Sola Scriptura doesn't exist

[wisdomseeker]

Gotcha now because I am Catholic I don’t find anything wrong with that statement, because in scripture it says…“So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter. " …And that Jesus said to Peter, “I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” So to me whatever the Pope says on Earth is said in Heaven and so if there are Traditions that may not be explicitly spelled out in Scripture(The word Trinity and the Canon of Scripture for example) then I can know that they are true and we should follow what the Bishops of today (the predecessors of the Apostles) teach us. For as Christ said The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

In Christ
:grouphug:

And this makes the Church One. because she obeys Christ. God sends Jesus and Jesus sends His Church. Trinity again. WOW!!!

 

[JTBT]

Gotcha now because I am Catholic I don’t find anything wrong with that statement, because in scripture it says…“So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter. " …And that Jesus said to Peter, “I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” So to me whatever the Pope says on Earth is said in Heaven and so if there are Traditions that may not be explicitly spelled out in Scripture(The word Trinity and the Canon of Scripture for example) then I can know that they are true and we should follow what the Bishops of today (the predecessors of the Apostles) teach us. For as Christ said The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

In Christ
:grouphug:

well there is a few things that I disagree with in there, but I don’t think that was the OP’s intention but I will say the big disagreement is here So to me whatever the Pope says on Earth is said in Heaven

 

[wisdomseeker]

well there is a few things that I disagree with in there, but I don’t think that was the OP’s intention but I will say the big disagreement is here So to me whatever the Pope says on Earth is said in Heaven

please, what is your dispute on this one?

 

[JTBT]

please, what is your dispute on this one?

start another Thread on the Pope, and invite me to it and we will have that discussion, right now we are trying to come to an understanding on Sola Scriptura. do you still have issue with that?

 

[jdevoir]

well there is a few things that I disagree with in there, but I don’t think that was the OP’s intention but I will say the big disagreement is here So to me whatever the Pope says on Earth is said in Heaven

sorry for the delay I was eating a PBJ…quite possibly the greatest sandwich ever made But since Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church as the Early Church Fathers agree then his successors also have this authority. To me it would not make sense to create this Church with the hierarchy and then after the last Apostle dies for it to not have anyone on earth to feed it’s sheep.

In Christ
:grouphug:

 

[wisdomseeker]

start another Thread on the Pope, and invite me to it and we will have that discussion, right now we are trying to come to an understanding on Sola Scriptura. do you still have issue with that?

issue with what?

 

[jdevoir]

start another Thread on the Pope, and invite me to it and we will have that discussion, right now we are trying to come to an understanding on Sola Scriptura. do you still have issue with that?

To me MT 16 is very important to prove that Sola Scriptura is not Biblical because Christ is telling Peter that Whatever he binds/loosed on Earth is also in Heaven. So things that Peter and his successors Bind/Loose may not be in Scripture but still must be adhered to…I feel that Paul backs this up when he tells Timothy that the CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

In Christ
:grouphug:

 

[JTBT]

issue with what?

sola scriptura

 

[JTBT]

sorry for the delay I was eating a PBJ…quite possibly the greatest sandwich ever made But since Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church as the Early Church Fathers agree then his successors also have this authority. To me it would not make sense to create this Church with the hierarchy and then after the last Apostle dies for it to not have anyone on earth to feed it’s sheep.

In Christ
:grouphug:

this is actually up for debate. I can’t find any proof that Peter was the frist Bishop of Rome, he started the church there, but he also started the church in Antioch.

 

[wisdomseeker]

sola scriptura

you have misunderstood me. i have no issue with anything you believe.

what i do is to show others who come here the teachings of the Church in accordance with Scriptures and OT given to the Church.

it is not my intention to force in anyone our beliefs neither i expect any one to understand them.

i was raised Catholic so i dont have any doubt about what the Church teaches. but for those never exposed to our faith and our understanding of the Church and her role in this world is understandable that you have much dificulty in accept her.

but it is ok. i enjoyed the debates.

 

[jdevoir]

this is actually up for debate. I can’t find any proof that Peter was the frist Bishop of Rome, he started the church there, but he also started the church in Antioch.

Optatius:

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head–that is why he is also called Cephas–of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

In Christ
Jason
:grouphug:

 

[jdevoir]

this is actually up for debate. I can’t find any proof that Peter was the frist Bishop of Rome, he started the church there, but he also started the church in Antioch.

one more

Damasus I:

“In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero . . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus, 2 [A.D. 382]).

In Christ
:grouphug:

 

[wisdomseeker]

this is actually up for debate. I can’t find any proof that Peter was the frist Bishop of Rome, he started the church there, but he also started the church in Antioch.

you dont have any prove? any other church claiming to have the chair of St Peter? for how many years have the popes being elected in Rome?

 

[JTBT]

one more

Damasus I:

“In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero . . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus, 2 [A.D. 382]).

In Christ
:grouphug:

I’m not saying both Paul and Peter were not maryted there, that doesn’t prove either of them were Bishops…
I also will not deny that the Bishop of Rome was called the frist among equals in the early church.

 

[jdevoir]

I’m not saying both Paul and Peter were not maryted there, that doesn’t prove either of them were Bishops…
I also will not deny that the Bishop of Rome was called the frist among equals in the early church.

Optatius:

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter;

That sounds like a Bishop to me…here is another Irenaeus talks about the the succession of Bishops

IRENAEUS

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] 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 that church, because of its superior origin, all the 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., 3:3:2).

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not saying both Paul and Peter were not maryted there, that doesn’t prove either of them were Bishops…
I also will not deny that the Bishop of Rome was called the frist among equals in the early church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not saying both Paul and Peter were not maryted there, that doesn’t prove either of them were Bishops…
I also will not deny that the Bishop of Rome was called the frist among equals in the early church.

you also must undestand that the Church in the east were being destroyed by the muslims and the Church in Rome was getting much stronger and better protected despite of the many persecutions.

 

[jdevoir]

you also must undestand that the Church in the east were being destroyed by the muslims and the Church in Rome was getting much stronger and better protected despite of the many persecutions.

What time period are you speaking of?

In Christ
:grouphug:

 

[SilentKnight]

Ok;
1st are people in Reformed Churches Christian?

Yes. Generally speaking.

it is my understanding that the RC church now recognizes the Baptism of the Reformers.

That may well be. The Church has always recognized valid baptisms, whether done inside a Catholic church by a priest or inside a Lutheran church by a minister or out in the wilderness somewhere by an atheist. As long as the proper form and intent are present, the baptism is valid across the board.

If so then, I charge that the Roman Catholic Church also recognizes that Sola Scriptura does work because the practice of it produces Christians.

Rather than sit here and try to analyze this from my vantage point and respond with, “This doesn’t make any sense” , I have been sitting here trying to understand it from your own angle and I must confess that I’m still having a hard time…

The best I can make out of what you’re saying here is that the whole point of the Bible is to “get people saved”, which, for yourself (do correct me if I’m wrong) is a single moment experience. That is, once I confess Christ is Lord, done. All over with. I am signed sealed and will be delivered to Heaven no matter what happens over the course of the rest of my life.

I guess in this vein, what you’ve said above would make sense to the extent that the Bible talks about Jesus and how he saves and so to the extent that the Bible talks about this and people simply pick up a Bible and read about it and then “get saved”…Boom! Done! Sola Scriptura is apparently very real and even successful after all…Did I nail that to the wall? Come close? Nowhere near close? The Koran could have said it better??? …Lemme know…

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

start another Thread on the Pope, and invite me to it and we will have that discussion, right now we are trying to come to an understanding on Sola Scriptura. do you still have issue with that?

Thank you.

Focus, dear people. Focus…

SK