Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[PerryJ]

The elders in my church don’t have any organizational authority over the pastor at all. The pastor is accountable directly to the entire congregation membership. It takes a full members meeting to hire or fire a pastor.

Naturally we expect the pastor to be knowledgeable of scripture, he couldn’t be a pastor otherwise. But we don’t expect him to be an expert theologian either. But yes, it is possible that many could be swayed into error by persuasive and plausible sounding arguments. Thats why there is a big emphasis amongst Baptists on a degree of personal responsibility for their acceptance or non-acceptance of a teaching. They have a responsibility to check things for themselves against the sacred texts. Blaming the teacher of a falsehood didn’t work for Adam and Eve. . .

There is some truth in what you say, but I’d disagree with the 'many errors’ and 'happens** often**", at least so far as my own congregation is concerned. I’d certainly agree its not ‘perfect’ , though.

What I said was: “Catholics don’t seem to have any practical belief in the personally indwelling Holy Spirit in each believer being capable of giving them a personal ‘nudge’ if what is being preached is bad theology” .

I wasn’t meaning to be critical in any way of the Eucharist, and my apologies if you got that meaning out of it, it certainly wasn’t what I intended… What I was trying to express was that Baptists see the indwelling Holy Spirit as an ongoing state of affairs for every true believer. And He is capable of giving each of us personal guidance and help on an ongoing basis, including enlightening our understanding of the sacred texts. So the Holy Spirit is a potential source of personal authority to the individual believer.

Somewhere along the line I’ve got the impression that Catholics seem to attach very little importance to this personal guidance so far as ‘interpretation’ of scripture is concerned. The emphasis seems to be more on ‘conscience’ and what the ‘leaders’ of the church teach. That was why I used the words ‘practical belief’ - they perhaps acknowledge that personal guidance from the Holy Spirit exists, but they don’t ‘rely’ on it, or see it as a valid form of authority thats available to the lay member. Am I right in having that view?

Talking generally about authority…
In some respects there is a ‘similarity’ with the process Catholics follow, but the important differences are:

in the Baptist case we do our best to make the source of authority ‘independent’ of ourselves and also our leaders.;
and
the lay members have a very large say in what goes on so far as running their local congregation is concerned. But that is (hopefully) always constrained by what the sacred texts say… The implied assumption is that all members are lead and guided personally - to a greater or lesser degree depending on the depth of their personal relationship with our Lord - by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Thats not seen as excluding the other sources of authority, simply an additional source.

I’ve never yet seen or heard of a Baptists members meeting that attempted to introduce some new interpretation of an already established doctrinal position. Mostly meetings deal with issues such as the appointment of pastors, church finances, whether or not the congregation should accept government funding for some projects, give financial support to (say) the World Council of Churchs etc etc

The Baptist approach is not without its problems because we are just as human as everyone else. But if a congregation goes ‘off the rails’ - and that does happen sometimes - the ‘damage’ is largely confined to just that specific congregation.

I agree with most of your post and I shouldn’t have used the word “most” etc. That was an error on my part and I apologize. My point was as you agreed that it wasn’t perfect.

Catholic do believe in Christ impacting them on a very personal level. For church doctrine; however, we hold to the Church. We do this because we hold that man is incapable of guiding the teachings of Christ. Look at all of the Popes that have failed. Man can not guide the Church we are too stained by original sin. We believe Christ guides the Church on teachings. On a personal level it is much different. We truly believe in vision and miracles. Our faith does not hold that we need to follow personal revelations; however, this doesn’t mean we do not believe they occur. Some of the greatest miracles in this world have been via personal revelations. Read a book on visions of Mother Mary. Even if you do not believe in Catholic teaching read just one book and see how Mother Mary enters this world and impacts it. Read about some of the proofs of these vision. Visions being seen over 20 mile areas. Being seen by 70,000 people. Legitimate newspaper reporting on the phenomenon. We believe in Christ more than nudging us he comes out and hits over the head if necessary. Christ went to Mother Theresa when she was having problems getting her mission started and stated to her directly in full voice “Do you deny me?” Mother Mary pledged her life upon mortal sin that she would always follow Christ no matter where it lead. He tooks her up on it and now her missions are in hundred of countries. Christ in her early mission specifically spoke to her and guided her. Her book is wonderful. Christ is a powerful force in our daily life.

 

[justasking4]

Kay Cee;4157571]If I may jump into the discussion at this point . . .

I’m confused. Where does the idea that Scriptures are the ***sole ***infallible rule of faith come from? What is it based upon?

It comes from the nature of the Scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. Since this is true of them there is no higher rule.

How do you know that’s God’s intent?

We know that it is from the Scriptures that God speaks. For example Jesus claimed to speak in the place of God and He exhorted people to believe what He said,

If it is God’s intent, he must have communicated that to us in some manner, right?

Yes

Could you please show me a source for how God communicated that to us?

He commuciated to us through the prophet, apostles and finally in His Son.

And could you please be sure it’s an infallible source, so I can be absolutely certain that’s God’s intent?

Since the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant by God that in itself gives us the certainty of what He intends. For example we know God desires all men to be saved because the Scripture tells us so.

Please note: I’m not questioning that scripture is an infallible rule of faith. I’m questioning that it’s the ***sole ***infallible rule of faith.

What could be higher than something that is inspired-inerrant? There is nothing else that is.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4157597]It is interesting how you provide no support for your positions. Everything I state is supported by secular sources and can easily be looked up on the web. Yet it appears you make no effort to find out about Christ.

The only source we have about Christ is found in the Scriptures. It is the Scriptures we need to know

For example the following of your Church versus Luther and Calvin is apparent. Luther and Calvin didn’t even agree on many subjects. Before you post your question how did they not agree, I would suggest you look it up. I have to admit it is frutstrating dealing with an individual that it appears makes no effort to find out about the Lord they follow.

They are not relevant to the discussion in the sense of what Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith.

Another example is apparently you have done no research into Jerome or you wouldn’t use him as an example. Jerome at a later date listed four of the books as sacred Scripture.

i have read some on this. It was not until the church ruled that he changed. Actually Augustine had a lot to do with getting the DC into the OT canon.

It appears because you have done no research on your own and only take the word of revisionist Protestant you do not know or I guess ignore these historical fact. If you researched Jerome you would also know that he submitted to the Church. In fact he stated that anyone that went against the Catholic Church was the anti-christ. This would include the people you follow.

Is Jerome a prophet or man that is expressing his opinion?

If you believe in Jerome why do you not follow his other thoughts

.
Jerome was a great scholar and translator. He would be a good source to listen to but that does not mean everything he said was true.

If you did any research you would also know why he excluded the DCs and you would know that his assumption was proved wrong.

I don’t understand it this way. Rather he was forced to change his mind by the church.

It is a historical fact that his assumption was proven wrong by the Dead Sea and Ben Sira scrolls.

All becasue scrolls have been found on the DC’s does not make them inspired-inerrant.

Yet do you make any effort to verify this historical fact that has been know for decades? If you did any research of the DCs you would know that all the Church Father’s prior to Jerome included the DCs.

Even if this is the case what does this have to do with Sola Scriptura?

A high Church offical means nothing and you know this. The Pope and the magesterium guided by the Holy Ghost matter.

Was the cardinal part of the magesterium?

Your statement supports the Catholic Faith. Men fail and make poor judgement. That is why the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. You follow the teachings of men. We follow the Holy Spirit.

You can claim you are guided by the HS all you want. So do others. The issue is determine how this is proven. It will take more than just saying so to prove it.
Actually there is much in catholic teachings that is of men since these teachings cannot truly be grounded in the Scriptures.

Your response will be this is my opinion; however,it is not opinion. It is proven by the Bible, early Church Fathers and historical records of secular writers. The Church has been proven correct time and again by secular writers. Your Church Fathers have been proven wrong by secular historians.

Proven wrong about what?

Before you ask how I would suggest you read books about Luther or Calvin and find out what kind of men they were. How their faith differs from yours. How their theology was based upon theories of men.

i can say the very same thing about your theology. It to is based on men’ ideas.

It is there for you to understand if you chose to read about them.

Perhaps someday.

I would suggest reading the early Church Fathers. Your questions appears to show that you have made no effort to read.

Have you? I’m not talking about a quote book of them but their actual writings. Have you studied them like that?

The massacre at Lyon was for the Eucharist. I believe I have given this information to you before. I believe 19,000 people died. If you would read about history of Rome you would know that there is boundless testimony against Christians that they were cannibals. This is based upon the misunderstanding of the Eucharist. Roman historians prove the Eucharist was followed by the earliest of Christians. Have you read any books on this subject?

I have never seen this before.

You try to derail this thread away from Sola Scriptura because you have been proven wrong. You have no Biblical support for Sola Scriptura.

No so.

Your statement “How can something that is derived from the inspired-inerrant Word of God be man made?” ??? Do you believe their are multiple truths from God?

Depends what you mean by “multiple truths from God?” What do you mean by this?

If not then their has to be a man made theology somewhere because there are so many variations. I believe you will state it is the Catholic’s. This is not supported from Scripture. Not supported by history. Not supported by the Church Fathers. Not supported by the history of the Reformation because by the beginning of the 1600s there were hundreds of Protestant denominations already. Even if you believe this wasn’t true read about the differences between Luther, Calvin Zwingli etc. From the very beginning there were many Protestant variations that did not agree. Have you read about the Peasant Wars? They were partially caused by people not following the teachings of Luther. Within just a few short years Protestantism had already fallen apart into many individuals groups that all thought they knew what the Lord was telling them. All but one had to be man made. I guess your thinking your part of the one that got it right out of all of the Protestant denominations.

Interesting but it has nothing to do with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura being true or false.

If you truly want to know about the Lord I will provide books for you to read.

The Scriptures are sufficent to know Christ.

I am confused by your thoughts as it appears you make no effort to learn about the Lord. You post questions; but, no support for your ideas.

Not so. I gave you or someone else a defintion for Sola Scriptura. i have demonstrated why this doctrine is true by sound reason.

I understand that support for your ideas is not historical or Biblical; however, I do not see effort into learning the truth by reading. Why? Again I can provide you a list of books to read.

That would be a sidetrack from this topic.

 

[des_scahill]

I agree with most of your post and I shouldn’t have used the word “most” etc. That was an error on my part and I apologize. My point was as you agreed that it wasn’t perfect.

Catholic do believe in Christ impacting them on a very personal level. For church doctrine; however, we hold to the Church. We do this because we hold that man is incapable of guiding the teachings of Christ. Look at all of the Popes that have failed. Man can not guide the Church we are too stained by original sin. We believe Christ guides the Church on teachings. On a personal level it is much different. We truly believe in vision and miracles. Our faith does not hold that we need to follow personal revelations; however, this doesn’t mean we do not believe they occur. Some of the greatest miracles in this world have been via personal revelations. Read a book on visions of Mother Mary. Even if you do not believe in Catholic teaching read just one book and see how Mother Mary enters this world and impacts it. Read about some of the proofs of these vision. Visions being seen over 20 mile areas. Being seen by 70,000 people. Legitimate newspaper reporting on the phenomenon. We believe in Christ more than nudging us he comes out and hits over the head if necessary. Christ went to Mother Theresa when she was having problems getting her mission started and stated to her directly in full voice “Do you deny me?” Mother Mary pledged her life upon mortal sin that she would always follow Christ no matter where it lead. He tooks her up on it and now her missions are in hundred of countries. Christ in her early mission specifically spoke to her and guided her. Her book is wonderful. Christ is a powerful force in our daily life.

I have no problem at all with all you’ve said. Including getting hit on the head - its happened to me when its been needed.

I can perhaps better express what I’m saying by some personal examples. There are times when you get a sense that ‘something is wrong’ even though you can’t put your finger on precisely what it is. I’ve learned not to ignore those promptings, as they are invariably intended to lead me to examine more closely the teaching I’ve heard. The process of doing that will inevitably expose to me the sometimes subtle falsehood involved.

Another example of being lead by the spirit involves an 8 year old niece of mine. One day, while visiting she asked me. What does this passage of scripture mean? and quoted it. Now the passage concerned was quite complex in its meaning, and I thought to myself - she’s only eight, she’d never understand this yet, so when I answered her I took it upon myself to give her a ‘simplified’ explanation version that actually had a very small error in it, (which I was aware of as I said it, but thought it didn’t really matter). She gazed at me thoughtfully for about 10 seconds and THEN said. “God has just told me that you are wrong. The right answer is this, and this, and this and this, and this,”

I learned a number of VERY valuable lessons that day from this 8 year old girl -because apart from getting the reproof I fully deserved .

1. I now have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that God hears and listens to every word I speak, and is also aware at the same time of the inner motives that lead to their use. So thats another bit of my faith that has - as I put it - moved from my head to my heart. I don’t need to have “faith” now, that God hears my words. He’s proved to me pretty directly and bluntly that He does, and in a way that I’m not likely to ever forget.
2. He’s quite capable of giving an 8 year old girl a very comprehensive understanding and interpretation of complex doctrines thats way beyond her years, if its needed.

I could give other examples, but perhaps you can see why as a Baptist - I take the verses about the Holy Spirit guiding and teaching a bit more personally. I’ve seen God do it.

Sure, what was being dealt with was an existing doctrine, and I’d expect that to always be the case.

My point is that the indwelling Holy Spirit is another source for authority of interpretation for the individual believer. And there will be times when that conflicts with what people around you are saying or teaching.

I’m not suggesting that this sort of supernatural teaching is the ‘norm’, but it certainly exists, and it seems to me to be one of the ways that the Lord safeguards his flock from deception.

 

[Kay_Cee]

It comes from the nature of the Scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. Since this is true of them there is no higher rule.

That’s not what I asked you. I asked you how you know scripture is the ***sole ***infallible rule of faith.

The Gospel of Matthew is inspired-inerrant. But that doesn’t make it exclusive. It doesn’t make it the ***sole ***infallible, inspired-inerrant gospel, does it? So the fact that something is infallible, inspired, and inerrant doesn’t preclude something else also being infallible, inspired, and inerrant, does it?

So telling me scripture is inspired-inerrant doesn’t make it exclusively so. It doesn’t automatically mean that scripture is the ***sole ***infallible rule of faith.

In other words, the fact that one thing is infallible, inspired, and inerrant doesn’t exclude other things from also being infallible, inspired, and inerrant.

Also, the fact that Matthew is inspired-inerrant doesn’t mean that it’s somehow *higher *than one of the other gospels, does it?

He commuciated to us through the prophet, apostles and finally in His Son.

Well, could you please then show me exactly where he communicated this particular idea, the one that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith? Frankly, I’ve never seen it.

What could be higher than something that is inspired-inerrant? There is nothing else that is.

This still doesn’t answer the question. Please answer the question. All you’re doing is telling me scripture is inerrant. I agree with that. But you’re not showing me how you know it is the sole infallible rule of faith.

If you want me to believe scripture is the ***sole ***infallible rule of faith, you’re going to have to prove it.

 

[justasking4]

Kay Cee;4157806]That’s not what I asked you. I asked you how you know scripture is the ***sole ***infallible rule of faith.

The Gospel of Matthew is inspired-inerrant. But that doesn’t make it exclusive. It doesn’t make it the ***sole ***infallible, inspired-inerrant gospel, does it? So the fact that something is infallible, inspired, and inerrant doesn’t preclude something else also being infallible, inspired, and inerrant, does it?

If there is something else that is infallible, inspired and inerrant then would another “rule”. However, there is no other infallible, inspired and inerrant rule. Only the Scriptures are and this makes them the SOLE infallible rule of faith.

So telling me scripture is inspired-inerrant doesn’t make it exclusively so. It doesn’t automatically mean that scripture is the ***sole ***infallible rule of faith.

Since we agree that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant and there is no other then it would mean that it automatically becomes the infallible rule of faith.

In other words, the fact that one thing is infallible, inspired, and inerrant doesn’t exclude other things from also being infallible, inspired, and inerrant.

Do you know of another something else that is infallible, inspired and inerrant?

Also, the fact that Matthew is inspired-inerrant doesn’t mean that it’s somehow *higher *than one of the other gospels, does it?

They would be on equal footing.

Well, could you please then show me exactly where he communicated this particular idea, the one that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith? Frankly, I’ve never seen it.

Its derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Since the Scriptures alone are infallible, inspired and inerrant it follows they alone would be the infallible rule of faith.

This still doesn’t answer the question. Please answer the question. All you’re doing is telling me scripture is inerrant. I agree with that. But you’re not showing me how you know it is the sole infallible rule of faith.

Hopefully the answers above will help.

If you want me to believe scripture is the ***sole ***infallible rule of faith, you’re going to have to prove it.

If you believe that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant then that is a good start. Now what follows from this in terms of a rule?

 

[PerryJ]

I have no problem at all with all you’ve said. Including getting hit on the head - its happened to me when its been needed.

I can perhaps better express what I’m saying by some personal examples. There are times when you get a sense that ‘something is wrong’ even though you can’t put your finger on precisely what it is. I’ve learned not to ignore those promptings, as they are invariably intended to lead me to examine more closely the teaching I’ve heard. The process of doing that will inevitably expose to me the sometimes subtle falsehood involved.

Another example of being lead by the spirit involves an 8 year old niece of mine. One day, while visiting she asked me. What does this passage of scripture mean? and quoted it. Now the passage concerned was quite complex in its meaning, and I thought to myself - she’s only eight, she’d never understand this yet, so when I answered her I took it upon myself to give her a ‘simplified’ explanation version that actually had a very small error in it, (which I was aware of as I said it, but thought it didn’t really matter). She gazed at me thoughtfully for about 10 seconds and THEN said. “God has just told me that you are wrong. The right answer is this, and this, and this and this, and this,”

I learned a number of VERY valuable lessons that day from this 8 year old girl -because apart from getting the reproof I fully deserved .

1. I now have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that God hears and listens to every word I speak, and is also aware at the same time of the inner motives that lead to their use. So thats another bit of my faith that has - as I put it - moved from my head to my heart. I don’t need to have “faith” now, that God hears my words. He’s proved to me pretty directly and bluntly that He does, and in a way that I’m not likely to ever forget.
2. He’s quite capable of giving an 8 year old girl a very comprehensive understanding and interpretation of complex doctrines thats way beyond her years, if its needed.

I could give other examples, but perhaps you can see why as a Baptist - I take the verses about the Holy Spirit guiding and teaching a bit more personally. I’ve seen God do it.

Sure, what was being dealt with was an existing doctrine, and I’d expect that to always be the case.

My point is that the indwelling Holy Spirit is another source for authority of interpretation for the individual believer. And there will be times when that conflicts with what people around you are saying or teaching.

I’m not suggesting that this sort of supernatural teaching is the ‘norm’, but it certainly exists, and it seems to me to be one of the ways that the Lord safeguards his flock from deception.

I think we both agree that God communicates to us individually. Catholics don’t believe personal revelation would contradict the teachings of the Church. He is guiding the teachings of the Church; therefore, they can not contradict. I understand if you do not believe in the concept of the Pope. It was hard for me at first. It was seeing how even pious men could not agree on scripture showed me the error of this thought. God saw how the Pharisees and Saducees bickered. They even had different Bibles. Why would God leave us in the same mess. This doesn’t make sense. This time he left the Holy Spirit to protect his teachings. Could he do this on an individual basis? Yes. On individual situations does he do this? Yes. On major teaching of doctrine though he has the Church to show the teachings. This is apparent as individual revelation is not consistent. Since Christ has one truth personal revelation can not exist in defining the Church. You may state that the Baptist do it as a community and I believe God looks on this favorably; however, he gave one Church. Again we have many Churches with different beliefs. How could they all be following Christ path? Are these other Churches totally wrong? No, Gods word has truth in it and even people that misunderstand the Bible gain some benefit. They do not gain the full benefit though. It is the failure of man, and Popes, that we need papal infallibility.

Specifically Sola Scriptura has no foundation. You will see that Sola Scriptura is not Biblical. Sola Scriptura also does not define what books one should read. Stating it is clear is not historical. If one reads the history of the Bible NT and OT books were disputed. OT wrongly by Luther (this is easily proved by history). Whihc books belong in the Bible is not clear and never was.

Sola Scriptura has lost so many debates that it changes its basic form to address the issues. It now allows some Church traditions. It is only the ones that support their position though. Again this hybrid Sola Scriptura can’t be found in the Bible either. If you read this post from the beginning you will clearly see Sola Scriptura is an invention of men. Historically it has been proven wrong. The assumption which it lives on have been proven wrong. This thread has been done many times. Go back and read other threads. You will not be able to find any Protestant that can provide any support for Sola Scriptura. We on the other hand can provide Biblical and historical proof of our statements. Does God hide the truth from man? Is this your savior? No, he doesn’t hide it. Yet no one can provide any support for Sola Scriptura at all. Why? Because it is man made.

 

[Kay_Cee]

If there is something else that is infallible, inspired and inerrant then would another “rule”. However, there is no other infallible, inspired and inerrant rule. Only the Scriptures are and this makes them the SOLE infallible rule of faith.

This is just repeating what you have already told me. It doesn’t prove anything.

Since we agree that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant and there is no other then it would mean that it automatically becomes the infallible rule of faith.

Whoa! Hold on there! I did not agree that “there is no other.”

Do you know of another something else that is infallible, inspired and inerrant?

The point is not if I know of any other. The point is that you have made a sweeping statement that there is no other, but you have not provided any proof. Since it is your statement, the burden is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

They would be on equal footing.

Indeed they would.

Its derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Since the Scriptures alone are infallible, inspired and inerrant it follows they alone would be the infallible rule of faith.

Once again you are begging the question.

Hopefully the answers above will help.

Since you provided no proof whatsoever, I’m afraid they don’t help at all.

If you believe that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant then that is a good start. Now what follows from this in terms of a rule?

I would prefer you provide proof for your statement before we begin speculating upon other matters.

I have a question. Is your statement “the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church” fallible or infallible?

 

[justasking4]

Kay Cee;4158085]
Originally Posted by justasking4
If there is something else that is infallible, inspired and inerrant then would another “rule”. However, there is no other infallible, inspired and inerrant rule. Only the Scriptures are and this makes them the SOLE infallible rule of faith.

Kay Cee
This is just repeating what you have already told me. It doesn’t prove anything.

No i’m not just repeating but demonstrating what follows from the premise that the Scriptures alone are infallible, inspired and inerrant.

Quote:
Since we agree that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant and there is no other then it would mean that it automatically becomes the infallible rule of faith.

Kay Cee
Whoa! Hold on there! I did not agree that “there is no other.”

Quote: justasking4
Do you know of another something else that is infallible, inspired and inerrant?
Kay Cee
The point is not if I know of any other. The point is that you have made a sweeping statement that there is no other, but you have not provided any proof. Since it is your statement, the burden is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

I have just demonstrated that the Scriptures are indeed infallible, inspired and inerrant. We agree. Correct?

Now i am claiming that there is no other infallible, inspired and inerrant authority for the church. If anyone says there is another then they need to bring it to table for study.

Quote: justasking4
They would be on equal footing.
Kay Cee
Indeed they would.

Quote: justasking4
Its derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Since the Scriptures alone are infallible, inspired and inerrant it follows they alone would be the infallible rule of faith.

Kay Cee
Once again you are begging the question.

Not so. What you need to do is show another rule of faith that is
infallible, inspired and inerrant. Can you do so?

Quote:justasking4
Hopefully the answers above will help.

Kay Cee
Since you provided no proof whatsoever, I’m afraid they don’t help at all.

Quote:justasking4
If you believe that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant then that is a good start. Now what follows from this in terms of a rule?

Kay Cee
I would prefer you provide proof for your statement before we begin speculating upon other matters.

Are you asking for proof that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant?

I have a question. Is your statement “the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church” fallible or infallible?

If it is true that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant then the statement is true and infallible.

 

[PerryJ]

Now i am claiming that there is no other infallible, inspired and inerrant authority for the church. If anyone says there is another then they need to bring it to table for study.

If it is true that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant then the statement is true and infallible.

Nice try to switch the argument. We defined the Bible via the Holy Spirit. We defined the books in the Bible. We defined the verses in the Bible. We defined them as (name removed by moderator)sired. Your faith did not do any such thing as it has no authority. Just as you have no authority to define what belongs in the Bible.

We do not argue against the Bible because as stated we defined it. You know this is the old Protestant trick when you can’t answer the Sola Scriptura question. Try and make the Catholic’s argue against the Bible. Doesn’t work we defined it.

Go back to, how do you prove Sola Scriptura via the Bible.

As demonstrated you can not even define which books should be in the Bible. You do not even know what books to read.

You have provided nothing that supports your belief other than your man made belief.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Nice try to switch the argument. We defined the Bible via the Holy Spirit. We defined the books in the Bible. We defined the verses in the Bible. We defined them as (name removed by moderator)sired. Your faith did not do any such thing as it has no authority. Just as you have no authority to define what belongs in the Bible.

We do not argue against the Bible because as stated we defined it. You know this is the old Protestant trick when you can’t answer the Sola Scriptura question. Try and make the Catholic’s argue against the Bible. Doesn’t work we defined it.

Go back to, how do you prove Sola Scriptura via the Bible.

As demonstrated you can not even define which books should be in the Bible. You do not even know what books to read.

You have provided nothing that supports your belief other than your man made belief.

There is no scriptural basis for sola scriptura - that in and of itself is enough to show that it is a false doctrine. Until sola scripturists can show where the Bible plainly teaches sola scriptura, there is no need to worry about any other side matters.

 

[po18guy]

Thankyou PO18 for your reply & prayers. To Pixie Dust. Is there a thread where we can discuss & I can show you the paganism that has crept into the churches so we don’t muck up this thread with another topic? I look forward to sharing & discussing this with you. Your brother in our Savior.

Larry, it is quite likely that everything you have heard about Catholicism is from a dissenting, or Protestant source. I know that you seek the truth in Christ. So have each one of us. There is a holy intention behind each and every thing we do. We are Sacramental Christians, which looks odd to those of much more recent traditions. Our ancient faith looks especially odd to all who hold to the Martin Luther manufactured error of sola scriptura.

You and I both know, from scripture, that the bible is a tiny fragment of Christ’s earthly life and teaching. Out of a love of truth, and of the fulness of Christ’s truth, we have sought to go beyond the covers of the bible. Speak of “putting Christ in a box”, well He cannot be contained within the covers of a book, no matter how inspired the Catholic Church proclaimed it to be. And thus, we have the Eucharist, the Gift of Christ Himself, which is beyond any written word. It is the Word made Flesh. To leave the Eucharist is to walk away from Christ, as those in John 6:66 did. To never know Christ in the Eucharist is one of the greatest tragedies in all of human experience.

I know you seek the truth. Keep seeking and the Lord will patiently lead you to all truth.

Christ’s peace, brother.

 

[po18guy]

There is no scriptural basis for sola scriptura - that in and of itself is enough to show that it is a false doctrine. Until sola scripturists can show where the Bible plainly teaches sola scriptura, there is no need to worry about any other side matters.

Amen! Attempting to answer the simple question: “Where does the bible teach sola scriptura?” has lead many (Scott Hahn being notable) to seek the fulness of God’s revelation to man. It lead them on a journey to the Catholic Church. This is why we are “home”. It is the ultimate earthly destination of each Christian, and leads the way to eternal joy.

Christ’s peace.

 

[justasking4]

There is no scriptural basis for sola scriptura - that in and of itself is enough to show that it is a false doctrine. Until sola scripturists can show where the Bible plainly teaches sola scriptura, there is no need to worry about any other side matters.

Lets apply this same kind of reasoning to the Catholic church itself. Unless you can show from Scripture that:
1- it mentions the word catholic in regards to the church name
2-the structure of the catholic church is identical to the structure of the NT church

If you can’t show from Scripture that these 2 things are mentioned in Scripture then this is shows the Catholic church is not the church of Christ.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Lets apply this same kind of reasoning to the Catholic church itself. Unless you can show from Scripture that:
1- it mentions the word catholic in regards to the church name
1A- it mentions many denominations and beliefs

2-the structure of the catholic church is identical to the structure of the NT church
2A-the structure of the many denominations are identical to the structure of the NT church (you already can’t prove this with the bible as you already stated the word church as in the singular.

If you can’t show from Scripture that these 2 things are mentioned in Scripture then this is shows the Catholic church is not the church of Christ.

If you can’t show from Scripture that these 2 things in red are mentioned in Scripture then this is shows the your communities are not the church ot the bible.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets apply this same kind of reasoning to the Catholic church itself. Unless you can show from Scripture that:
1- it mentions the word catholic in regards to the church name
1A- it mentions many denominations and beliefs

2-the structure of the catholic church is identical to the structure of the NT church
2A-the structure of the many denominations are identical to the structure of the NT church (you already can’t prove this with the bible as you already stated the word church as in the singular.

If you can’t show from Scripture that these 2 things are mentioned in Scripture then this is shows the Catholic church is not the church of Christ.

KathleenElsie
If you can’t show from Scripture that these 2 things in red are mentioned in Scripture then this is shows the your communities are not the church ot the bible.

What this shows then that no church can claim to be the church of Christ…

 

[Mea_Culpa]

What this shows then that no church can claim to be the church of Christ…

Where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught?

Just admit that it`s not taught in the Bible.

Where is sola scriptura plainly taught in the Bible?

Just a simple answer, no tricks, no changing the subject - where is sola scriptura plainly taught in the Bible?

 

[justasking4]

Where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught?

Just admit that it`s not taught in the Bible.

Where is sola scriptura plainly taught in the Bible?

Just a simple answer, no tricks, no changing the subject - where is sola scriptura plainly taught in the Bible?

Not until you define what Sola Scriptura is. Can you do that? View attachment 4029

 

[distracted]

Even if protestants are guessing what belongs in the Bible they have at least “guessed” right on 66 of them. Correct?

If this is true, then protestants are pretty good at guessing…View attachment 4020

they are lousy at guessing… I’ve found many ofthem take one or two scipture passages, make an entire religious system out of it and conveniently forget all the other scriptures… especially about the Catholic-sounding passages…

How is this guessing “right”??

they disagree wtih other denominations, they disagree among themselves as individuals… they disagree w/ Catholics… & lead people further from the true Church…

Yeah… this is good guessing, isn’t it??

 

[justasking4]

they are lousy at guessing… I’ve found many ofthem take one or two scipture passages, make an entire religious system out of it and conveniently forget all the other scriptures… especially about the Catholic-sounding passages…

How is this guessing “right”??

they disagree wtih other denominations, they disagree among themselves as individuals… they disagree w/ Catholics… & lead people further from the true Church…

Yeah… this is good guessing, isn’t it??

Depends what their talking about. Lots of protestant churches believe in the core doctrines i.e. deity of Christ, Trinity and the fall of man.