Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[PerryJ]

Is adultery wrong because the Scripture tell us it is or because the church says it is?

Thank you this is a perfect example. The sin of adultery is defined two different ways in scripture. Tell me how you came to your conclusion about adultery.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thank you this is a perfect example. The sin of adultery is defined two different ways in scripture. Tell me how you came to your conclusion about adultery.

Because he was predestined to

 

[justasking4]

Thank you this is a perfect example. The sin of adultery is defined two different ways in scripture. Tell me how you came to your conclusion about adultery.

Scripture says that it is sin. You can commit this by lusting and by actual deed.

Keep in mind this was defined as sin in the OT before the church came on the scene.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;4170744]The Scriptures teaches it, and the Church affirms or verifies it as morally sinful.

Both.

In itself, it is not a sin to eat meat on a Friday during Lent. The sin is in disobeying Church law. The Pope is the successor of Peter, and he has been authorized by Christ to bind and loose. Not eating meat on Fridays during Lent is a way for us to be “united among [our]selves by some common observance of penance.”

“The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.” (Code of Canon Law, 1249)

Someone who believes in Sola Scriptura would not put this kind of thing on the same level as the Scriptures in terms of being binding.

Second, the Catholic Church does not separate the Bible and Church. They view that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the Word of God. Both are equal.

I’m aware of this claim. However when we want to know exactly and specifically what this Sacred Tradition is so we can know the difference its not to be found. For example is there a list of them through the ages? Who determines what Sacred Tradition is in comparison to “tradition”? Are there “new” Sacred Tradtions being “formed” today that does not look like a Sacred Tradition but will to later generations?
These are the kinds of questions that need answers but i have yet to see addressed.

Protestant thinking often have a misconception, that the two are separate by implying, “Is it Bible or Tradition?” For us, Catholics it is both.

There has to be disctinction between the 2. They are not both the same thing.

 

[PerryJ]

Scripture says that it is sin. You can commit this by lusting and by actual deed.

Keep in mind this was defined as sin in the OT before the church came on the scene.

Tell me how you define adultery with the scriputre verses below.

In Matthew 5:31–32, he says, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, he says, “And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery”

How do you explain the “exceptive clauses” as compared to the below scripture?

In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 says, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

In Romans 7:2–3 “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

 

[Crusador]

Most of what you posted is incorrect and can be refuted easily if we were on a thread about the papacy. This thread asks if Sola Scriptura is Biblical. It is not. Justasking4 knows this as he has been on these thread for some time now. Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible and the Bible does not define what is inspired.

Sola Scriptura places the Bible as the rule of faith and as such the Bible would have to state it is the rule of faith; which, it of course it doesn’t.

It would also have to define what books are inspired. God knowing the canon doesn’t mean anything. Man has to know the canon. As anyone that has studied about their faith knows the NT was in dispute for centuries. The NT is not self authenticating.

I am not sure how people that believe in Sola ignore this most basic of questions. We can prove our authority easily and have many times on threads. When will someone that believes in Sola prove where this authority comes from in scripture.

Sorry to get off topic - but that’s the way conversations flow- ya know? And by the way - evrything that I provided in this post was accurate - and if you would have an open heart and willing spirit to seek that truth as it is in Jesus - you would know that.

About Sola Scriptura - I have a question about sufficiency that has been avoided - no one will answer my question, and until it is answered, I will not proceed to demonstrate that the principle of sola Scriptura is biblical (and it is).

Can you answer my question on post #s 169, 174 please- Thx

 

[Crusador]

Tell me how you define adultery with the scriputre verses below.

In Matthew 5:31–32, he says, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, he says, “And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery”

How do you explain the “exceptive clauses” as compared to the below scripture?

In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 says, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

In Romans 7:2–3 “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

Can we all stay on topic please? I don’t want this thread to get shut down! Thx!

 

[Crusador]

Ok- here is a passage that teaches Sola Scriptura:

2 Thessalonians 2:15!

I understand that 2 Thes. 2:15 speaks of “traditions” and so Roman Catholics salivate over this passage, believing that it somehow overthrows the truth of the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone.

However, one fact that should not be overlooked is that this passage reads, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, WHETHER by word, OR our epistle” and it does not read, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, by word AND our epistle.”

This is significant-

Clearly this passage indicates that ONE OR THE OTHER was considered to be sufficient- though by this time (the 21st century), Scripture is the only reliable source of uncontaminated and properly preserved teaching.

The other important truth that must not be overlooked is that the content (message) of the one is essentially the same as the content of the other; they did not differ - for “whether” they received the teachings “by word OR by our epistle” the message was the same message in essence and in substance - which was Christ and him crucified!

However- If you would maintain that the content spoken by the apostle’s mouth differed from the content eventually recorded in the apostle’s epistles, then can you please give me an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle Paul refers in 2 Thes. 2:15?

Thank you so much- and God bless you!

 

[guanophore]

OK- So you have not solved your own dilema. All you have done is re-iterated your position. But how does one come to figure out that your position is the right one, without some sort of “private interpretation?”

This may be because I had no dilemma to solve!

The Teaching of the Apostles has nothing to do with my private interpretation.

Phil 4:8-9
. 9 Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you."

Catholics have received what was heard and seen in the Apostles. This is the paradosis, or Sacred Tradition that has been handed down, and faithfully preserved.

You have not solved anything for Protestants by giving us a bunch of religious propositions about your church. You have only pushed us back one step - for the issue is the same- how do we know that you are telling us the truth?

I understand the problem. I regret that you feel pushed back. What we have done is hold fast to the Traditions whether they came to us by letter, or in writing. I can appreciate that there is a trust issue. I think that Catholics have given many reasons for non-Catholics to have loss of trust. However, since these are matters of faith, I trust in the Holy Spirit to deal with the trust issue.

How do we know that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church? Because you say so?

C’mon - you only beg the issue, because “First of all, one must figure out what constitutes the church.”

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. And no, I do not expect you to accept this because I say so. I did not either.

However, it is important to be able to define what constitutes the Church.

But the question is this: Do the Scriptures provide all the necessary INFORMATION that one must beleive (by the grace of God) - in order to receive life?

What are the 'Scriptures" of which you speak?

It is relevant because if the Scriptures contain all that is necessary to be believed in order to receive life - then we can simply preach Christ from the Bible alone - and illiterate people can still be saved.

Ok. More power to you.

I see that you are stuck on “reading” the Scriptures, when I am asking about the content of the Scriptures. Men and Women need to hear the message of the gospel in order to beleive - for “faith cometh by hearing” - SO my question is: Does the Bible contain all the necessary information one needs to believe in order to receive life?

I do think this depends on how one defines “scripture”. I also believe that one is not saved by believing in “information”. I don’t think believing in “necessary information” gives life.

And this is why I stated that it is only by the grace and mercy of God that one can believe and be saved - whether he is literate or illiterate.

Well, I am glad to see we agree on something.

I am asking a related and indespensible question - so that if someone would be willing to answer it honestly, I can then begin to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is biblical. One of the main tenents of this doctrine is “The sufficiency of the Scriptures.” But Maybe you just do not want to answer the question, and if not- then I rest my case with you.

Ok, for the sake of arguement I will agree that the Scriptures are “sufficient” according to your definition.

 

[guanophore]

Ok- here is a passage that teaches Sola Scriptura:

2 Thessalonians 2:15!

I understand that 2 Thes. 2:15 speaks of “traditions” and so Roman Catholics salivate over this passage, believing that it somehow overthrows the truth of the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone.

Clearly you understand very little. First of all, the Apostolic Faith is not “Roman”.

Secondly, Apostolic faith does not “overthrow” something which it produced (Scripture). The Christian faith was whole an entire before a single word of it was ever committed to writing.
Crusador;4170445:

However, one fact that should not be overlooked is that this passage reads, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, WHETHER by word, OR our epistle” and it does not read, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, by word AND our epistle.”

This is significant-

Clearly this passage indicates that ONE OR THE OTHER was considered to be sufficient- though by this time (the 21st century), Scripture is the only reliable source of uncontaminated and properly preserved teaching.

I can understand how you see it that way. However, this is not what was passed down to us from the Apostles. None of the Apostles ever separated Sacred Scripture from the Teachings. All who received the Apostolic faith followed what they saw and heard from the Apostles.

The other important truth that must not be overlooked is that the content (message) of the one is essentially the same as the content of the other; they did not differ - for “whether” they received the teachings “by word OR by our epistle” the message was the same message in essence and in substance - which was Christ and him crucified!

I agree, and the Apostles demonstrated by their way of life how that message was to be lived out. The lifestyle they demonstrated is called in the NT “The Way”. Phil 4:9
“Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.”

The Apostles commanded that we were to emulate their pattern of behavior. This is not confined to the Scripture, though the Holy Writings reflect that way of life.

However- If you would maintain that the content spoken by the apostle’s mouth

differed from the content eventually recorded in the apostle’s epistles,

No, I would not say “differed”. I would say that not all of what the Apostles did is recorded.

then can you please give me an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle Paul refers in 2 Thes. 2:15?

I suppose that it would be possible to comb through the last 2000 years of Apostolic Teaching and glean such a “list”. Such at task would be meaningless in my opinion. The 'Way" is a lifestyle, and a world view, that does not commend itself to a “list”. If such a “list” were necessary, I am sure Jesus would have made one.

 

[Crusador]

This may be because I had no dilemma to solve!

The Teaching of the Apostles has nothing to do with my private interpretation.

Phil 4:8-9
. 9 Keep on doing the things** that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me**, and the God of peace will be with you."

Catholics have received what was heard and seen in the Apostles. This is the paradosis, or Sacred Tradition that has been handed down, and faithfully preserved.

Paul said to continue in the things that we have learned, received, heard and seen IN HIM - so I ask you: When did you see Paul? When did you ever receive anything from Paul? You did not - rather, what you have received - you must be willing to believe came from Paul, and yet you must be willing to admit - (because you cannot prove it) - that you may be wrong.

How do you “figure out” that what you have received from the Roman Catholic Church is the unadulterated, and divinely preserved truth- exactly as he delivered it? How do you know that The Roman Catholic Church has not fallen away from the truth, and has begun to add to the testimony, and contaminate the message of the gospel with a bunch of religious developments and man-made traditions? And how can you be so sure?

Please- help me out with this- I would really like for you to explain this to me.

Ok, for the sake of arguement I will agree that the Scriptures are “sufficient” according to your definition.

Good, so then you have just admitted that the Scriptures alone are sufficient- thanks!

Now I have already begun to develop the fact that this truth is in fact biblical - see post number 187, and we can continue this conversation - may God help you see the truth as it is in Jesus!

 

[Crusador]

I can understand how you see it that way. However, this is not what was passed down to us from the Apostles. None of the Apostles ever separated Sacred Scripture from the Teachings. All who received the Apostolic faith followed what they saw and heard from the Apostles.

This is exactly our point - they are one in the same, and cannot be separated or distinguished. They are not two peices of the same body of teaching; rather the traditions that were preached and taught and lived of the apostles - were eventually recorded for us and preserved in Holy Scripture.

The Apostles commanded that we were to emulate their pattern of behavior. This is not confined to the Scripture, though the Holy Writings reflect that way of life.

Can you give me one single example of something that the apostles taught or demonstrated - say - pertaining to “the way of life” that is not found in Holy Scripture- AND yet is absolutely necessary for the eternal welfare of each believer to follow? Just one! Please?

No, I would not say “differed”. I would say that not all of what the Apostles did is recorded.

I would agree that not all the apostles taught, did, thought, ate, drank, etc. was recorded in Holy Scripture- and that is not what sola Scriptura is about either. Rather we believe that all that is necessary for one to believe in order that he might receive everlasting life is recorded in Holy Scripture- and therefore the Scriptures alone are a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

Since you have already admitted that they are sufficient - I see no need for us to argue about it. Now I only wish for you to learn that this truth is indeed taught in the Scriptures themselves!

I suppose that it would be possible to comb through the last 2000 years of Apostolic Teaching and glean such a “list”. Such at task would be meaningless in my opinion. The 'Way" is a lifestyle, and a world view, that does not commend itself to a “list”. If such a “list” were necessary, I am sure Jesus would have made one.

Exactly my point! Jesus gave us the Holy Scriptures because it is the word of God that is absolutely necessary - and (even as you have admitted) - SUFFICIENT!

Let’s continue with this conversation- I believe that God is beginning to reveal the truth to you-

Let’s continue with our next passage - shall we?

 

[Cinette]

This is exactly our point - they are one in the same, and cannot be separated or distinguished. They are not two peices of the same body of teaching; rather the traditions that were preached and taught and lived of the apostles - were eventually recorded for us and preserved in Holy Scripture.

Can you give me one single example of something that the apostles taught or demonstrated - say - pertaining to “the way of life” that is not found in Holy Scripture- AND yet is absolutely necessary for the eternal welfare of each believer to follow? Just one! Please?

I would agree that not all the apostles taught, did, thought, ate, drank, etc. was recorded in Holy Scripture- and that is not what sola Scriptura is about either. Rather we believe that all that is necessary for one to believe in order that he might receive everlasting life is recorded in Holy Scripture- and therefore the Scriptures alone are a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

Since you have already admitted that they are sufficient - I see no need for us to argue about it. Now I only wish for you to learn that this truth is indeed taught in the Scriptures themselves!

Exactly my point! Jesus gave us the Holy Scriptures because it is the word of God that is absolutely necessary - and (even as you have admitted) - SUFFICIENT!

Let’s continue with this conversation- I believe that God is beginning to reveal the truth to you-

Let’s continue with our next passage - shall we?

Christ entrusted authentic Christian revelation to his Church through the process of Sacred Tradition (not human tradition – note small t) human tradition nullifies the Word of God. See 1 Tim 3:15 where it states that the Church is “the pillar and foundation” of the truth. Scripture alone is not sufficient. 2 Tim 3:17 does not say that the Bible is all we need for salvation – it says the Bible is inspired but does not say that only the bible is inspired and it does not say that Scripture is sufficient. The text only refers to the OT.

Scripture comprises the written word (Bible) and the Oral Word. See Thess 2:15.

The Bible actually denies that it is the sole rule of Faith. John says that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25) See 2 Tim 2:2 “What you have heard from me before many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”. Nowhere is there any mention of writing the truths down for posterity.

The Apostles were told to spread the word and at that time there were no books and printing presses and so they spread the Oral Word (preaching) which we call Tradition with a capital T. The Written Word emanated from the Oral Word ie Tradition. “See how faith comes from hearing through christ’s Word (written and oral) Rom10:17). It is a mistake to limit Christ’s Word to the Written Word only, or to suggest that all the teachings were reduced to writing. God, through Isaiah, promised a living voice in the Church (Is 59:21) “And this Word is none other than the gospel which has been preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25).

Note the word “preached”, that is, oral. This is important: it would not be “supplanted” by a written word like the bible – supplemented not supplanted. The NT is a “reflection” of what the CC has been teaching from the beginning.

The Church is protected by the HS from error. Jesus promised – and I believe and trust Him. The Magisterium which is our teaching authority is at the service of the Word.

This thing of Bible only is an invention of the reformers

 

[Cinette]

**HELLO CRUSADOR HONEY!
**

Truly, I have said it many times, Protestants were created to keep us Catholics on our toes. I am from a different hemisphere and was tossing all night thinking of your questions and this morning I scratched around for some notes I had made because a Lutheran friend was asking questions and I am glad I kept my notes. So here goes.

Christ entrusted authentic Christian revelation to his Church through the process of Sacred Tradition (not human tradition – note small t) - human tradition nullifies the Word of God. See 1 Tim 3:15 where it states that the Church is “the pillar and foundation” of the truth. Scripture alone is not sufficient. 2 Tim 3:17 does not say that the Bible is all we need for salvation – it says the Bible is inspired but does not say that only the bible is inspired and it does not say that Scripture is sufficient. The text only refers to the OT.

Scripture comprises the written word (Bible) and the Oral Word. See Thess 2:15.

The Bible actually denies that it is the sole rule of Faith. John says that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25) See 2 Tim 2:2 “What you have heard from me before many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”. Nowhere is there any mention of writing the truths down for posterity.

The Apostles were told to spread the word and at that time there were no books and printing presses and so they spread the Oral Word (preaching) which we call Tradition with a capital T. The Written Word emanated from the Oral Word ie Tradition. “See how faith comes from hearing through Christ’s Word (written and oral) Rom10:17). It is a mistake to limit Christ’s Word to the Written Word only, or to suggest that all the teachings were reduced to writing. God, through Isaiah, promised a living voice in the Church (Is 59:21) “And this Word is none other than the gospel which has been preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25).

Note the word “preached”, that is, Oral. This is important: it would not be “supplanted” by a written word like the Bible – supplemented not supplanted. The NT is a “reflection” of what the CC has been teaching from the beginning.

The Church is protected by the HS from error. Jesus promised – and I believe and trust Him. The Magisterium which is our teaching authority is at the service of the Word.

This thing of Bible only is an invention of the reformers.

Have I answered your question Crusador or must I scratch around for additional stuff?

 

[Crusador]

See 1 Tim 3:15 where it states that the Church is “the pillar and foundation” of the truth.

Protestants understand that the Church is the “ground and pillar of truth.” It’s just that we understand what the proper function of a pillar actually is. A pillar is that which upholds something, in this case - TRUTH. It is at this point that I believe Roman Catholics fall short - for they seem to misunderstand what truth is – but no worries! Jesus tells us explicitly:

**“Thy word is truth” **(John 17:17).

Scripture comprises the written word (Bible) and the Oral Word. See Thess 2:15.

I have already given the proper interpretation of 2 Thes 2:15 – see post #s 187, 191.

Scripture alone is not sufficient. The Bible actually denies that it is the sole rule of Faith. John says that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25)

You seem to forget that one chapter earlier – John writes essentially the same thing, only he adds a very telling bit of information, and establishes the sufficiency of Scripture. See for yourself – John 20:30, 31 reads, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these things are written, so that you would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you would have life through his name.”

This is why I originally asked if the Scriptures were sufficient for someone to believe, and receive eternal life. guanophore was smart enough to affirm this truth, but unfortunately you responded to hastily – before searching the Scriptures diligently. Again – no worries, the Lord is merciful to those who repent of their sins. But I must warn you, that to war against the sufficiency of Holy Scripture is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, who is God Almighty, and the author of this book. I will pray for you.

Nowhere is there any mention of writing the truths down for posterity.

Obviously you have not considered 2 Peter chpt. 1 in full view.

Peter writes his epistles to comfort, encourage, and strengthen believers. He exhorts them to grow in spiritual fruitfulness as they pursue their experiential knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (vs. 5-8), and to be diligent to make their ‘calling and election sure’ (v. 10).

However, anticipating his death – (‘knowing that shortly I must put off my tent’), in verses 12-15, he takes care to charge his readers to remember ‘these things’ of which he writes, after his departure. NOW- Here was the time and here was the place for the supposed founder of the Papacy to assert the prerogatives of his see. But not a single word does he utter of living teachers – of any infallible tribunal composed of men. To his mind *written memorials *were the true security for preserving entire apostolic instructions.

Note the word “preached”, that is, Oral.

You have yet to prove that the content of the message preached by the apostle’s mouth differs from the content of the message eventually written in the apostle’s epistle.

You must also prove that your Church has defined, preserved, and continues to practice these “traditions” that the apostle Paul refers to in 2 Thes. 2:15.

Otherwise you cannot expect Protestants to submit themselves to these undefined teachings. You will need to provide biblical and historical evidence of this first, or else please stop appealing to these passages that mention “traditions”.

Imagine if I told you to believe the gospel – but was unable to define it for you. Would you not think that this was a bit suspicious – and even foolish?

That is how Protestants feel when Roman Catholics point to passages like 2 Thes 2:15 and tell us to submit to these “traditions” – and yet they cannot even define them for us.

It’s actually quite sad to see the amount of passion and zeal behind some of these well-meaning Catholics – as they proclaim and attempt to defend the authority of these undefined teachings.

Again – I will be sure to pray for you.

The Church is protected by the HS from error. Jesus promised – and I believe and trust Him. The Magisterium which is our teaching authority is at the service of the Word.

I believe that Jesus Christ protects his true Church from fatal doctrinal and practical error. But the Church is not a religio-political institution. The Church is not hierarchical organization. The Church is the body of Christ – a living, breathing, growing, organism.

The Church is not your magisterium – rather the Church is the people of God, and is made up of baptized believers from every nation, kindred, tribe and tongue; who are saved, sanctified, and sealed with the Holy Ghost. This is the Church, and the Church is subject to Christ and his word alone.

I am not joking when I say that I will pray for you. I am praying for all the Roman Catholics on this forum and all across the world. I will seriously pray for you, and I mean that with all of my heart.

 

[Cinette]

See 1 Tim 3:15 where it states that the Church is “the pillar and foundation” of the truth.

Protestants understand that the Church is the “ground and pillar of truth.” It’s just that we understand what the proper function of a pillar actually is. A pillar is that which upholds something, in this case - TRUTH. It is at this point that I believe Roman Catholics fall short - for they seem to misunderstand what truth is – but no worries! Jesus tells us explicitly:

**“Thy word is truth” **(John 17:17).

Scripture comprises the written word (Bible) and the Oral Word. See Thess 2:15.

I have already given the proper interpretation of 2 Thes 2:15 – see post #s 187, 191.

Scripture alone is not sufficient. The Bible actually denies that it is the sole rule of Faith. John says that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25)

You seem to forget that one chapter earlier – John writes essentially the same thing, only he adds a very telling bit of information, and establishes the sufficiency of Scripture. See for yourself – John 20:30, 31 reads, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these things are written, so that you would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you would have life through his name.”

This is why I originally asked if the Scriptures were sufficient for someone to believe, and receive eternal life. guanophore was smart enough to affirm this truth, but unfortunately you responded to hastily – before searching the Scriptures diligently. Again – no worries, the Lord is merciful to those who repent of their sins. But I must warn you, that to war against the sufficiency of Holy Scripture is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, who is God Almighty, and the author of this book. I will pray for you.

Nowhere is there any mention of writing the truths down for posterity.

Obviously you have not considered 2 Peter chpt. 1 in full view.

Peter writes his epistles to comfort, encourage, and strengthen believers. He exhorts them to grow in spiritual fruitfulness as they pursue their experiential knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (vs. 5-8), and to be diligent to make their ‘calling and election sure’ (v. 10).

However, anticipating his death – (‘knowing that shortly I must put off my tent’), in verses 12-15, he takes care to charge his readers to remember ‘these things’ of which he writes, after his departure. NOW- Here was the time and here was the place for the supposed founder of the Papacy to assert the prerogatives of his see. But not a single word does he utter of living teachers – of any infallible tribunal composed of men. To his mind *written memorials *were the true security for preserving entire apostolic instructions.

Note the word “preached”, that is, Oral.

You have yet to prove that the content of the message preached by the apostle’s mouth differs from the content of the message eventually written in the apostle’s epistle.

You must also prove that your Church has defined, preserved, and continues to practice these “traditions” that the apostle Paul refers to in 2 Thes. 2:15.

Otherwise you cannot expect Protestants to submit themselves to these undefined teachings. You will need to provide biblical and historical evidence of this first, or else please stop appealing to these passages that mention “traditions”.

Imagine if I told you to believe the gospel – but was unable to define it for you. Would you not think that this was a bit suspicious – and even foolish?

That is how Protestants feel when Roman Catholics point to passages like 2 Thes 2:15 and tell us to submit to these “traditions” – and yet they cannot even define them for us.

It’s actually quite sad to see the amount of passion and zeal behind some of these well-meaning Catholics – as they proclaim and attempt to defend the authority of these undefined teachings.

Again – I will be sure to pray for you.

The Church is protected by the HS from error. Jesus promised – and I believe and trust Him. The Magisterium which is our teaching authority is at the service of the Word.

I believe that Jesus Christ protects his true Church from fatal doctrinal and practical error. But the Church is not a religio-political institution. The Church is not hierarchical organization. The Church is the body of Christ – a living, breathing, growing, organism.

The Church is not your magisterium – rather the Church is the people of God, and is made up of baptized believers from every nation, kindred, tribe and tongue; who are saved, sanctified, and sealed with the Holy Ghost. This is the Church, and the Church is subject to Christ and his word alone.

I am not joking when I say that I will pray for you. I am praying for all the Roman Catholics on this forum and all across the world. I will seriously pray for you, and I mean that with all of my heart.

**Hello Sweetheart:heart: **

Gosh when do you do to bed. It is 7.39am here and I had wet hair and must hurry to go to Mass.

Will respond later.

In the meantime I have only this to say:

“Prov.: 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding”

See also Luke10:16 - In 2 Peter 1:20 we read "…We must be most careful to remember that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual

I’m off - see you later! don’t you go to bed??

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Where is sola scriptura in the bible???

Beware of the Sola’s, the protesters are inventing new ones, I found they have invented five more additional Sola’s. I guess they were not content with just Sola scriptura which is not mentioned anywhere in sacred scripture, so non catholics invented more Sola’s to justify their Protest against the one Holy Catholic Apostolic faith. The problem is I wish they stop adding Sola to their belief system, and come home to the Catholic church, and find that we believe in these doctrines just drop the Sola, because they leave out Jesus.

Peace

 

[Cinette]

See 1 Tim 3:15 where it states that the Church is “the pillar and foundation” of the truth.

Protestants understand that the Church is the “ground and pillar of truth.” It’s just that we understand what the proper function of a pillar actually is. A pillar is that which upholds something,the pillar and foundation yes, the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH - how come you can’t understand that - it is very clear. why did you leave out the word foundation which is the most important, the stronghold and the deepest part of any building (the Church) **The Church was founded at Pentecost in the year circa 33 AD. The books of the NT were written from about 40 AD-100AD - which came first? the Church or the Bible? and those books of the NT were only inserted into the Bible by the CC nearly 400 years later at Catholic Councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Bible which you revere so much which came after the founding of the Church is a Catholic book. How can you trust it:whacky: ??? and pray tell what NT did the Christians use between the year 33AD to the end of the 4th Century. **in this case - TRUTH. It is at this point that I believe Roman Catholics fall short - for they seem to misunderstand what truth is – but no worries! Jesus tells us explicitly:

**“Thy word is truth” **(John 17:17).

Scripture comprises the written word (Bible) and the Oral Word. See Thess 2:15.

I have already given the proper interpretation of 2 Thes 2:15 – see post #s 187, 191.Correction: Sacred Tradition comprises the written word of God and the Oral unwritten word. The Word of God does not only mean the written word (Is 55:10-11 and where in Luke 3:2-3 we are told that the word of God came to John…in the Jordon. Does this mean that a Bible fell down from heaven in front of him? At the end of John’s gospel we are told that not everything Jesus said was written.

Scripture alone is not sufficient. The Bible actually denies that it is the sole rule of Faith. John says that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25)

You seem to forget that one chapter earlier – John writes essentially the same thing, only he adds a very telling bit of information, and establishes the sufficiency of Scripture. See for yourself – John 20:30, 31 reads, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these things are written, so that you would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you would have life through his name.” John says that these things are written so that you may believe it does not say it is sufficient for you to believe.

This is why I originally asked if the Scriptures were sufficient for someone to believe, and receive eternal life. guanophore was smart enough to affirm this truth, but unfortunately you responded to hastily – before searching the Scriptures diligently. Again – no worries, the Lord is merciful to those who repent of their sins. But I must warn you, that to war against the sufficiency of Holy Scripture is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, who is God Almighty, and the author of this book. I will pray for you. You do not seem to understand the Bible is very clear in stressing that we must believe in those things which are written (the bible!) and those things which are not written ie all of Sacred Tradition - you appear to have GREAT difficulty in understanding this simple statement

Nowhere is there any mention of writing the truths down for posterity.

Obviously you have not considered 2 Peter chpt. 1 in full view.

Peter writes his epistles to comfort, encourage, and strengthen believers. He exhorts them to grow in spiritual fruitfulness as they pursue their experiential knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (vs. 5-8), and to be diligent to make their ‘calling and election sure’ (v. 10).
I repeat - what Bible was used by the Church before the Council of Hippo? To show the continuity of the churche’s authentic apostolic teaching you should read the writings of the Church Fathers, those holy men who came immediately after the Apostles rg Ignatuis of Antioch (35-107AD), Irenaeus (130-200AD) Justin Martyr (100-165AD) etc. Had Christ’s Church erred already by then?
However, anticipating his death – (‘knowing that shortly I must put off my tent’), in verses 12-15, he takes care to charge his readers to remember ‘these things’ of which he writes, after his departure. NOW- Here was the time and here was the place for the supposed founder of the Papacy to assert the prerogatives of his see. But not a single word does he utter of living teachers – of any infallible tribunal composed of men. To his mind *written memorials *were the true security for preserving entire apostolic instructions.Have u read Matt16:18-19 where Jesus promises that the first chief pastor (Peter) and his successors would be the spokesmen for a CHURCH that would never err. Consider the parrell in Is 22 of Israel’s chief Prime Minister and successors having the power of the keys of authority.

Note the word “preached”, that is, Oral.

You have yet to prove that the content of the message preached by the apostle’s mouth differs from the content of the message eventually written in the apostle’s epistle.

You must also prove that your Church has defined, preserved, and continues to practice these “traditions” that the apostle Paul refers to in 2 Thes. 2:15.

Otherwise you cannot expect Protestants to submit themselves to these undefined teachings. You will need to provide biblical and historical evidence of this first, or else please stop appealing to these passages that mention “traditions”.

Imagine if I told you to believe the gospel – but was unable to define it for you. Would you not think that this was a bit suspicious – and even foolish?

That is how Protestants feel when Roman Catholics point to passages like 2 Thes 2:15 and tell us to submit to these “traditions” – and yet they cannot even define them for us. Of course we can define the Traditions which have been faithfully taught and preserved by the Church which are not in scripture. These you will find in the writings of the Fathers and documents of 21 ecumenial Councils held thru 2000 years of Church history. Do you not understand that the Bible itself is Sacred Tradition passed on to us in written form.

It’s actually quite sad to see the amount of passion and zeal behind some of these well-meaning Catholics – as they proclaim and attempt to defend the authority of these undefined teachings.

Again – I will be sure to pray for you.

The Church is protected by the HS from error. Jesus promised – and I believe and trust Him. The Magisterium which is our teaching authority is at the service of the Word.

I believe that Jesus Christ protects his true Church from fatal doctrinal and practical error. But the Church is not a religio-political institution. The Church is not hierarchical organization. If you look thru the writings of Paul you will see that indeed the Church was indeed hierarchical from the beginning with Bishops (Overseers), Prespyters (priests) and deacons being leaders of the people of God. Paul is also very clear that the Church is the mystical body of Christ with us as members and Christ as Head - what could be more hierarchical?? The institutional aspect of the Church is just one aspect of Christ’s Church, His Mystical BodyThe Church is the body of Christ – a living, breathing, growing, organism.

The Church is not your magisteriumWE HAVE NEVER BELIEVED THAT THE CHURCH IS OUR MAGISTERIUM. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of our Church given to us by Christ in Matt 16:14-18 assuring that the CC would never slip into error – rather the Church is the people of God, and is made up of baptized believers from every nation, kindred, tribe and tongue; who are saved, sanctified, and sealed with the Holy Ghost. This is the Church, and the Church is subject to Christ and his word alone.

I am not joking when I say that I will pray for you. I am praying for all the Roman Catholics on this forum and all across the world. I will seriously pray for you, and I mean that with all of my heart.**We will pray that you will come to know the fullnes of TRUTH that Christ teaches.

I notice on this forum that you pay no attention to the truth of what Catholics are saying, in fact “shut off” to it as a message from satan, showing that you have a closed mind. I would urge you to ponder what I have said before you shoot back with your daggars.

In closing let me show you how fervent the first believers were as Catholics St Fulgentius (468-533AD) writes:

“Firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans but all heretics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels”

I agree it is harsh but this is a teaching of one of the great Fathers of the Church.

I suggest you put down your sparring gloves and throw away your machine gun and learn to love:heart: It has been said that one loves God as much as the person one loves least**

 

[onenow1]

HI, j4
Can you harmonize these passages for me please.

Acts 15:7, “And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe’.”
Here Peter reaffirmed the primacy given to him by GOD in Matt 16

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Peace. OneNow1
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Peace,OneNow1

QUOTE = OneNow1 I’ll try this again ja4 and crusader, before you do more damage to scrpture.

Originally Posted by justasking4
This is one of the great advantages believing and applying Sola Scriptura. I don’t have to defend unbilical doctrines and practices of men. Trying to harmonize Catholic doctrines and practices with Scripture is an impossible task. I wouldn’t want to do it. Attachment 404

Quote:OneNow1;And here’s the truth of the matter.

Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem…
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,
“Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”
Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter. Now that is primacy.

you are merely trying to detract from Peter’s Primacy as the Keynote Speaker] trying to show that James (Acts 15:13-21), held the primacy simply because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Well, he may have been the Bishop of Jerusalem during this Council, but Peter was the Bishop of the whole world. See Acts 1:8, where Jerusalem was only one of many Church locations to be founded by the Apostles. The books of Acts, Revelation, and a few others, record more than 30 additional locations for the Church other than Jerusalem.
Jerusalem would certainly not even have been considered by the Apostles to be the seat of Christianity, as they had been forewarned by Jesus Himself that the city would soon be totally destroyed. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Roman legions did indeed destroy it.
See Matthew 24 beginning with verse 15.

Eusebius (263-339) Bishop of Caesarea and known as “The Father of Church History”, wrote in ‘The History of the Church’ volume 2 chapter 1, “But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: ‘For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem’.”

Peace, OneNow1

 

[guanophore]

Paul said to continue in the things that we have learned, received, heard and seen IN HIM - so I ask you: When did you see Paul? When did you ever receive anything from Paul? You did not - rather, what you have received - you must be willing to believe came from Paul, and yet you must be willing to admit - (because you cannot prove it) - that you may be wrong.

I see Paul very clearly in Scripture, and I see in the practice (Divine Liturgy) of the Catholic Church those things that he practiced.

Of course I can be wrong, but I can trust completely in God’s ability to watch over His word to perform it. When the Apostle commanded that Timothy should entrust the message to faithful men, who were able to teach others also, I can trust that this was God’s plan for the growth of the Church, and that He did not lie when He said “I will not leave you orphaned”.

You are right, I cannot “prove” most of my beliefs. For me, they are matters of faith, and despite the fast evidence to me that they are true, in all areas eventually I must take a leap of faith.

How do you “figure out” that what you have received from the Roman Catholic Church is the unadulterated, and divinely preserved truth- exactly as he delivered it?

Primarily because what I have received is not “Roman”. This, in fact, is one of the most powerful testimonies to the Apostolic Faith, the fact that it is the same in all 23 Rites of the Catholic Church (not just the most common Rite here in America, which is the Latin Rite) as well as all those who have received the Apostolic Teachings in the Oriental and Orthodox areas. Most of these are not in communion with the bishop of Rome, and yet share the Teachings.

Do you not believe that the HS is capable of accomplishing those things that God intended? When Jesus says that He will send His Spirit to bring to mind what He has taught, and to lead them into all Truth, do you think He was a liar, or a weakling? Do you think He just was careless of His flock? I guess the answer to your question is that I have accepted what Jesus says about Himself, and about the Father, the Spirit, and the rest of His testimony. Once I have done this, there is nothing for me to “figure out”. I accept His words because of who He is.

How do you know that The Roman Catholic Church has not fallen away from the truth, and has begun to add to the testimony, and contaminate the message of the gospel with a bunch of religious developments and man-made traditions? And how can you be so sure?

Again because all those communities that received the Apostolic faith share these Teachings. I will agree that there were many Roman clergy that fell away from the Truth, including popes, bishops, and priests. I will agree that men are always in need of Reformation. However, the hypocrisy of men in no way changes the Teaching, any more than Judas’ betrayal of Christ invalidates what Jesus taught.

Please- help me out with this- I would really like for you to explain this to me.

I am sorry that all I have to give you is my testimony of faith. I cannot “prove” these things to you. I can tell you that my study of early church history did a great deal for me to revise my misunderstandings about the “Roman Church”.

Good, so then you have just admitted that the Scriptures alone are sufficient- thanks!

Now I have already begun to develop the fact that this truth is in fact biblical - see post number 187, and we can continue this conversation - may God help you see the truth as it is in Jesus!

I already answered why that post does not work SS for me.