Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hapaxparadidomi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChristisTruth said:
What thou has learned is from the Hebrew scriptures and Jesus…which Jesus quoted constantly. “It is written”, but despite his example Sola Scriptura is stated. Why is it Scriptures are not welcomed on a blog site that should be devoted to God. I will not be a part of this type of site. I guarantee you just kick people off for using scripture.

May your garments be eaten and spit out with nothing remaining of you.

Rev 17:15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. 16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Revelation 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 7How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her

9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Click to expand...
Who has been kicked off for using Scripture? And why do you state…“May your garments be eaten and spit out with nothing remaining of you?” That’s really creepy. And then you procede to quote St. John of Revelation. Are you that seriously anti-Catholic? It would seem so.
 
ChristisTruth said:
I guarantee you just kick people off for using scripture.

May your garments be eaten and spit out with nothing remaining of you.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you have been…

And they will know that we are Christians by our love, not by eating people’s garments and spitting them out with nothing remaining of them.

Reported BTW
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Because it (sola scriptura) is not a claim that the church did not receive the canon of Scripture.
Click to expand...
The church did not receive the canon, moreoever, it formulated the canon over a period of time with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaelic Bard
The canon of Scripture is neither a dogma nor relevant to sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
Of course it is revelant to Sola Scriptura. You made it evident, if it is not in scripture (Assumption of Mary,etc,etc), then it is in doubt or questionable-right? Sounds like Sola Scriptura. Dogma or not,where is it remotely mentioned in the Bible?

If it is not dogma,then why do Protestants follow a 27 NT canon?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaelic Bard
I don’t see what the line of questioning is seeking to prove. Before you worry about the epistemological problems of Protestant church discipline, worry about Biden and Pelosi.
Click to expand...
Which means you worry about Barrack Obama who is a Protestant.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Sure, there are many Catholics faithful to church teaching. That goes without saying. But don’t pretend that the level of discipline present in Catholicism is any better than Protestantism. Apologists love to point out that if a church excommunicates a Protestant, he just goes to another church. Disobedient Catholics don’t have to do even that. They just stay in the same parish. Or go to papal inauguration masses.

Glass houses.
Click to expand...
Westboro Baptist Church.

Can we please get back to the matter at hand?
 
Tomster said:
Which leads me to ask how many different major Protestant confessions of faith are there and by what method can one determine which confession is correct in all matters and which one’s aren’t? Can’t I just search the Scriptures all by myself to make the correct determination?
Click to expand...
This is an important question.

As far as Sola Scriptura goes, there seems to be a multitude of definitions of it running around.

As the Bible doesn’t really define what it is, the SS defs are all man-made interpretations, subject to the fallible definer’s interpretations, no?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Sure, there are many Catholics faithful to church teaching. That goes without saying. But don’t pretend that the level of discipline present in Catholicism is any better than Protestantism.
Click to expand...
What is of critical import here, GB, is that when Protestants are “disobedient” to their pastor’s teaching, they are simply following their paradigm. They can tell their pastor, “I read the Bible myself and I came to a different interpretation than you did!” and the pastor must respond, “Good for you! That’s exactly the model we espouse!”

However, when a Catholic says this to the Magisterium, the Magisterium says, “Sorry, son. You need to re-evaluate your position until you come to the Truth.”

Disobedient Protestants are being good Protestants.
Disobedient Catholics are being bad Catholics.

[SIGN1]Huge difference. [/SIGN1]
 
PRmerger said:
What is of critical import here, GB, is that when Protestants are “disobedient” to their pastor’s teaching, they are simply following their paradigm. They can tell their pastor, “I read the Bible myself and I came to a different interpretation than you did!” and the pastor must respond, “Good for you! That’s exactly the model we espouse!”

However, when a Catholic says this to the Magisterium, the Magisterium says, “Sorry, son. You need to re-evaluate your position until you come to the Truth.”

Disobedient Protestants are being good Protestants.
Disobedient Catholics are being bad Catholics.

[SIGN1]Huge difference. [/SIGN1]
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Lol fair enough. What was the topic and I will bravely attack the target, sergeant.
Click to expand...
Sergeants salute Lieutenants, remember! Simply put: The Church was founded without a bible. It was founded on the oral Apostolic teaching by eyewitnesses. This teaching was handed on to succeeding generations, and some of it was written, with the balance being preserved by the Holy Spirit within the Church, just as Christ promised the Apostles.

But, here is the OP:
“I hope to receive an informed answer regarding this question. How are protestants able to maintain that the bible taught “It is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals” and maintain the idea that the authors of the bible were teaching new revelation orally? The protestant view would in effect have an inspired author saying ‘There are no other inspired sources except this bible’. If that is the case, then that would negate that author from being inspired. How do you address that contradiction?”
Click to expand...
Proceed.
 
Once again, the OP:
I hope to receive an informed answer regarding this question. How are protestants able to maintain that the bible taught “It is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals” and maintain the idea that the authors of the bible were teaching new revelation orally? The protestant view would in effect have an inspired author saying ‘There are no other inspired sources except this bible’. If that is the case, then that would negate that author from being inspired. How do you address that contradiction?
Click to expand...
How is this not destroyed by Acts 15? The Church overthrew 1,250 years of scripture dating back to God’s covenant with Abraham! In deciding against circumcision, the Church used that “whatever” binding authority that Christ gave her in Matthew 18:18. As a matter of fact, it was the Church’s authority that lead to the various writings being considered scripture in the first place. Those writings were not considered sacred when they were written - they were originally just letters, exhortations and corrections, and little more. Any doctrine they noted had already been handed on orally by the Church before being reduced to writing. Note: Reduced to writing.
 
po18guy said:
Once again, the OP: How is this not destroyed by Acts 15? The Church overthrew 1,250 years of scripture dating back to God’s covenant with Abraham! In deciding against circumcision, the Church used that “whatever” binding authority that Christ gave her in]Matthew 18:18
Click to expand...
. As a matter of fact, it was the Church’s authority that lead to the various writings being considered. cripture in the first place. Those writings were not considered sacred when they were written - they were originally just letters and nothing more. Any doctrine they noted had already been decided and taught orally by the Church before being reduced to writing. Note: Reduced to writing.

The problem with an appeal to Acts 15, po, is that it ignores the fact that the abrogation of the Mosaic Covenant was made manifest to the church in this period by divine revelation. That is something that is not present in post-apostolic Christianity, as even your own church body admits. There is no new revelation. The church fathers, the councils, etc., cannot theologically be compared to the council of Acts 15. as none of them received revelation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top