Sola Scriptura is True

[Kay_Cee]

Here is where peter lays out the plan.

2 Peter 1:12-21 ESV
12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

This says absolutely nothing whatsoever about ***sola ***scriptura. All it says is that Peter will make “every effort” to help others recall things. Since it is ***every ***effort, that would have to include passing on the message orally as well as in writing, since writing is not the only way to pass on a message.

Shorten your posts if you want a reply.

I already gave you extremely short answers, no more than a few sentences for each of your points.

Hardly anyone reads long posts so it is fruitless to waste the time unless it is something new which yours wasn’t since you utterly misunderstand the application of sola scriptura and even the purpose of scripture and write the same old stuff catholics always write who hate the bible.

Now that is incredible rude and insulting!!! I caution you to stop bearing false witness by implying I hate the Bible. Why are you stooping to attacking me instead of my points?

It is meant to train one from God for every good work. There was a tikme when it was not. It was received by believers from the hand of the prophet or apostle who wrote it or approved it.

As a Catholic Christian, I believe ***100% ***of the Bible is the inspired word of God. 100%!
What I don’t necessarily believe is your personal, fallible interpretation of the Bible. And when I question you about it, you insult me! Is that how a Christian is supposed to behave? Do you honestly believe attacking me is going to convince me you’re right? I am open to hearing you prove your points, but not if you’re going to be rude and insulting.

 

[Convert66]

SyCarl,

I appreciate your response, and your tone. And as for taking a while, even aside from work and household stuff, who could keep up the pace around here?

My view with respect to the Church Fathers and the early church is that what was accepted as orthodox was much wider than what is accepted by the Catholic Church today and would include many Protestant views.

I’d agree with that. I think things are left to private interpretation until such time as a definitive rendering is required to maintain unity; that is, until there are so many interpretations or negligences that unity requires a definitive pronouncement. This was actually one of the things that struck me as wise, and much more flexible than I had imagined the Church to be prior to my conversion. For all of the complaint of dogma, they are relatively dogma-free after two-thousand years. I expected an ex cathedra commentary on the Scriptures and home inspections, or something.

Another example is transubstantiation. The Church Fathers seemed generally content to leave the Real Presence as a mystery, but the Catholic Church has seen fit to require belief in a particular formula.

Again, I think there were subtle differences early on, but as the faith spread and challenges increased it became necessary to pronounce a dogmatic belief. Aside from this aspect, though, this objection is more a critique of style, for it neglects wholly the actual truth or falsehood of the doctrine itself. But who wants another 30 pages of polemical combat on that one, eh?

Originally Posted by Convert66 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The same Scriptures that lead Aquinas to defend the Creeds as a summary of the Gospel informed him of his Marian devotion. Will you at least admit this?
Actually, Aquinas himself admits the contrary.

Quote:
I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth.
(Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 27, Article 1.
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q27_A1.html)

Well, let’s finish that quote, though.

“But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth “the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth,” received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Lk. 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: “Hail full of grace!”
Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jer. 1:5): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee”; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Lk. 1:15): “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.” It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.” Aquinas did argue his position (as well as St. Augustine’s) from the Scriptures.

Did God change His requirements as to what had to be believed because the Pope defined dogma? Why would God require less from early Christians that He does of those today? If God didn’t change and it always had to be believed, did the Church not fail those in the past by not defining required beliefs at an earlier date?

We could say the same thing about the Canon itself, or the Trinity, or the Nicene Creed.

My point is not that some Catholic Tradition may not be true, but that because it is not clearly set out in Scripture, it is not necessary to believe it. It is not necessary to know all truth. For example, what colour were Jesus’ eyes? Some answer would be true, but is it necessary to know this?

I understand your position, and to some degree I would grant it. It is your right of conscience. But an admission that it is not necessary to know all truth (as intuitively and perhaps actually true this statement is) strikes me personally as incuriousity. I see that you rely upon sola scriptura to support your position, but even the Scriptures say of our Lord, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” If the Person of Christ IS Truth (as God IS Love), then how much of Him must we “know” to really know Him according to Scripture?

The biblical way of knowledge is intimate knowledge. This is the prima facie for the Incarnation to begin with (i.e. to reveal the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit). I would urge you to pursue this further.

All my best . . .

 

[Religio71]

And to be clear, the nature of the Eastern Catholic churches is something that is very complex and has been discussed, especially by our most recent Popes.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13orient.htm
intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

 

[DD2007]

This says absolutely nothing whatsoever about ***sola ***scriptura. All it says is that Peter will make “every effort” to help others recall things. Since it is ***every ***effort, that would have to include passing on the message orally as well as in writing, since writing is not the only way to pass on a message.

It teaches that Peter planed to leave scripture behind after his death. That is what the prophets and apostles have always done by the inspiration of the Spirit. God sends a messenger and delivers revelation in a dramatic fashion, the messenger records it and dies. Notice this time God had 12 of them at once and then Paul as well. The Church grew quick and took over the world in a very short period of time. They left us the scriptures to keep their teachings taught because those teachings were inspired by God and are His word.

Do you honestly believe attacking me is going to convince me you’re right? I am open to hearing you prove your points, but not if you’re going to be rude and insulting.

I didn’t attack you. Also, I really need to stop this. I don’t have time for this and I get caught up in these internet forums because I love to talk about theology and share Christ with people. However, I have been doing this since I got home from work and some on break at work even. It is now midnight. That isn’t healthy for my family. I have responsibilities. I post on these forums (3 of them) too much and I need to slow down.

At any rate as you can see the text of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is clear and as shown teaches that scripture trains us for EVERY good work so any work not included isn’t good and every good work there is we are prepared for by scriputure. Sola Scriptura it is.

God bless.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Sorry, but you err on several counts.

First of all 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 is not referring to the New Testament…notice at 2Tim3:15…"…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation…"
How old do you suppose Timothy is?? Because when Timothy was a child only the Old Testament existed. So are you arguing “Sola Old Testament”? Surely not.

In fairness (not that I should butt my nose in here … but I used to like theology quite a bit & disagree with your inference), here’s the passage in context:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Either you assume the NT isn’t “God breathed” (which would be quite a surprise to the cadre in Rome) or you have to assume this statement by Paul also applies to the NT (whether he was referencing it in this particular case or not).

Not that you can spin a single passage into an entire theological thesis. Notwithstanding Paul’s words in 2 Tim 3 it’s obvious the bible doesn’t cover every possible scenario a human being will ever face in his or her life (even the most devout among you should realize that much). Therefore, there must be some value in tradition (I guess the question is to what extent).

At any rate as someone who is inclined against believing any of the supernatural events depicted by the bible are anymore than folklore and ancient mythology (but who also sees some value in many elements of Christians morality and philosophy) I tend to look at these issues in a more straight forward and unbiased way. The CC was dogmatic, oppressive, and corrupt in the 15th century. They brought the reformation on themselves. The fact that they still claim to be infallible (and depict protestants as heretics and the like) is unfortunate.

 

[Kay_Cee]

It teaches that Peter planed to leave scripture behind after his death. That is what the prophets and apostles have always done by the inspiration of the Spirit. God sends a messenger and delivers revelation in a dramatic fashion, the messenger records it and dies. Notice this time God had 12 of them at once and then Paul as well. The Church grew quick and took over the world in a very short period of time. They left us the scriptures to keep their teachings taught because those teachings were inspired by God and are His word.

All you’ve proven here is that Peter planned to pass on the message in writing. You’ve done nothing to eliminate him passing it on orally as well.

I didn’t attack you.

Grouping me with people you claim hate the Bible is an attack on my character.

Also, I really need to stop this. I don’t have time for this and I get caught up in these internet forums because I love to talk about theology and share Christ with people. However, I have been doing this since I got home from work and some on break at work even. It is now midnight. That isn’t healthy for my family. I have responsibilities. I post on these forums (3 of them) too much and I need to slow down. Atr any rate as you can see the text of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is clear and as shown teaches that scripture trains us for EVERY good work so any work not included isn;t good and evey good work there is we are preparred for by scriputre. Sola Scriptura it is.

God bless.

What I see is you telling me all kinds of things nowhere to be found in scripture, then expecting me to believe you when you tell me “Sola scripture it is.”

At any rate, unless you apologize for grouping me with people you claim hate the Bible, the discussion is over.

 

[jblake]

DD2007;:

That is how we got the New Testament canon. The apostles writings are authoritative so all of them are scripture.

Then you’ll be willing, able and happy to explain the issues with accepting the

• The 22 Book NT Canon;
• The 26 Book NT Canon;
• The 27 Book NT Canon;
• The 28 Book NT Canon;
• The 29 Book NT Canon;
• The 35 Book NT Canon;

jonathon

 

[Convert66]

DD,

I know what you mean about getting “caught up.” It’s easy for me because I love it too. :tiphat:

All my best . . .

 

[adstrinity]

It teaches that Peter planed to leave scripture behind after his death.

That is NOT what that says. It is very clear that is not what that says. That may be what you see, but, that is not what it says.

 

[ccolley2]

2 Peter 1:12-15 ESV

20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Here Peter says that he isn’t the one that is the true author of the things he writes but the Holy Spirit. He clearly says that no prophecy of scripture was man made. It was written by God through them.

Thus Peter clearly teaches that after he dies (all the apostles) the Church will have scripture as the apostolic authority.

According to the Revised standard version 2Peter says, “…no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…” NOT “…comes from someone’s own interpretation”.
Also, your(personal fallible) interpretation of that passage is just wrong. What Peter is teaching is that “men SPOKE from God as the were Carried along by the Holy Spirit…” Where are you reading “wrote Scripture”? The text does not say what you think it says~

Also, when Peter said these things the New Testament had not been written, nor had it been put together as a BOOK! How then could the Church have Scripture as the Apostolic Authority or any authority for that matter? Peter had no idea that the bible would be a book in the future.

What is the pillar and bulwark of the truth??
Scripture??? not according to the Bible> the Bible says that the Pillar(upholder) and bulwark (defender) of the truth is the Church not Scripture…

We can have a church without a bible, but we cannot have a bible without a Church…

CC

 

[Convert66]

adstrinity,

You are correct about St. Peter. “Every effort”, including this letter. But in the passage itself:

2 Peter 1:12-21 ESV
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

This clearly speaks that St. Peter first delivered to them what they saw, not what was written. And then . . .

19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

He reaffirms the Apostolic interpretation of the OT Prophets, which are the texts that Christ “opened to them” on the road to Emmaus (by memory, I might add, not a copy of the LXX).

There is no argument from this passage for sola scriptura. There is an argument for Apostolic interpretation of the OT, which was clearly delivered orally first, and only later “delivered” as a reminder of what had already been taught orally regarding the OT Scriptures.

Next . . .

P.S. Fellow okie?

 

[placido]

"DD2007:

It teaches that Peter planed to leave scripture behind after his death

That is NOT what that says. It is very clear that is not what that says. That may be what you see, but, that is not what it says.

More often than not people don’t stop and think about this: why should I believe what DD2007 says and not what Adstrinity says? It is here where the Church comes in, but according to people like DD the Church has long ceased to be - regardless of Jesus’ promise.

placido

 

[josie_L]

In fairness (not that I should butt my nose in here … but I used to like theology quite a bit & disagree with your inference), here’s the passage in context:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Either you assume the NT isn’t “God breathed” (which would be quite a surprise to the cadre in Rome) or you have to assume this statement by Paul also applies to the NT (whether he was referencing it in this particular case or not).

Not that you can spin a single passage into an entire theological thesis. Notwithstanding Paul’s words in 2 Tim 3 it’s obvious the bible doesn’t cover every possible scenario a human being will ever face in his or her life (even the most devout among you should realize that much). Therefore, there must be some value in tradition (I guess the question is to what extent).

At any rate as someone who is inclined against believing any of the supernatural events depicted by the bible are anymore than folklore and ancient mythology (but who also sees some value in many elements of Christians morality and philosophy) I tend to look at these issues in a more straight forward and unbiased way. The CC was dogmatic, oppressive, and corrupt in the 15th century. They brought the reformation on themselves. The fact that they still claim to be infallible (and depict protestants as heretics and the like) is unfortunate.

News flash Yankee, we “don’t depict protestants as heretics and the like”.

 

[Convert66]

Yankee Doodle,

Feel free to butt in. We’ll argue with anyone.

The CC was dogmatic, oppressive, and corrupt in the 15th century. They brought the reformation on themselves.

I think it would be fair to say they brought the monk’s criticism on themselves in regards to Tetzel’s indulgences, but he was censured, and the opulences of Rome, but reform was already occurring in the Church. There is about a hundred-plus years of scholarship (oddly enough, probably first influenced by Neitzche’s critiques of Luther—Neitzche being a Lutheran minister’s son and very familiar with Luther and Lutheranism) that says Luther was more of a political agitator (in a great Prussian tradition) than a religious reformer. Also, Lutheranism in Prussia was a different animal than in other parts of Europe and other reform movements (Neitzche thought northern Europeans to be retarded, to a wide extent; that is, anywhere that Lutheranism broke out). Lutheranism was actually opposed to Calvinism as well, and when you look at the history of Germany following Luther, and compare that to English, French, Dutch, or even Anglo-American history following Calvinism and Anglicanism, the latter produced liberal democracy and some religious freedoms (although long in coming-and not for Catholics or Jews—and a deliberate attempt to excise all religion from life in revolutionary France), whereas Lutheranism in Germany produced the Kaiser, Bismarck, the Weimar and eventually National Socialism. Many scholars (secular, catholic and protestant alike) even consider Lutheranism and Protestantism as different things altogether.

It was sort of the Church’s role to be dogmatic, and even oppressive, if we define oppressive as being poised against the nobles and princes that exploited the Catholic peasantry (something not often mentioned by Protestants, either out of ignorance or embarrassment that their noble movement was just that - - -a move by the Nobles, contrary to the propaganda about “everyman”). This is where a lot of the polemic against Rome came from. The Italian renaissance surely played a large role in the corruption of the time, as well, and Luther was right to point it out. It had had time to soak in by then and opulance in Rome was regarded as humanistic.

Tetzel was simply greedy, overly ambitious and then gone. Luther was an ambitious simpleton and exploited and later defamed by his protestant heirs. Calvin a tyrant that should have been beheaded before his little police state in Geneva was firmly under his thumb (this is the real threat of theocracy today in the US with the Calvinists of the “reconstruction” variety).

People often forget as well that the power of the Papacy to stand between exploitive Nobles and dependent peasants in the feudal systems was the only power the peasants had. If the Nobles got too far out of line the Church and the Papacy had the power to correct them (albeit slowly in the 16th century), by putting their souls at risk. A powerful deterrent to tyranny, one would think; or, at least it was then. This was “oppressive” to the Nobles, who are the only ones that had the wealth to pamphleteer against the “papists.” The peasants certainly didn’t write those tracts, nor equip the protestant armies.

Once the papacy was put in check, the Nobles had free reign, and new wealth (at the expense of the Church’s land, monasteries and treasure) to create their own state churches, with their authority taking that of the Pope and Magisterium, which is what Rome and the East and Rome and the Frankish, Italian, Spanish and Anglo nobility had been going back and forth about for 500-1000 years already. The princes, kings and emperors were constantly wanting to sieze control of ecclesiastical decisions and the authority to appoint their own “user-friendly” clergy. After Luther, they had their wishes granted at long last.

It’s a lot more complicated then simply indulgences. Tetzel was reigned in, after all, and reform was already being made inside the Church before Luther’s polemics against the “antichrist in Rome”, whom he had previously sworn to defend with his own life. It is much more complicated than merely “bringing it on themselves.”

The fact that they still claim to be infallible (and depict protestants as heretics and the like) is unfortunate.

Protestants are heretical, by definition. They may hold many orthodox views, but they are still technically heretical. Also, infallibility is not as absolute as many seem to think. It applies in a very narrow sense (ex cathedra on faith and morals), and not unlike protestant claims for the men who wrote the inspired scriptures.

All my best . . .

 

[rinnie]

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 could you tell me what truth Rome was not teaching. Could you please show me one teaching of scripture that the RCC has taught that goes against the bible? Just ONE! Thats all I ask.

 

[rinnie]

Your questions demonstrate a lack of understanding of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura is only in effect in the absence of an apostle or a prophet. The Holy Spirit testifies to the validity of scripture because scripture speaks to the children of God with the voice of God and they hear him when they read it. Those who don’t know him don’t recognize him.

John 10:27 ESV
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

John 8:43 ESV
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

The people of God received the texts from the apostles and prophets. When the apostles and prophets die the texts have their inspired teachings in them preserved for us to keep their teachings taught forever.

We know that because the Revelation of John is th last book received from him by the people of God.

Ephesians 2:20 clearly states that their teachings are what the church is built upon. Those people spoke for God and delivered his word to us.

That is simply known because their writings were too important to lose and the Holy Spirit preserves scripture.

Isaiah 55:11 ESV
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Thats just my point, Again you claim SS is because the absence of the Apostles or Prophet, what again did Jesus lie? Jesus Christ said I give to you all that God has given me, Go and make believers of all nations. I WILL GIVE YOU THE WORDS. I WILL BE WITH YOU UNTIL THE END OF TIME!

SO you not only have accused the devil of taking over the RCC, Now you are saying that when God promised his successors that he would be with them until the end of time, (what that was not not true either). What do you do just ignore scripture or what?

 

[rinnie]

Now the moment of truth has come.

You claim SS is true.

Okay explain this to me. and you won me over.

According to the RCC the CHurch is led by the Holy Spirit to lead all men to the truth.

Okay now The Catholic Church has all the same doctrine and PROVES ITSELF TO BE A UNIFYING FACTOR.

Now SS makes the same claim. But we got a big fat problem here.

SS has proven itself to be just the opposite.

They claim also the the HS leads them into the truth. How can this same HS who it to lead us into the truth by SS become a dividing factor.

Easy answer because there is no way that the HS can lead us all to different truths because there is only ONE GOD and ONE TRUTH,

SS proves itself to be the biggest division in history. SS has divided itself over time so much it is unreal. There is not one protestant church that has the same teaching.

Now according to the word of God the ONE TRUE CHURCH will lead us all to the truth with the same doctrine and will be a unifying FACTOR.

Again the Catholic Church from the beginning of time led by Peter and that is being led to day by the Pope and Bishops are still unified by their doctrine today just as it was the day Christ started the Church. SO it seems that the same People who have been accused of being the anti-christ proved themself once again to be the true word of our Lord Jesus Christ. They have kept the promise that Christ promised us to be led by the HS to bring all men to the same truth and keep us together one body of Christ.

The Catholic Church is still on top and still here:extrahappy:

SS continues to prove itself as being A DIVIDING FACTOR WITHIN THE BODY OF CHRIST. They claim that they have the power of the HS. Now how can the HS who promised not to separate his brothers in Christ do just that. SO we come to one and only one possible conclusion. It is imposible for the HS to cause separation in the Body of Christ. So it is IMPOSSIBLE for SS to be the leading factor of the HS. Because it is well known for its separated in Brothers and Sisters.

SO TALK ABOUT HIM ALL YOU WANT, CALL HIM NAMES, BRING ALL THE TRASH TALK TO WANT.

BUT WE KNOW WHO GOD PUT IN THE SEAT OF PETER, AND HE IS STILL THERE.

OUR BELOVED HOLY FATHER WHO GOD PROMISED US TO LEAD US TO THE SAME TRUTH. THE CHURCH THAT IS NOT DIVIDED BY TEACHINGS, SAME TEACHINGS, BECAUSE IT IS LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

THATS RIGHT FOLKS, NOT OUR TEACHING, NOT WHAT WE THINK, GOD DID NOT LEAVE US A BIBLE. HE LEFT US A CHURCH.

I BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. YEP THATS THE CREED WE LIVE BY. THE CREED THE APOSTLES LEFT US.

 

[Newbie2]

Yeah, claiming over and over again, “Oh our church is true. We have apostolic succession. Look at the early church. Peter is the pope, ya know. Jesus said upon this rock…”, is not a circular argument…

I think you have a poor understanding of what a circular argument is. What you just wrote is a repetative argument, not a circular one. It’s quite linear to claim, as Catholics do, that Jesus picked Peter as the first “Pope”, although the Magisterium of the RCC had not been completely developed at that time, and that there is apostolic succession. What the other poster posted was quite circular.

Also, it is not circular reasoning to believe the bible is true based on many factors and from the bible learn that Christ himself declared the bible to be true and then realize you believe the bible is true based on the testimony of Christ made by the witness of the apostles.

I never said it was…

Your argument that one can find a teacher that can teach you Scripture so that you can discern whether or not that teacher’s teaching is the truth is a circular argument.

What I said about “many factors” is that if the Bible is the sole Authority in matters of faith, as claimed in the notion of Sola Scriptura, then any other factors that authenticate that the bible is true are authoritative as well, negating the “Sola” in Sola Scriptura. For Sola Scriptura to be valid, the bible must be the sole authenticating source for Truth. If “Other factors” validate the bible, then the Bible is not the sole authority.

I think that you failed to properly articulate the concept of Sola Scriptura. There are better arguments for it; yours doesn’t make sense and actually supports the Catholic notion of “Tradition”.

 

[yankee_doodle]

News flash Yankee, we “don’t depict protestants as heretics and the like”.

your church depicts protestantism as a heresy does it not?

 

[Lapey]

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.

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,

Its not desperation, but aggravation! You are like most protestants I have tried to have an intelligent conversation with in the past, incorrigible. You have the enlightenment so I am desperate. You are part of the “true catholic” church and I am part of the anti-Christ movement.

You are not member of the Catholic Church, you are protestant. You reside outside of the church.

You are weak minded my brother and you cannot have a civil conversation because all you understand is your tradition, at the same time you criticize me for the church I belong to that follows tradition. What a hypocrite!

Sad part is, you cannot put your ego aside for long enough to even talk to me without being condescending. Then you are surprised when I am agitated by your attitude of elitism?

If you say you love God whom you cannot see and you hate your brother whom you can see, you are a liar. But I’m sure you know the real meaning of that verse to show how it doesn’t apply to you, and that it applies to me. Did I mention hypocrite?