Sola Scriptura is True

[DD2007]

You are filled with hatred and elitism, arrogance and ignorance.

Ad Hominem assaults are a sign of desperation and weaken your argument. They are also mean and uncalled for. I represented our position in a much more watered down way than than can be accuratly stated.

You are not smarter than the Church that has been protected by the Holy Spirit for 2000 years, can you find that in scripture? I can.

I am a member of it and follow the scriptures that were provided for me to discern when a leadeer is teaching truth or lie. I listen to God through his word. The reason we had a reformation of the church is because many clergy and other members of the church agreed that Rome was inerror and was teaching unbiblical doctrines,

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Sure, the Church was called Catholic. Today, you pervert to mean your denomination and organizations. Universal is the word. It’s talking about the totality of Believers. Not about a group of people called Catholics.

I thought I’d get a better response than that. That was horrible…

When Augustine refers to the Catholic Church, he means of course, all those Churches in communion with the bishop of the Catholic Church at Rome. This is the same Church which the apostle praised (Rom. 1:8) and which indeed has real authority which Augustine acknowledged.

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 5. newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

That this *Catholic Church *whose authority Augustine defers to is the very same Catholic Church whose highest bishop is the bishop of Rome, is made quite clear when, on another occasion, after citing the decision of Pope Zosimus to condemn all Pelagian Reformers in all parts of the world, he wrote the following (I give 4 different versions):

“The Catholic doctrine is so ancient and well-grounded, so certain and clear in these words of the Apostolic See, that it would be criminal in a Christian to doubt of this truth.”

“So certain and so clear is the Catholic faith as expressed in the words of the Apostolic See, so ancient and well established, that it would be a sacrilege for any Christian to doubt it.”

“These words of the Apostolic See contain the Catholic faith that is so ancient and well-founded, so certain and so clear, that it is impious for a Christian to doubt it.”

“In these words of the Apostolic See the Catholic faith stands out as so ancient and so firmly established, so certain and so clear, that it would be wrong for a Christian to doubt it.”

To St. Optatus, Epistle 190.

Sources:

*The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation *(1955), Ludwig Schopp and Roy Joseph Deferrari, eds., Catholic University of America, (Letters, 165-203), Vol. 30, Epistle 190 to Bishop Optatus, p. 286, archive.org/details/fathersofthechur027567mbp

Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Letters (Epistulae - 156-210), trans. and notes by Roland Teske, S. J., ed. Boniface Ramsey, New City Press, Hyde Park, New York, 2004, vol.3, part 2, p. 274, ISBN 156548200X.
books.google.com/books?id=cJnjXWQpknIC&pg=PA274&dq=%22words+of+the+Apostolic+See%22&lr=&ei=cVGLSq6sJ47SMorJiacM#v=onepage&q=%22words%20of%20the%20Apostolic%20See%22&f=false

---

“Householders are the kind who promote their greedy impulses, dissipate their energies on the pleasures of this world, become swollen with pride and overbearing toward humble folk, and insult holy people who recognize the narrow way that leads to life.”

St. Augustine, Exposition of Psalm 120:3:2.

Works, III/19, ISBN 1565481976, p. 511.
books.google.com/books?lr=&um=1&q=%22insult+holy+people+who+recognize+the+narrow+way+that+leads+to+life%22&btnG=Search+Books

 

[DD2007]

DD20097= What is name of the church that John Macarthur preaching frolm does it have a name.Will you please tell us what it is,the church

Sure Bill. It is Grace community Church.

gracechurch.org/home/

Grace Community Church of the Valley is located in the San Fernando Valley, at 13248 Roscoe Blvd., Sun Valley, California 91352.

Here is Dr. Macarthur’s ministry site as well.

gty.org/

 

[Convert66]

DD,

You were clear to distiguish between the Pope and the Papacy, as I was. You are clearly calling the Papacy antichrist, antichristian and opposed to God. This is contrary to the Scriptural instruction on who and what qualifies as “the spirit of antichrist.”

Being a Sola Scriptura Christian, you have no biblical leg to stand on.

Look, I realize that many of the things you think you understand are shocking given your current theology. They were to me as a sola scriptura Christian. That is, until I at least gave a fair hearing to Catholic Christians on what they meant, and not how they appeared in the light of my personally preferred theology.

You are swimming in self-righteousness, but you can’t see beyond your self-confidence and your insulated protestantism. I’ve been there. I was never anti-Catholic that I recall, but many of my closest friends were. It never really bothered me. I just thought it strange, and occasionally shocking to hear some of the things that “those catholics” believed.

I don’t know your age, but to be honest, you strike me from your posts as a very young man. You don’t realize it now (as I didn’t when I was a young protestant) but you truly have a razor-thin understanding of the Incarnation. If you could get a little vision about just that one issue, Catholicism would not seem so foreign (which is often a stumbling block, especially for American protestants—since protestantism and Americanism are nearly synonymous in the US–which is a real form of idolatry, by the way).

Let me ask you this . . .what will you be in heaven? It’s not a trick question. I really want to know your thoughts.

All my best . . .

P.S. Have you ever read a Catholic historian on the Reformation? What about any secular histories? It was very little to do with doctrine, much more to do with wealth-confiscation and ethnic rivalries, not to mention the desire to establish state churches for the Nobles to rule over as the Pope does the Church. Private kingdoms, with no Popes to correct their abuses of the peasantry. It was a long-running feud between Rome and the Bavarian regions, much of Italy, France and many Holy Roman Emperors. The doctrinal hyperbole came later, after Luther decided he wanted a woman, Calvin decided he wanted to be a dictator in Geneva and the wars initiated by protestant nobles against the Church were retaliated against and escalated into blood feuds. Try stepping outside of your protestant box. You may learn something.

 

[DD2007]

I wish I had time to answer all of the replies but no one does who doesn’t do this 12 hours a day… I guess CA could hire me to be the “other guy”…

Anyway I believe you have seen that we have a solid position from scripture in regards to the doctrine of scripture itself.

I’ll check back later, but this thread is really about spent and is drifting into a plethora of off subject topics that we could investigate together for years.

 

[josie_L]

Because it is the word of God. It is true it is menat to be read and the Holy Spirit is the one who guides us to all truth. All misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the bible is rooted in sin. When one bends their will to the will of God then the scriputes come alive.

But then the Bible is no longer the infallible authority, WE ARE.

John 16:12-15 ESV
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

He was speaking to the apostles, and how the Spirit would lead them into all truth (they were to be the foundation of the Church rooted in Jesus). Hence it is for this reason that we the CC hold to the Sacred Traditions (actual teachings/interpretation of scripture and doctrines) that the apostles received from Jesus and passed down from generation to generation through apostolic succession. You have seperated yourself from the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” Church.

The truth it upholds is the gospel that is now recorded in scripture since the apostles have passed. The scriptures are the only reason we have apostolic teaching inthe church and are what preserves the gospel that the church (believers in Christ) hold up.

Yes, the Church does uphold the gospel but it does so through Sacred Tradition for how else could we know that Scripture was inspired? How else could we know how to interpret scripture (and follow the doctrines already established before scripture) as it was taught to the Apostles, the pillar and foundation of the Church (lived on through their successors)?

 

[josie_L]

Sola Scriptura!
Sola Fide!
Sola Gracia!
Sola Dei Gloria!
Solus Christus!

Amen.

You forgot Sola Mio!

 

[Des]

Anyway I believe you have seen that we have a solid position from scripture in regards to the doctrine of scripture itself.

You must be joking. I’m willing to bet that not one Catholic here believes you have any type of ‘solid’ position from Scripture regarding sola Scripture. From my pov, the Catholics here put you in your place numerous times.

SS doesn’t work thereby making a fully reformed Church to come in your own words, a failure since true reformation takes authority and no ss believer outside of the Church has that.

 

[adstrinity]

I’ll check back later, but this thread is really about spent and is drifting into a plethora of off subject topics that we could investigate together for years.

Translation: I can’t defend my very weak position anymore and I don’t even want to try. I have been bested by the Catholics but I can not be humble enough to admit this.

 

[DD2007]

Translation: I can’t defend my very weak position anymore and I don’t even want to try. I have been bested by the Catholics but I can not be humble enough to admit this.

Actually, the text is still standing. I already defended it and it is still there and always will be because anyone who believes scripture is true has the word EVERY there to teach that there is sufficiency in scripture. That is irrefutable because it is true. So, that will be there for the rest of your life.

I’m not going to live on Cathoilc Answers and tell you what is right there in front of your face over and over again.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

This passage is definitive and absolute in it’s teaching of the sufficiency saftey and trustworthieness of God’s scripture that we call sola scriptura.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Translation: I can’t defend my very weak position anymore and I don’t even want to try. I have been bested by the Catholics but I can not be humble enough to admit this.

Exactly!

And I’m still waiting for a response to this:

1. What about the Intercourse of the Betrothed?

“Secret intercourse of those who are engaged to each other can certainly not be considered fornication; for it takes place in the name and with the intention of marriage, a desire, intention, or name which fornication does not have. Thus there is a great difference indeed between fornication and secret intercourse after the promise of marriage.”

(W 30 III, 226f – E 23, 123 – SL 10, 781).

W= Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works.
E = Erlangen Ed.
SL = Saint Louis Ed. (Dr. Martin Luthers samtliche Schriften, 25 vols.), based on the earlier edition by Johann Georg Walch, (Halle: J. J. Gebauer, 1740-1753, 24 vols.).

What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass, Concordia Publishing House, 1959,1986, ISBN 0570042402, p. 896.

books.google.com/books?id=NQA5AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&dq=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0

 

[coolduude]

protestanterrors.com/#9

 

[Love_is_Patient]

1 Peter 2:9 ESV
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Our leaders are chosen by the church (believers in Christ) and hands are layed on them in ordination as has always been.

All leaders are subject to the divine authoity of the word of God and we use it to make sure they teach the truth. That is why we had a reformation. Rome wasn’t teaching the truth.

“…and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” Exodus 19:6

Was there a difference between the Levites and the rest of the Israelites?

Love is Patient

 

[DD2007]

“…and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” Exodus 19:6

Was there a difference between the Levites and the rest of the Israelites?

Love is Patient

I like your question so I’m going to answer it even though the thread is old and it is off topic of the OP.

They didn’t have Christ yet. Read Hebrews about the priesthood of Christ. Also the passage from Romans below about fullfilling the law.

Romans 8:1-4 ESV
8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[coolduude]

The Bible was not put under one cover until the Councils of Hippo (393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (397) accepted the official list of books (click here for the actual Council text and scroll down to see the list of books in the Canon at that time, which is the same as used by the Catholic Church today). Not for over 1000 years after these early Councils was the printing press invented (1450), so Bible manuscripts were quite rare and costly before the printing press came about. Between 397 and 1450 then, how did most people learn about the contents of Scripture, and who was the authoritative figure for the early Church during these centuries? The authority clearly could not have been the Bible, but clearly was the Church Herself who preached it to the faithful. So how can Scripture have been our only guide for the centuries before copies of the Bible were readily available, and were the people who lived during those centuries all damned because they did not have access to Scripture?
Consider this verse from Scripture: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name” John 20:30-31. What else does this tell us than Jesus did and said other things that were not recorded in Scripture? Are we really to think that anything Jesus did or said that didn’t make it into the books of Scripture are false or should not be adhered to?
Consider the verse, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” John 21:25. Clearly there are many things Jesus said and did that were passed on as tradition (by word of mouth) and did not make it into the books of Scripture.
Nowhere in Scripture do we see references to Jesus writing anything down during His public life, nor does Scripture show that He ever asked His Apostles to write down what He was teaching either. If Scripture were the ONLY resource we should have for our salvation, surely Jesus and His Apostles would have written constantly, but they did not. So while Scripture is essential, tradition is also essential.
Nowhere in Scripture does it say Scripture alone should be accepted as revelation, and it certainly does not say we should condemn Apostolic tradition. Look all through the Gospels and you will see nothing spoken against tradition except for traditions which are human or against Scripture. Why do the Protestant reformers add this to Our Lord’s words? It is forbidden to add anything to Scripture, as it is to take anything away from it. Why do the Protestant reformers also take away the traditions which are expressly authorized?
Consider the verse, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2:14. What else does this tell us than the Apostles spread the word of God not only through Epistles, but also by WORD, and that we should hold to the traditions which we are taught?
Any unwritten Apostolic doctrine we call Tradition. Consider the verse, “If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.” 1 Corinthians 11:34. This clearly shows St. Paul writing important words to the Corinthians, then stating he will “set the rest in order” when he comes, yet we do not have writing about them elsewhere. What he said then, will it be lost to the Church? No, it has come down through tradition.
Consider the verse, “Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full.” 2 John 1:12. St. John had something worthy of being written yet he chose to speak instead. Instead of Scripture, he has made tradition.
Consider the verse, “Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 1:13. This is clearly St. Paul recommending to St. Timothy an unwritten Apostolic word. This is tradition!
Also consider the verse, “And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.” 2 Timothy 2:2. What is this but the Apostle speaking, the witnesses relating, and St. Timothy teaching, followed by these teaching others? This is clearly tradition.
Consider the verse, “I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now” John 16:12. When did He say these things which He had to say? Was it all written? It is also said that He was forty days with them teaching them of the Kingdom of God, but we have neither all of His apparitions nor everything He told them during that time.
Consider the verses, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Matthew 28:20, and “He that heareth you, heareth me” Luke 10:16, etc. This clearly shows the*Apostles teaching is true revelation.

 

[Convert66]

JosieL,

Originally Posted by TristanCross forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Sola Scriptura!
Sola Fide!
Sola Gracia!
Sola Dei Gloria!
Solus Christus!

Amen.

You forgot Sola Mio!

 

[DD2007]

youtube.com/watch?v=uRSKU9_7BJQ&feature=related

 

[coolduude]

youtube.com/watch?v=uRSKU9_7BJQ&feature=related

I’m missing the point here…

Did you even read my last post?

 

[Religio71]

Actually, the text is still standing. I already defended it and it is still there and always will be because anyone who believes scripture is true has the word EVERY there to teach that there is sufficiency in scripture. That is irrefutable because it is true. So, that will be there for the rest of your life.

I’m not going to live on Cathoilc Answers and tell you what is right there in front of your face over and over again.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

This passage is definitive and absolute in it’s teaching of the sufficiency saftey and trustworthieness of God’s scripture that we call sola scriptura.

And there will still be apostolic Christians that understand the grammatical structure of those verses, leading us to know that sufficiency is not taught in those verses (especially when we look at various versions of the Bible), and will have the correct understanding of that passage, which is that Scripture is profitable, is God-given, and equips us for every good work, but that does not mean it is ALL we need for every good work. Thank God for college English courses…

And don’t worry, you don’t have to live on this forum, there are always more like you that come to “teach” us the truth, but luckily we already have it. Thanks.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Going by the Bible alone, how do you know that what Paul (or any other person for that matter) wrote should be scripture?

And why did you completely ignore all my other questions? Here they are again:

And I’m also wondering where the Bible says “The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died” and that everything the prophets and apostles wrote is canonical, and where it says “We have all their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture.” Perhaps DD2007 would be so kind as to quote book, chapter, and verse for these three.

DD2007,

When are you going to answer my questions?

This is the third time I’m asking the last three questions quoted above.