Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

The defintion of Lord’s word is quibbling?

You have four clear refutations of Matthew and your resolution via Sola Scriptura is it is quibbling. Theology should follow the Bible. The Bible should not follow a personal theology. Sola Scriptura gives you no means to resolve this issue and you know it. Four scripture verses very clearly do not allow an exception.

You’re not making any sense, Perry. A ground for divorce is a ground for divorce.

 

[PerryJ]

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236)

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (ANF, Vol. V. Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9.)

HEY CINETTE: Take your time, and get back to me when you have a chance - (and stop beating your head against that wall)

Do you know who Hippolytus of Rome was? If you did you may not want to be using him so easily.

I believe you are truly trying to support Christ and as such I give you the highest regard. Your posts though show that you have done little to find out facts. Have you really read anything from these Fathers?

 

[Crusador]

I am not surprised that you cannot tell the difference between sufficient and usefull because you don’t even know how to spell Crusader

You are definitely one of Korah’s cronies (look up his rebellion in Num16:1-35)

:doh2: :hypno: :doh2:

A little angry are we? Is this how your Church teaches you to treat Protestants? You have not even read my posts! I can tell, and even if you did - you only respond Ad hominem- with personal attacks, avoiding the real issues.

BTW- Crusader was already taken, so I used an O instead of an E. But look at how desperately you are trying to attack me - I think this is the highest form of contempt - and disrespect, which last time I checked - was against the forum rules.

But believe me - I don’t really expect justice to be served on this forum - for some of the Senior Members have already admitted that there is a sharp double standard that is built into the whole purpose of this forum.

Whatever though - can you twist John 20:30, 31 any more for me?

I would love to see what you can make it say this time!

 

[Cinette]

Do you know who Hippolytus of Rome was? If you did you may not want to be using him so easily.

I believe you are truly trying to support Christ and as such I give you the highest regard. Your posts though show that you have done little to find out facts. Have you really read anything from these Fathers?

Yes, this guy’s chief work is his refutation of all the heresies. He also wrote a book called The Apostolic Tradition - so he must be turning in his grave right now.:crying: :ehh: :whacky:

 

[Crusador]

You are doing what you accuse others of doing. YOu haven’t read Irenaus have you? If you did you would know why your statement is again taken out of context.

St. Irenaeus is refuting a heresie at the time that Gnostics believed that they had secret oral tradition. As such he used Scripture against them. Why can not this logic be used against Catholics? Because he fully supported one doctrinal authority and that was the episcopal councils. In fact he supported papal authority.

I have read many of the early Church Fathers and your statement trying to use St. Iranaeus against the Church is not good. Either you are intentionally misrepresenting facts or haven’t read the Church Father.

Actually I have read them - and these quotes are not taken out of context - for as you see - they are all from the same letter, and mostly even the same chapter! I am in context buddy.

Irenaeus may have supported the ideas that councils give the final say - but what you cannot deny is that these councils came to all conclusions based upon Holy Scripture - and not “oral tradition”

That is why they say that they get there information from the Scriptures AND NO OTHER SOURCE.

And yes this can logically be used toward the exposure of the Catholic Church - because the Catholic Church claims to have oral traditions that have been handed down from the apostles mouths - and yet cannot give any hostorical documentation - nor official Church documentation (infallible pronouncements) of exactly what these “traditions” are.

For instance - can you define for me the traditions that Paul spoke of in 2 Thes 2:15? Can you give me historical evidence and official Church documentation that identifed these “traditions” before the 4th or 5th century? The 6th or 7th? The 10th?

Can you give me official documentation of exactly which traditions the apostle refers to in 2 Thes. 2:15 - even at all?

You cannot - and therefore this is the same claim that the gnostics claimed - That they had a bunch of preserved but unidentified and secret traditions passed along to them by the apostles.
So yes these quotes are properly applied to you.

 

[PerryJ]

You’re not making any sense, Perry. A ground for divorce is a ground for divorce.

Is it? Matthew’s writing is to Jews. The others to Romans. Romans were much more involved in adultery than Jews. So why give this thought to Jews only? Perhaps it means something to Jews that it doesn’t to Romans.

For a Jewish person it could mean that if you divorce a Jewish person for being unchaste they are already in adultery.

It could be a way of avoiding this question all together. At this same time this very issue was being debated by jewish people. They may not have wanted to address chastity at this time. Greek translation could be “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another—I’m not going into the subject of unchastity—commits adultery.”

It could also mean being unchatse prior to the marriage being consumated. For example during the wait which we now refer to as being engaged.

I am not going into all of the translations etc. The point is one can not just read this and understand it. In fact our culture is dictating how these verses are interpreted not God.

You may refute these thoughts; however, they are from scriptural exegis. This shows how people picking up a Bible on their own can not define scripture. People define it from their perspective not Gods. In fact you did not pick up on any of the points that scriptural scholars discuss when they discuss these verses. How do you think you can interpret all scripture? You didn’t do it on a basic premise. ja4 hasn’t even responded and he brought up the point that it was so easy to understand. I am not trying to be critical of you. I am just pointing out that you study scripture yet did not discuss any of the points. You did not know the answer. How can it be so clear to everyone else.

 

[PerryJ]

Actually I have read them - and these quotes are not taken out of context - for as you see - they are all from the same letter, and mostly even the same chapter! I am in context buddy.

Irenaeus may have supported the ideas that councils give the final say - but what you cannot deny is that these councils came to all conclusions based upon Holy Scripture - and not “oral tradition”

That is why they say that they get there information from the Scriptures AND NO OTHER SOURCE.

And yes this can logically be used toward the exposure of the Catholic Church - because the Catholic Church claims to have oral traditions that have been handed down from the apostles mouths - and yet cannot give any hostorical documentation - nor official Church documentation (infallible pronouncements) of exactly what these “traditions” are.

For instance - can you define for me the traditions that Paul spoke of in 2 Thes 2:15? Can you give me historical evidence and official Church documentation that identifed these “traditions” before the 4th or 5th century? The 6th or 7th? The 10th?

Can you give me official documentation of exactly which traditions the apostle refers to in 2 Thes. 2:15 - even at all?

You cannot - and therefore this is the same claim that the gnostics claimed - That they had a bunch of preserved but unidentified and secret traditions passed along to them by the apostles.
So yes these quotes are properly applied to you.

Okay so you read the one chapter. HIs writings were to refute Gnostics and support the Church. Irenaus believed in the Church. You ignore this point when you know that Irenaus believed in the council defining doctrine.

So if you believe the council did everything via scripture then you should support our teachings. If you place faith in Irenaus you would then believe in papal authority. Do you? If Ireanus supports everything via scripture and he supports Papal Authority then it must be there. So I guess you support this?

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

Is it? Matthew’s writing is to Jews. The others to Romans. Romans were much more involved in adultery than Jews. So why give this thought to Jews only? Perhaps it means something to Jews that it doesn’t to Romans.

Does Christ state that what He’s saying applies only to Jews?

PerryJ:

For a Jewish person it could mean that if you divorce a Jewish person for being unchaste they are already in adultery.

It could be a way of avoiding this question all together. At this same time this very issue was being debated by jewish people. They may not have wanted to address chastity at this time. Greek translation could be “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another—I’m not going into the subject of unchastity—commits adultery.”

It could also mean being unchatse prior to the marriage being consumated. For example during the wait which we now refer to as being engaged.

I think it means both prior to marriage and while in a marriage.

PerryJ:

I am not going into all of the translations etc. The point is one can not just read this and understand it. In fact our culture is dictating how these verses are interpreted not God.

The secular humanist culture has nothing to do with the interpretation of Scripture. They’ve decided the grounds for divorce for themselves apart from the Scripture.

PerryJ:

You may refute these thoughts; however, they are from scriptural exegis. This shows how people picking up a Bible on their own can not define scripture. People define it from their perspective not Gods. In fact you did not pick up on any of the points that scriptural scholars discuss when they discuss these verses. How do you think you can interpret all scripture? You didn’t do it on a basic premise. ja4 hasn’t even responded and he brought up the point that it was so easy to understand. I am not trying to be critical of you. I am just pointing out that you study scripture yet did not discuss any of the points. You did not know the answer. How can it be so clear to everyone else.

The Lord states that marital unfaithfulness is a ground for divorce.

 

[PerryJ]

Does Christ state that what He’s saying applies only to Jews?

I think it means both prior to marriage and while in a marriage.

The secular humanist culture has nothing to do with the interpretation of Scripture. They’ve decided the grounds for divorce for themselves apart from the Scripture.

The Lord states that marital unfaithfulness is a ground for divorce.

That is what you believe. It is not clear in scripture. The verses contradict each other and can only be interpreted with outside references.

 

[PerryJ]

But is this really true?

Since you have cited some of the church fathers, I should make the following necessary comments:

1. When you cite them speaking of the Tradition of the apostles – they are referring to the WRITTEN Tradition of the apostles – Holy Scripture. Check the context of your quotes, and I can guarantee that this is the case. You do not read the church fathers – do you? You only grab what others have ripped out of context and copy paste them at me. Ha ha – admit it! You didn’t even cite the source of your information! How irresponsible-

But just to show you that you are abusing these fathers – we will now look at many of the plainest and clearest statements of these church fathers to see if the Reformers had indeed elevated the Holy Scriptures to a place of authority unheard of in the early Church.

 

[PerryJ]

Crusador;4180202:

But is this really true?

Since you have cited some of the church fathers, I should make the following necessary comments:

1. When you cite them speaking of the Tradition of the apostles – they are referring to the WRITTEN Tradition of the apostles – Holy Scripture. Check the context of your quotes, and I can guarantee that this is the case. You do not read the church fathers – do you? You only grab what others have ripped out of context and copy paste them at me. Ha ha – admit it! You didn’t even cite the source of your information! How irresponsible-

But just to show you that you are abusing these fathers – we will now look at many of the plainest and clearest statements of these church fathers to see if the Reformers had indeed elevated the Holy Scriptures to a place of authority unheard of in the early Church. ).

Here are a few quick quotes to refute your statements and reinforce that Irenaus believed in the Church.

Your statement concerning the written word and tradition is not true. The NT wasn’t even defined yet. In fact Irenaus thought the Sherperd of Hermas was inspired. So how do you get when he uses the term tradition it means the written word. The NT Bible did not exist and many books were still being disputed.

Who told you that tradition means the written word? This person is clearly not a scholar of any sort. You should stop reading them as it is historically false.

You can make the Bible fit your interpetation. You can not rewrite history to do the same. Every early Church Father supports the Church and you know it. Why try to take letters out of context? We can refute each and everyone of these posts.

Irenaus

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

…

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2

 

[guanophore]

There is no evidence that Peter was ever referred to as the “Bishop of the whole world”. This is where those that reject Sola Scriptura get into such trouble. Claims are made like this and there really is no support for such an assertions.

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence. The best being in the Holy Scripture, where Jesus commands Peter alone of all the Apostles to “feed my sheep”. Jesus leaves Peter in charge of the flock when He ascends into heaven.

But what does this have to do with the thread, ja4? We are waiting for you to show us from scripture where SS is taught. :coffeeread:

Just because there are “tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of opinions based on scriptures, etc” does not mean the fault lies with the principle of Sola Scriptura but how people interpret the facts at hand.

The doctrine of SS is what fuels the errant flame of people interpreting the “facts at hand”. Since everyone interprets based upon their own experience and education (or lack of it), then using the doctrine of SS produces “tons and tons of opinions based on the scriptures”. There is no objective standard to discern between the opinions.

On the other hand those that reject Sola Scriptura are not as unified as imagined. Even with a supposedly infallible interpreter there is a wide divergent of interpretations of the Scriptures. Look up almost any verse in the Scriptures in a couple of Catholic commentaries and you will not always find identical answers. Revelation 12 is a case in point. Not all catholic commentators agree that the woman is Mary.
justasking4;4177242:

The second problem with those who reject Sola Scriptura is demonstrating exactly what Sacred Tradition is and knowing all of it. There is no such exhaustive list of exactly what it is.

This is backwards. CAtholics cannot accept SS because it is a “different gospel” from the one we received. Everything that is invented by man, and contradicts what was delivered once and for all to the saints must be rejected.

Furthermore, Sacred Tradition is a world view, and does not reduce to a “list”. It is a perspective or way of looking at the Scriptures. One does not have to know everything in order to make use of the Truth available.

Third, the Catholic church has infallibly less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. This means that there is no way for a Catholic to know with certainty if she is interpreting a verse the way the church understands the verse to mean.

This is erroneous. Catholics read scripture in the light of the Apostolic Teachings. We do not separate out the verses and interpret them peicemeal. It is certain that we can know the teachings of Jesus, in scripture, and in the Church. Did you know that it was Catholics that added the verses to scripture? What do you think they did before that?

On the other hand those that reject Sola Scriptura are not as unified as imagined. Even with a supposedly infallible interpreter there is a wide divergent of interpretations of the Scriptures. Look up almost any verse in the Scriptures in a couple of Catholic commentaries and you will not always find identical answers. Revelation 12 is a case in point. Not all catholic commentators agree that the woman is Mary.

All of this, of course, is irrelevant, since The Teaching of the Apostles is not determined by commentators or opinions.

 

[guanophore]

FWI: Sola Scriptura is not against the Church of Jesus Christ. Sola Scriptura states that the Church of Jesus Christ is to operate in accordance with Holy Scripture – and that Scripture is the highest court of appeal, for Holy Scripture is the ultimate authority for the Church. It teaches that since the Scriptures alone are God-breathed Divine Revelation, the Church is to teach, preach, instruct, warn, comfort, strengthen, and confirm the saints according to them alone.

Well, this is the core of the problem The Holy Scriptures, as much as they are profitable in all these ways, are being assigned duties for which they cannot qualify. Scripture cannot be a “court of appeal” because the scripture in itself cannot judge or discern between cases. This function requires a person. Scripture cannot wield “authority” because this function requires human will and direction. While I agree that scripture is essential in these activities, they require people, and cannot be fulfilled by the Scripture itself.

Christ that has been recorded and preserved in Scripture alone.

This statement is false, and in fact, anti scriptural itself!

Because if you did this, then you would realize that the principle of Sola Scriptura could not be FULLY exercised until all of Scripture had been recorded; for while revelation was still being given by God, the practice of sola Scriptura was being practiced in increasing measures.

This is a fantasy that has no grounding in historical facts. SS was NEVER practiced until it became necessary for the Reformers to find a way to dispense with the appointed authority.

[which will not be a violation of the topic of this thread - since you repeatedly bring it up - I am obligated to answer it]

Other people breaking the rules does not equate to you being authorized to break them too!

The point is that the list of books that belong in the Bible is not in the Bible, therefore, one has to go to an authoritative source outside of Scripture for it’s contents.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4181265]
Originally Posted by Crusador
FWI: Sola Scriptura is not against the Church of Jesus Christ. Sola Scriptura states that the Church of Jesus Christ is to operate in accordance with Holy Scripture – and that Scripture is the highest court of appeal, for Holy Scripture is the ultimate authority for the Church. It teaches that since the Scriptures alone are God-breathed Divine Revelation, the Church is to teach, preach, instruct, warn, comfort, strengthen, and confirm the saints according to them alone.

guanophore;
Well, this is the core of the problem The Holy Scriptures, as much as they are profitable in all these ways, are being assigned duties for which they cannot qualify. Scripture cannot be a “court of appeal” because the scripture in itself cannot judge or discern between cases. This function requires a person. Scripture cannot wield “authority” because this function requires human will and direction. While I agree that scripture is essential in these activities, they require people, and cannot be fulfilled by the Scripture itself.

Your half right. It does require a person who knows the Scriptures to be able to apply the Scriptural teachings and perspectives to various issues. When a person or a church applies the Scriptures incorrectly as various churches have they are to be rejected since they would be teachings that which is not in accordance with the inspired-inerrant Word of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusador
Christ that has been recorded and preserved in Scripture alone.
guanophore;
This statement is false, and in fact, anti scriptural itself!

Not so. The only teachings we have of the Lord Jesus is to be found in the Scriptures alone. There is no other (unless you can demonstrate what i have asked you for months to do that there are other teachings of Jesus not recorded in the Scriptures.) Do worry i won’t hold my breath—View attachment 4086

 

[guanophore]

Why is it necessary for the Scriptures to define specifically what is inspired?

That is part of what is necessary to be the ultimate authority.

On what grounds does the church know which books are inspired?

This is the question that we have been asking you. Since you deny any other authority, there is no basis on which you can make the claim that they are inerrant-inspired.

By your reasoning it seems that since the Scriptures don’t tell us what the canon of Scripture is i.e. inspired-inerrant then the Scriptures cannot be inspired. Not even a church can make something that is not inspired, inspired-inerrant.

This is true, but the issue is the recognition of it. How can you differentiate these books and letters from the 400+ that were floating around at the time, claiming to be inspired?

How does this follow? Why must the Scriptures state within itself to the only infallible rule of faith?

It is one of the requirements of being the ultimate rule.

Why? Does God have to put in every book of the Scriptures that they are inspired or they aren’t?

Yes! Then, there has to be some magic key to discern between that book, and the other one that claims the same. Have you ever read the Epistle of Barnabas? Can you find any reason why it was not included in the canon?

Certainly the Jews of the OT knew what inspired Scripture was without this and the church accepts this. How did the Jews of the OT know what was inspired Scripture without the church to tell them?

This is an excellent question, especially since there were various sects that accepted or rejected different books and collections.

Of course it was self authenticating in that one of the test for the canon was that it had to be written by a pophet or apostle or on closely associated with one. Another was it accepted by the people of God. And still another did it tell the truth about God?
These and other tests were in some way self authenticaing.

But, who decided on these things? When there is no authority greater than scripture…?

You do realize that the Scriptures never mention the Roman Catholic church. Correct?

Roman, yes. Catholic, several times.

Its inherent in the Scriptures themselves as be accepted by the church as being inspired-inerrant. This principle is not derived from the church but from God Himself.

So, how did the church know which ones to accept, and which to reject?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Just because there are “tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of opinions based on scriptures, etc” does not mean the fault lies with the principle of Sola Scriptura but how people interpret the facts at hand. For example there is wide and universal belief among those who believe in Sola Scriptura for the following:

1. Christ is God
2. The Trinity
3. The fall of man
4. Christ died for our sins and rose again
5. The Scriptures alone are the Word of God

On the other hand those that reject Sola Scriptura are not as unified as imagined. Even with a supposedly infallible interpreter there is a wide divergent of interpretations of the Scriptures. Look up almost any verse in the Scriptures in a couple of Catholic commentaries and you will not always find identical answers. Revelation 12 is a case in point. Not all catholic commentators agree that the woman is Mary.

The second problem with those who reject Sola Scriptura is demonstrating exactly what Sacred Tradition is and knowing all of it. There is no such exhaustive list of exactly what it is.

Third, the Catholic church has infallibly less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. This means that there is no way for a Catholic to know with certainty if she is interpreting a verse the way the church understands the verse to mean.

Yes, those who reject sola scriptura are not unified as imagined and there is a wide divergence of interpretations.

But, is that important? Does it matter?

What does matter is that these interpretations don’t conflict with what has been infallibly defined. That these interpretations, these opinions, harmonize with the Church teachings.

The less than 20 verses infallibly defined are the ones that cannot be interpreted by a Catholic in any other way. But other verses are open to interpretation, and it doesn’t matter to a private Catholic interpreter if she doesn’t know with certainty, because if the Church hasn’t interpreted it infallibly, the Church isn’t certain either.

We must realize that private interpretations are opinions. And Catholics are permitted to have their personal opinions, as long as they realize that their opinions are just that, opinions.

When a Catholic writes a book on theology, he or she submits the book to the bishop for an imprimatur, that is “let it be printed.” This imprimatur does not mean that the bishop agrees with the contents of the book, but that it merely contains nothing contrary to faith or morals.

So, what we learn from this is that Catholics are permitted to have varying interpretations and can disagree with one another; they can have personal opinions on quite a wide range of things, as long as these opinions are not contrary to established faith or morals.

Oddly enough, it is many evangelicals do not recognize their opinions as opinions, and that they often condemn those who do not agree with them. Such as, “If you’re not a pre-millenialist, you’re not saved!”

Incidentally, groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that scripture alone is the word of God, but they do not believe that Jesus is God, nor believe in the Trinity.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All
Would it be fair to say, since its not in scripture Protestants don’t.exist. Silly isn’t it ?

Peace, OneNow1, and have a blessed rest of the day !

 

[justasking4]

Hi, All
Would it be fair to say, since its not in scripture Protestants don’t.exist. Silly isn’t it ?

Peace, OneNow1, and have a blessed rest of the day !

Same would go for Roman Catholics. 1 billion gone just like that…View attachment 4087

 

[Cinette]

A little angry are we? Is this how your Church teaches you to treat Protestants? You have not even read my posts! I can tell, and even if you did - you only respond Ad hominem- with personal attacks, avoiding the real issues.

BTW- Crusader was already taken, so I used an O instead of an E. But look at how desperately you are trying to attack me - I think this is the highest form of contempt - and disrespect, which last time I checked - was against the forum rules.

***I beg your pardon but you have to blame St Peter - go and check2 Peter 3:16: (I’ll make it easy for you) “speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

What can I say but that it is clear that you have proved to be one of these individuals to whom St Peter refers.

In regard to the spelling of Crusader, well how was I to know the reason for that? A natural mistake but I will apologise nevertheless.***

But believe me - I don’t really expect justice to be served on this forum - for some of the Senior Members have already admitted that there is a sharp double standard that is built into the whole purpose of this forum. :whacky: :hypno: :doh2:

Whatever though - can you twist John 20:30, 31 any more for me?***It is very clear to me. Now, the fact that you cannot interpret or understand is YOUR problem! ***

I would love to see what you can make it say this time!

***As I have said in a previous post your stubbornness makes it both frustrating and boring. SS has been exhaustively debated on these forums. Why don’t you go and read the previous threads? There are learned and intelligent people who have participated and made the case against SS.

You are right, I am no theologian. I looked at SS a couple of years ago, got some tracts, made some notes and then I shared them with you.

As I have said before I have Faith and believe in the Catholic Church and its teachings. Incidentally, the Catholic Church was first mentioned towards the end of the first century. It was St Ignatius of Antioch (35-107AD) in a letter to the Snyrnaeans Chap 8 “wherever the Bishop appears there let the people be as wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church***.” I think it was in the year 95. Perhaps someone on this forum knows the exact year. My husband called my attention to it when he was reading the Church Fathers. You would do yourself a favour if you did likewise.

Now, I am serious. This matter is over. I do not wish to discuss further. You have made up your mind and I have made up mine.

I shall pray for you - for sure

 

[ridler2012]

Hi, All
Would it be fair to say, since its not in scripture Protestants don’t.exist. Silly isn’t it ?

Peace, OneNow1, and have a blessed rest of the day !

Catholic is also not in the bible right? What’s the church that Christ founded according to Acts 20:28?