspired, and inerrant, profitable, and many other wonderful things, but it does not take the place of the Church. It cannot.

Well I am sorry you don’t believe that the Scriptures (being the word of God) are the final authority on matters of faith and practice. Maybe I am missing something . . .

No, you are not missing anything, and no need to be sorry. Those of us who have received the Apostolic Teaching know that the Church is also “God Breathed” and we believe the promises He made to keep her infallible.

Is there anything that you could teach me (maybe according to your church’s traditions) - that is not contained in Holy Scripture, that has to do with morals?

Catholics do not distinguish between the Truth contained in the Scriptures and the Truth contained in the Sacred Tradition. To us, they are two equal strands of the One Divine Deposit of Faith, delivered once for all to the saints.

Can you also share with me something that I need to believe in- order to be saved- (something that is not contained in Scripture)?

Why would one need to make such a distinction? Sacred Tradition has the most to do with how we understand the writings, not separating them from the Teaching that is not included in the canon.

That would be a big help- thanks!

Separating and dividing is one of the fruits of the Reformation. The seeds of it were planted in the departure from Apostolic Teaching, and they continue to bear the fruits and produce more and more separating and dividing. Sorry, I am not willing to help with any more division. :dts:

 

[guanophore]

So your basically saying that you don’t know which traditions the apostle Paul was referring to - huh?

No, I am saying that they are not accessible to persons who don’t believe they exist. They are accessed by faith, and are not to be pandered before the faithless.

You cannot give me any help (even as a truth seeker) or a single shred of historical evidence that your church has defined, preserved, and still practices the traditions of 2 Thes. 2:15- huh?

Sure! It should go on another thread, though. And if you are really interested in this, run a search on Sacred Tradition, and you will find hundreds of examples on dozens of threads. We get this one a lot around here.

Seems that Roman Catholics have their greatest arguments geared toward the historicity of their claims- and yet you are unable to give me any historical evidence that would prove that the Roman Catholic Church even knows which traditions the Apostle Paul was referring to in 2 Thes. 2:15? - - - - wow.

I have tried to give you the same piece of historical evidence three times now, and you have rejected it each time. Why should I continue,when you have already trampled what I have offered underfoot?

Apostolic Sacred Tradition is not Roman.

I didn’t ask to be “made” to believe you.

Let’s look at what was written:

Roman Catholic apologists have often - in my experience - used 2 Thes. 2:15 in such a way as to **cause me to believe **that the Roman Catholic Church has infallibly preserved these traditions throughout the centuries, and continues to hold them and practice them even until today- wa

Do Roman Catholics **wish to make Protestants **blindly accept these “traditions” and yet not even attempt to define them?

I responded that I don’t think it is possible to "cause to believe’ or “make” anyone believe.

In my opinion- this is a dangerous move for any Christian; Protestant or Catholic! This means that the Roman Catholic Church can come up with anything she wishes- and simply point to this text for their “scripture proof” of the authority of “tradition.”

I simply asked for you to give me something to be believed! But you refuse.

I think I will wait and see if you are able to accept what I have offered, before I cast further pearls that may meet a similar fate.

Imagine me telling someone to believe the gospel, and yet refusing to define the gospel for them. This would be suspicious- would it not?

I dont’ think it is appropriate to “tell someone” to believe the gospel. This is an example of the imperative mode (directive language) that strikes me as “bossy”. I don’t use it myself. I prefer St. Francis approach “preach the gospel at all times, and if necesary, use words”.

What if I then told them “NO- I will give you no information. Any well informed Christian knows that faith is a matter of acceptance, produced by grace in the heart by the Holy Spirit. No man can be “made” to believe.” —with all due respect— This is the worst reply I have ever heard! How ridiculous.

2Tim, it may seem ridiculuous because you may not be aware of your own agenda, which is not as well hidden as perhaps you think it may be. You see, in a few short posts, you have already made it clear that you already believe that you know the gospel, and do not need anything that the Catholic Church has to offer. That being the case, how can you criticize me for failing you to offer something you don’t need or want?

Yet Roman Catholics expect Protestants to express “faith” which is really a blind leap- and “accept” these traditions Paul speaks about in 2 Thes 2:15- while they have yet to be defined.

No. I don’t know where you got this notion, but it is wrong.

“Don’t worry- we’ll define them as we go along! We discover- I mean define this stuff as the years roll by.”

Is that what a Catholic told you?

Do you think that people do not grow in faith?

I agree- all of it is “received” (paradosis). It is received through Holy Scripture!

And you prove my point. If you think you have all there is, and all you need, then what point is there it trying to show you anything?

 

[PerryJ]

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220)

"But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, while they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: “O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to you;” [1 Timothy 6:20] and again: “That good thing which was committed unto you keep.” [2 Timothy 1:14] What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I commit unto you, son Timothy?” [1 Timothy 1:18] and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge you in the sight of God, who quickens all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that you keep this commandment?” [1 Timothy 6:13] Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase. [2 Timothy 2:2] Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these many witnesses, it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced before many witnesses. Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also, [2 Timothy 2:2] be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.” (ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 25)

Actually- I will stop here. I know how you guys get.

So let’s get back to the Scriptures bro, and I will continue to demonstrate that the Scriptures themselves teach the principles of Sola Scriptura. To argue over men is not only foolish- because men are not the infallible rule- but it is a waste of time- because the Scriptures are so plain- we dont need to use the fathers.

The only reason that I quoted any fathers at all was to answer your repeated question about the historicity of Sola Scriptura- and to de-bunk your anti-Protestant assertions. To set the record straight- we did not invent the principles of Sola Scriptura- we simply restored them.

I am very excited that you are reading the early Church Fathers.

It appears that you are stating that the early Church Fathers are credible sources to refer. Do you agree?

I will be busy today and will not be able to respond. I will post a response tomorrow.

 

[larry_m]

To Chosensinner. Please read my posts #218, #365. If you can, look up, if you don’t know already, the information given. I have a question to my Protestant friends, on the basis of that information how can they say they keep to SS? To my Catholic friends, since the Catholic delegates at the Council of Trent were so convinced of SS given by the Reformers, meaning to give up tradition & stick with SS, doesn’t it stand to reason their traditions were extra biblical since they were willing to go with SS minus tradition, until the Bishop of Reggio came in & saved the day for “the church” on the issue of the non Scriptural Sabbath that all of Catholicism & most of Protestantism keeps? Someone stated that a dozen of people can read A text & come up with a dozen different interpretations. Herein lies the problem. They don’t take every Scripture on that point & let Scripture interpret itself. Either we believe that the Almighty is not the Author of confusion, & that He is not a man that He would lie. or that Scripture contradicts itself & this is why all the confusion. I have asked several times for a Protestant to look at the above information & give me an answer why they hold to the spurious Sabbath, the child of the Papacy, for which the Catholic Church agrees. If we as Protestants claimm SS we need to get away from ALL Catholic tradition & keep, out of love for our Creator, ALL, not 8 or 9, commandments. It was only on the point of the Sabbath did Rome conquer the arguments of the Reformers sticking to SS. Thankyou.

 

[distracted]

I think the Real Presence is pretty explicitly spelled out in John 6:

[26] Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
[27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”
[28] Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
[29] Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
[30] So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform?
[31] Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
[32] Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
[33] For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”
[34] They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
[35]
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

[36] But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
[37] All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
[38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
[39] and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
[40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
[41]
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”

[42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I have come down from heaven'?" [43] Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
[46] Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
[47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
[52]
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
[59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
[60]
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66]
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

On behalf of the entire CAF posters here today (and whenever) I say:

:clapping: Thank you!!:clapping:

i am not sure all of those scriptures are “explicit” but they work for me…

(Of course, i was alreayd convinced… mostly from - believe it or not - actually spending time with Jesus at the Blessed Sacrament…

Why more people dont do that is beyond me…

 

[larry_m]

Hey Meaculpa. For someone who debunks SS, great job on using ONLY Scripture to prove your point. Unfortunately, as is always the case, you left out ALL the other Scripture that totally refutes YOUR interpretation. That is why there is so much confusion. But thanks for proving our point on SS. Someone please start another thread for the Catholic view on transubstantiation so we can see what the Scriptures REALLY state. By the way, the “church” doesn’t teach, the Spirit is Who guides,(teaches), us into all truth. Thankyou.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

For someone who debunks SS, great job on using ONLY Scripture to prove your point. Unfortunately, as is always the case, you left out ALL the other Scripture that totally refutes YOUR interpretation.

Showing from Scripture that Scripture itself says it is not the sole authority is a problem for you? It isn’t just Mea Culpa’s interpretation, it is the interpretation that has been around since Pentecost.

That is why there is so much confusion. But thanks for proving our point on SS.

I haven’t seen Sola Scriptura proven, sorry. I’ve seen plenty of evidence from Scripture that points to an authority outside of Scripture for interpretation.

Someone please start another thread for the Catholic view on transubstantiation so we can see what the Scriptures REALLY state.

Someone has started many threads. Utilize the “Search” feature, and happy reading. Also check out the Library link at the very top of this page, as well as this link.

By the way, the “church” doesn’t teach,

That’s not what the Bible says.

the Spirit is Who guides,(teaches), us into all truth. Thankyou.

To whom did Jesus promise that the Spirit would guide into all Truth?

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Meaculpa. For someone who debunks SS, great job on using ONLY Scripture to prove your point. Unfortunately, as is always the case, you left out ALL the other Scripture that totally refutes YOUR interpretation. That is why there is so much confusion. But thanks for proving our point on SS.

I think if you search the forum you’ll find that this topic has been done to death and a great deal more depth than MC’s single post.

Someone please start another thread for the Catholic view on transubstantiation so we can see what the Scriptures REALLY state.

Again, that has also been discussed in depth. One such thread was opened by me. The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

By the way, the “church” doesn’t teach, the Spirit is Who guides,(teaches), us into all truth. Thankyou.

Really? I think you’ll find that the New Testament says something else altogether, by way of a direct command from Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Matthew 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread has departed from topic and is now closed.
MF

 

[Claudius]

Doesn’t the book of James tell us to call the elders of the church together to pray for somebody?

This refers to Catholic Priest, not protestant “fill in the blank name of leader guy”.

You’re right. But in all fairness, only a very small number of Protestants believe this.

Wait, I thought that in order to be a protestant in the first place you had to say the silent prayer to yourself to accept Jesus as your privat personal savior but completely ignore all that he taught us.

I don’t think that’s true. Most Protestants I know do interpret scripture with scripture.

Most protestants I know have never even taken the time to actually read the Sacred Scriptures at all because they would be shocked either out of their false Christianity if they did to reject Jesus openly or have to become a real Christian, which means becoming Catholic. They love to wave the Bible around and act like they know it but I have never actually met a protestant who really did know any of it at all. Many protestants are now even debasing themselves by worshipping the man made book in place of the adoration that is due to almighty God. We need to get the word out that this is completely unacceptable.

Again, I don’t think this is true. Every Protestant pastor I know of is held to some level of accountability for what he preaches and teaches.

Who is holding them accountable? The only time I have ever seen a protestant minister held accountable for anything is when they convert to Catholicism, the only true Christianity. Protestant ministers rape children, and it is ok. They keep slaves, even in our modern day, they keep slaves and their congregations defend them. They preach sin and debachery that is gauranteed to lead their flock to hell and everyone praises them. Oh, but the second they actually crack open that Bible and read the Truth that lead to the Lord Jesus and his one true Church, the Catholic Church, then all that goes away and he will be cursed and damned by everyone who ever knew him. The devil thinks he is so sneaky but we Catholics can see right through him.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Hey Meaculpa. For someone who debunks SS, great job on using ONLY Scripture to prove your point.

Thanks. All praise and glory go to Jesus Christ, though.

Unfortunately, as is always the case, you left out ALL the other Scripture that totally refutes YOUR interpretation.

I was commenting on the passages you suggested.

That is why there is so much confusion.

I’m not confused. Jesus founded the Catholic Church; I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. No confusion here.

But thanks for proving our point on SS.

What’s your point on SS?

Someone please start another thread for the Catholic view on transubstantiation so we can see what the Scriptures REALLY state. By the way, the “church” doesn’t teach, the Spirit is Who guides,(teaches), us into all truth. Thankyou.

Maybe your “church” doesn’t teach, but mine does.

 

[pneuma07]

Who says it is not in the Bible? This is your misunderstanding of Scripture- and of key biblical texts such as 2 Thes. 2:15 and John 20:30, 31- even as chosensinner had demonstrated.

QUOTE]

Hi 2Tim2Ten,

 and welcome to CAF !

Just a few remarks on John 20:31, or rather the way you and some other protestant brothers seem to look at this verse.

Consider please, that “demonstrating” SS from John 20:31
would demonstrate too much.

The way you put it, looks like a different doctrine than Sola Scriptura: it looks like “Solo Evangelio secundum Johannem”.

In other words it appears you could restate the definition of SS
( I do not know what definition you adhere to personally, but it must contain the word Scripture I guess) , by substituting Scripture with John’s Gospel. Is this really your proposal ?

Do you mean “John’s Gospel is the sole final authority” or anything like that ?

---

As a second point, we need to discern the issue of “sufficiency”.
Stating Scripture is sufficient does not help by itself the present debate so much, since more or less everyone could accept such a statement with due qualifications.

Now, these qualifications are of paramount importance.
Where, in which CONtext can I get the message of the Sacred Text (best) ? ( BTW I hope we all agree what we really want to get is Jesus’ message ).

Does the fact the John’s Gospel was written that we may have faith explain this CONtext ? Does that say, eg, I have to read this Gospel cover to cover ( it was originally a volumen BTW, without any cover ), by myself, without any commentary or sermon on it ?
Does that say I’d better use the tons of commentaries and sermons which are delivered on it within my own denomination , if I am in one, or anyway by like-minded guys out there ?

Should I trust no man, or should I trust my pastor, my denomination, its founder(s) ? Why should I trust these founders, whom would they trust in their turn founding a new denomination ?

Does that explain that text is perspicuous ? In what sense is it perspicuous, and again in what CONtext ?
Is John 6 perspicuous according to you ?

How do you explain the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orhodox Churches have always seen there
the institution of the Eucharisty and the doctrine of Real Presence,while most ( but NOT all) Sola-scripturaists do not see Real Presence there ?
Doesn’t that mean that perspicuity has to be qualified ?
In particular, What is the definition of perspicuity that explains how all Apostolic Churches get it wrong about Real presence ? That they have always been wrong ?

I hope this can help to consider the “Solo Evangelio Secundum Johannem” doctrine you seem to propose ( and Sola Scriptura as well ) again.

 

[des_scahill]

Wait, I thought that in order to be a protestant in the first place you had to say the silent prayer to yourself to accept Jesus as your privat personal savior but completely ignore all that he taught us.

You don’t seem to know much about Protestants.

Most protestants I know have never even taken the time to actually read the Sacred Scriptures at all… They love to wave the Bible around and act like they know it but I have never actually met a protestant who really did know any of it at all…

Thats a bit sweeping. There does seem to be the odd one or two
posting on this forum.

Who is holding them accountable? The only time I have ever seen a protestant minister held accountable…

Although it varies a little, in many protestant churches, its the lay membership who appoint the pastor, as the conclusion to a rigorous selection process. And of course, if they mess it up, God seems to sort things out pretty quickly.

Peace

 

[Church_Militant]

You don’t seem to know much about Protestants.

Perhaps so, but the same cannot be said for me.

Answer this then: Is your particular faith community one that preaches the “entry level” prayer “accepting Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior”?

Thats a bit sweeping. There does seem to be the odd one or two
posting on this forum.

Here I agree with you that this is a sweeping (and rash) generalization and not true in nearly so many cases.

Fortunately, I tend to know the scriptures better than most n-Cs that I have encountered, which makes discussions pretty interesting.

Although it varies a little, in many protestant churches, its the lay membership who appoint the pastor, as the conclusion to a rigorous selection process. And of course, if they mess it up, God seems to sort things out pretty quickly.

Been part of that process to some degree. Glad to be shed of that.

 

[Claudius]

You don’t seem to know much about Protestants.

I know way too much about protestants considering that you all should never have rebelled against God to begin with. However, you and your sins do exist and I have had to study you to find out about you so that I can denounce what is wrong with you. 45,000 different protestant groups with 45,000 different names for the preacher guy. 45,000 different messages on how to get their flocks to hell. SO well did Lord Jesus preach of you that WIDE is the way that leads to damnation.

Thats a bit sweeping. There does seem to be the odd one or two
posting on this forum.

Oh, really? Where? You show them to me. Or better yet, you prove to me that you have read the entire bible, even just once. I bet you haven’t. I have never met a protestant who has. You know a lot of little one off “book-chapter-verse” but you don’t know the story. You don’t know the teachings. You don’t love God so you don’t take the time to get to know about God from the Catholic scriptures.

Although it varies a little, in many protestant churches, its the lay membership who appoint the pastor, as the conclusion to a rigorous selection process. And of course, if they mess it up, God seems to sort things out pretty quickly.

How dare you claim that God is anywhere near your iniquity. If God will was being done in you, you would become a Catholic. Protestants are not lead by God and the proof is the fact that protestants teach their faithful to sin. Woe to you who lead the children of God astray and teach them to sin.

 

[guanophore]

I know way too much about protestants considering that you all should never have rebelled against God to begin with.

Claudius, you really need to pull back and regroup. You are breaking the forum rules, and contradicting what the Catholic Church teaches. This behavior will result in you getting banned from CAF.

Modern day Protestants cannot be charged with the rebellion of their ancestors. Most of them have never been taught anything else against which to rebel.

However, you and your sins do exist and I have had to study you to find out about you so that I can denounce what is wrong with you.

We all have sins that exist, and those of Protestants are no worse than those of Catholics. You should not study the beliefs of others so you can “denounce what is wrong” with other people. This is a most uncharitable attitude. We study matters of faith so that we can be well equipped to give an account for the hope that is within OURSELVES.

Jesus expressely taught that we should not try to denounce or uproot others, but to be focused on any logs that are in our own eyes.

45,000 different protestant groups with 45,000 different names for the preacher guy. 45,000 different messages on how to get their flocks to hell. SO well did Lord Jesus preach of you that WIDE is the way that leads to damnation.

Jesus was talking to people of His faith community. This statement applies no more to Protestants than it does ot Catholics.

Oh, really? Where? You show them to me. Or better yet, you prove to me that you have read the entire bible, even just once. I bet you haven’t. I have never met a protestant who has. You know a lot of little one off “book-chapter-verse” but you don’t know the story. You don’t know the teachings. You don’t love God so you don’t take the time to get to know about God from the Catholic scriptures.

This seems very judgemental and condemnatory. Do you not remember Jesus telling them to let the weeds and the wheat grow together until the harvest?

How dare you claim that God is anywhere near your iniquity. If God will was being done in you, you would become a Catholic. Protestants are not lead by God and the proof is the fact that protestants teach their faithful to sin. Woe to you who lead the children of God astray and teach them to sin.

It is not our place to evaluate the nearness of others to God, or the degree of their iniquity. Protestants generally teach what they do because they don’t know anything different. Ignorance is different than willful disobedience.

Personally, I would not want to consider becoming a Catholic after reading such comments as you make here. This is not a very effective form of evangelism.

 

[sandusky]

This refers to Catholic Priest, not protestant “fill in the blank name of leader guy”.

Claudius:

Wait, I thought that in order to be a protestant in the first place you had to say the silent prayer to yourself to accept Jesus as your privat personal savior but completely ignore all that he taught us.

:doh2:

Claudius:

Most protestants I know have never even taken the time to actually read the Sacred Scriptures at all because they would be shocked either out of their false Christianity if they did to reject Jesus openly or have to become a real Christian, which means becoming Catholic. They love to wave the Bible around and act like they know it but I have never actually met a protestant who really did know any of it at all. Many protestants are now even debasing themselves by worshipping the man made book in place of the adoration that is due to almighty God. We need to get the word out that this is completely unacceptable.

:coffeeread:

Claudius:

Who is holding them accountable? The only time I have ever seen a protestant minister held accountable for anything is when they convert to Catholicism, the only true Christianity. Protestant ministers rape children, and it is ok. They keep slaves, even in our modern day, they keep slaves and their congregations defend them. They preach sin and debachery that is gauranteed to lead their flock to hell and everyone praises them. Oh, but the second they actually crack open that Bible and read the Truth that lead to the Lord Jesus and his one true Church, the Catholic Church, then all that goes away and he will be cursed and damned by everyone who ever knew him. The devil thinks he is so sneaky but we Catholics can see right through him.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.