Sola Scriptura--now I get

[Douay-Rheims]

Religion:Baptist

Year Founded: 1609

Founder: John Smyth – a man

Religion: Catholic

Year Founded: 33

Founder: Jesus Christ — GOD

I’ll take the one founded by GOD, because to not would be idiot tic.

 

[Eden]

Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…”

I just want to post this quote again. All Catholic priests are ordained through “Holy Orders” the laying on of hands by a bishop who has apostolic succession - meaning a direct line back to the apostles. That is where our bishops get their authority. Billy Graham can not say the same. The authority of apostolic succession is clear in the Bible. Billy Graham seems to be a good, holy, Christian man. However, he does not have the authority that comes from apostolic succession.

 

[auhsoj88]

kujo313:

Billy Graham was called directly by an infallible God. He preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Apostles and disciples were ordained by the lying of the hands as read repeatedly in the book of Acts and elsewhere, can you provide documentation for Grahams ordination.

God bless

 

[Eden]

Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

www.scripturecatholic.com

List of Popes:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[auhsoj88]

kujo313:

If I were you, I’d fear the traditions that are not Scriptually based.

I do, I fear sola scriptura,. And you should, too. I am still waiting for a Protestant to find me this verse!

In love,

God bless

 

[AquinasXVI]

auhsoj88:

I do, I fear sola scriptura,. And you should, too. I am still waiting for a Protestant to find me this verse!

In love,

God bless

That’s just the mother of all ironies isn’t it? Imagine the weight that protestants put on Sola Scriptura to be true although that is not found in the scriptures. Sadly, like Scott Hahn said, for a protestant to see this would be like asking your nose to smell itself. It’s so imbedded in their psyche.

in XT

 

[Pax]

Giver:

I can appreciate wanting to accept the Church’s teaching and not go to Jesus to find out what if anything should be lived differently. A person doesn’t have to really concern him or herself, if something is right or wrong, that has already been determined. The Church say it’s all right to occasionally commit sin, all someone has to do is go to confession and they are in good shape until the next time.

Here is another of your blunders. You are now accusing the Catholic Church of saying “that it’s all right to occassionally commit sin…” While the Church certainly says that confession of sin is necessary because the Church recognizes that people do sin, the **Church does not teach that it is all right to sin occassionally or otherwise." ** You are either woefully ignorant or you are simply lying.

Giver:

Also a person has much support, people telling them their OK doing some things that may not quite go along with Scripture. All anyone has to do is convince him or herself that the Church is right and that relives him or her of all responsibility.

This is another silly remark. You have posited a number of claims against Catholic teaching on these forums and all have been refuted by scripture alone. Every person that responded to your claims used scripture and not the catechism or official church teachings. Your claims have no merit.

Giver:

Yes I also wanted to accept the teaching I had been taught by the Catholic Church, and it was quite traumatic for me to discard much of what I had been taught. My mind went back and forth, about what is right and wrong, so much that Jesus had to tell me to quit trying to figure him out and just follow him. I lost the support of my six brothers and sisters, most of my friends, and lost a whole way of life that I had worked very hard to create for myself.

Whatever you lost and however you lost it had nothing to do with following Jesus.

Giver:

Jesus said his people would hear his voice, but people have to want to hear him before they will, don’t you think? Now if they are afraid to ask him what is right and wrong, doesn’t that make you think maybe he or she knows they are not doing everything they should?

I and others have told you that we have prayed on matters presented by you. We have done as you have asked. We didn’t take anything you said simply on your word. We went to the Lord and we went to His word in scripture. Without exception we were told that your contentions about the Church’s teachings were wrong. Moreover, it was made clear that you were brought here by the Holy Spirit not to “give a word” but to receive the truth from Spirit filled Catholics on these boards in order to bring you home to the Church.

What part of this do you not understand?

 

[Milliardo]

kujo313:

Because of their “traditions”. One denomination says that Jesus and Satan were brothers. Another teaches that there is no Trinity.
Though Scripture could prove them wrong, or that it isn’t even IN there, they do their own thing anyway.

Note that they are all using the Bible to bolster their claim. Oneness preachers actually quote Scripture as well to refute the Trinity. They’re not just using “tradition”, but ironically the Bible itself. Can you tell us then which is really telling the truth based only on Scripture?

 

[boogablue]

aurora77:

OK, I’ve always thought that the idea of Sola Scripture didn’t make much sense. I couldn’t articulate it, but it just seemed off to me. Last night, I’m sitting in my bible study class on Revelation and I realized just how much we need a Church to help us interpret the Bible. I’m a reasonably intelligent person (or like to fool myself into believing I am ), but I can’t be an expert at everything. Some of the passages I read something jumps out at me and I can easily see how I can apply that to my life, other things I read and just think “Huh?? What’s he talking about?” I can sit and wait for the Holy Spirit to guide me (not that I don’t think He will, but how do I know if it’s Him or just my imagination), or I can trust the guy sitting next to me, or I can turn to official Church teaching. How lucky we as Catholics are to have someone (or a group of someones ) who can help guide us to better understand God’s word and teaching. I’d be out there floundering for sure!

This may have been totally obvious to everyone, but it was an “a-ha” moment for me and I just had to share!

I really don’t understand why there is such focus on interpreting scripture as opposed to interpreting the will of God.

I don’t understand why someone would focus on sin today when ALL have SINNED. Everyone, in the Past tense.
That is a done deal.

Its all over, we can’t go onto the New Heaven and New Earth under our own power. There’s nothing we could have done, can do today, or could ever do by our own hands to save ourselves.

This is why we need a Saviour, right?

This is the purpose of Jesus Christ, right? Christ saved us from sin! Isn’t that why God sent Jesus? Isn’t that understanding the will of God?
Jesus did what we could not - he bore the weight of our sin (all of it!). [notice the past tense.]

What else can we do today to ensure our salvation besides NOT rejecting this awesome gift from Jesus Christ? Remember that we could not /cannot save ourselves from sin and are incapable of doing so in the future. Only the Blood of Christ is capable of saving us…and that blood has been shed. (past tense again.)

I don’t think there is anything else we can do to save ourselves.
If Christ paid the price in full at the time of his crucifixion, what more cost is there?
What, are we “paying for the tip?” To whom does the “tip” go to if that’s true?

This confuses me about Catholics. The Blood of Jesus ensured our salvation - There is no more that can be done/nothing that can and will ever compare to the Blood of the Lamb of God to ensure our salvation, yet the Catholic church says that you have yet to get there?!!?!!?!!! I don’t get it!!

I’m confused!!! You’re confusing me!!!
Don’t lie to me.

 

[Giver]

Mickey:

It seems that you are correct.

The early Christians couldn’t imagine performing the sacrament of reconciliation more than once in their lifetime.

Jesus has taught me that Christians who know God don’t sin.

Why don’t you address what I wrote about war?

 

[Milliardo]

boogablue:

I really don’t understand why there is such focus on interpreting scripture as opposed to interpreting the will of God.

With over 30,000 Protestant denominations, the truth has to be there somewhere; hence, the importance of it.

 

[Giver]

boogablue:

I really don’t understand why there is such focus on interpreting scripture as opposed to interpreting the will of God.

I don’t understand why someone would focus on sin today when ALL have SINNED. Everyone, in the Past tense.
That is a done deal.

Its all over, we can’t go onto the New Heaven and New Earth under our own power. There’s nothing we could have done, can do today, or could ever do by our own hands to save ourselves.

This is why we need a Saviour, right?

This is the purpose of Jesus Christ, right? Christ saved us from sin! Isn’t that why God sent Jesus? Isn’t that understanding the will of God?
Jesus did what we could not - he bore the weight of our sin (all of it!). [notice the past tense.]

What else can we do today to ensure our salvation besides NOT rejecting this awesome gift from Jesus Christ? Remember that we could not /cannot save ourselves from sin and are incapable of doing so in the future. Only the Blood of Christ is capable of saving us…and that blood has been shed. (past tense again.)

I don’t think there is anything else we can do to save ourselves.
If Christ paid the price in full at the time of his crucifixion, what more cost is there?
What, are we “paying for the tip?” To whom does the “tip” go to if that’s true?

This confuses me about Catholics. The Blood of Jesus ensured our salvation - There is no more that can be done/nothing that can and will ever compare to the Blood of the Lamb of God to ensure our salvation, yet the Catholic church says that you have yet to get there?!!?!!?!!! I don’t get it!!

I’m confused!!! You’re confusing me!!!
Don’t lie to me.

(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

(Luke 13:22) “Through towns and villages He went teaching, making His way to Jerusalem. Someone said to Him, ‘Sir, will there be only a few saved?’ He said to them, “Try your best to enter by the narrow door, because, I tell you many will try to enter and will not succeed.”

(John 12:47-48) “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully, it is not I who shall condemn Him, since I have come not to condemn the world, but to save the world: he who rejects Me and refuses My words has his judge already, the word itself that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.”

 

[Mickey]

kujo313:

Christ may or may not be the center of your faith

Now you’re joking, right?

Those who are a law unto themselves cannot escape conceit.
St. Gregory of Sinai

 

[Mickey]

kujo313:

Yet Peter, your first “Pope”, had to be rebuked by Paul. How DARE Paul rebuke the Pope! WHO does he think he is?? How can Paul interpret Scripture?

Here is where your strange interpretaions surface. The incident you describe is about humilty–a noble virtue indeed.

 

[MrS]

boogablue:

I really don’t understand why there is such focus on interpreting scripture as opposed to interpreting the will of God.

I don’t understand why someone would focus on sin today when ALL have SINNED. Everyone, in the Past tense.
That is a done deal.

Its all over, we can’t go onto the New Heaven and New Earth under our own power. There’s nothing we could have done, can do today, or could ever do by our own hands to save ourselves.

This is why we need a Saviour, right?

This is the purpose of Jesus Christ, right? Christ saved us from sin! Isn’t that why God sent Jesus? Isn’t that understanding the will of God?
Jesus did what we could not - he bore the weight of our sin (all of it!). [notice the past tense.]

What else can we do today to ensure our salvation besides NOT rejecting this awesome gift from Jesus Christ? Remember that we could not /cannot save ourselves from sin and are incapable of doing so in the future. Only the Blood of Christ is capable of saving us…and that blood has been shed. (past tense again.)

I don’t think there is anything else we can do to save ourselves.
** If Christ paid the price in full at the time of his crucifixion, what more cost is there? **
What, are we “paying for the tip?” To whom does the “tip” go to if that’s true?

This confuses me about Catholics. The Blood of Jesus ensured our salvation - There is no more that can be done/nothing that can and will ever compare to the Blood of the Lamb of God to ensure our salvation, yet the Catholic church says that you have yet to get there?!!?!!?!!! I don’t get it!!

I’m confused!!! You’re confusing me!!!
Don’t lie to me.

If as you say, Christ paid the whole price…

And if the price of unrepented murder, adultry etc is eternal damnation,… then Christ will pay that price.

Of course that is not the case… Christ came to redeem us… and He re-opened the gates of heaven for us.

His shedding of His blood was the appeasement to His Father on our behalf. We are totally incapable of doing this, so the Father, in His Mercy, sent His Son.

But… His Son has no past or not future. Jesus is eternally present. Perhaps we should consider John’s writing in Revelations where he describes the Lamb as the eternal sacrifice and eternally being sacrificed. Catholics understand this in the Mass… the unbloody re-presenting of the eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Yes we are all sinners… and we continue to sin. If Jesus’ sacrifice was a past tense sacrifice… we could very well be on our own now, and left out to dry so to speak. But even though Jesus “paid the eternal price”, we still must individually “pay the temporal price” of the sin.

Imagine breaking the neighbor’s window… we sin against him and he forgives us… but we still have to pay for the window.

 

[MrS]

kujo313:

So that must mean that only the Catholic church knows how to interpret the Scriptures. How arrogant, coming from a Catholic.
I guess, then, according to what you think, Billy Graham don’t know squat.

only the Catholic Church was given the authority to interpret the Scriptures… because Jesus Himself gave the guarantee to the Church that it would not see the gates of hell (lies) prevail.

That early Church, and the Apostles and their successors, the Early Fathers and the unbroken line of bishops (and the Bishop of Rome as first among equals) are the only authority given us by Jesus.

Billy Graham does not fit the bill.

Scripture, on its own, or with individual interpretation, does not fit the bill.

Bishops or priests or Catholic laity teaching on their own with their own ideas do not fit the bill.

 

[AquinasXVI]

The authority of the Scriptures which ALL Christians acknowledge is derived from the authority of the Catholic Church for she put the books in the bible. It did not put itself together. Peter Kreeft said: How can you squeeze infallable Bible juice out of a fallable Catholic orange? You can only accept the infallability of the bible in faith that the party that put it together is infallable in canonizing it.

Luther accepted this fact.

in XT.

 

[mike182d]

So, after five pages of posts, has a single Protestant been able to show where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible?

 

[montanaman]

mike182d:

So, after five pages of posts, has a single Protestant been able to show where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible?

On another forum, I proposed that Protestants show me FROM THE BIBLE where to find proof from their doctrine. It went on for ten pages. I refused to engage them on any other topic, opting instead to say something like, “That’s for another debate. Scripture proving sola scriptura, please…”

NOBODY could do it. I had posted “21 Reasons to reject sola scriptura” at the beginning of the thread, and whenever anyone would post something about 2 Tim 3:16, I’d simply ask them to point out why the argument against it on the first page was wrong. No one ever tried.

Instead, I got ten pages of Inquisition attacks, child molestation scandals, crusades gripes, etc. What I learned from this is that Protestants KNOW, they KNOW they can’t prove from the Bible the foundation of all their other beliefs. Because the implications of this are so shocking, they have to retreat to bluster and ad hominem attacks.

Honestly, with such a crumbling foundation, it’s a wonder that people like James White can exist. For him to continue arguing for sola scriptura after all these years, he’s either the most cynical liar out there or deranged, or something. But if hardcore, professional anti-Catholics can defend a logical fallacy for all these years, do you really think anonymous message board posters are ever going to admit they haven’t got a case? I doubt it.

 

[geno75]

Douay-Rheims:

II.
And we are taught by St. Peter, in his epistle, “No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation … for the unlearned and unstable twist … Scriptures … to their own descruction.”

That is strong language, my dear people, but that is the language of St. Peter, the head of the Apostles. The unlearned and unstable twist the Bible to their own damnation! And yet, the Bible is the book of God, the language of inspiration, when we have a true Bible, as we Catholics have.

Lol, the 'ol switch-a-rOOOO! Talk about quoting scripture in small bits and twisting it. Next time you read 2 Peter 1:12-21, read it with the word, “reassuring” in mind. Just once, I promise I wont tell the vatican if you do read it like this once.

So , lets start with 2 Peter 16.
In short, but not so short like the quote above, St. Peter is “reassuring” the readers of this part of the letter that, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”(The Transfiguration) THEN as you read on through to line 19, he is saying in addition,“And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, …” So, can we say that the prophets words he is talking about be the ones found in the OT scripture? Can we also conclude that the prophecies where about Jesus Christ and what he fullfilled?

And now line 20-21 “Above all, you must understand that no PROPHECY of SCRIPTURE came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried by the Holy Spirit.”

So its safe to say that St.Peter in lines 20-21 was again “reassuring” the readers of this letter that the prophecies of Jesus never came from the prophet’s, mans, own head. The prophecy never was birthed in the will of man, but the prophets spoke Gods words as they were being lead by the Holy Spirit.

We see St. Peter had a little theme of “reassuring” going on here. Confirming that Jesus is real and his prophecies he fulfilled that came from the prophets that revealed them were from God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

BUT, catholicism is saying this writing is about all those who interpret NT writings on their own with no authority will lead them to twisting scripture to their own destruction. Oh, I forgot the unlearned part.

Magesterium, things that make you go HHHmmmmmmmmm.


But who am I to take a stab at reading the bible or anyone else? Wasn’t the Sanhedrin the authoritive bunch that could interpret OT scriptures correctly? I dont think Jesus wanted such a thing with his new covenant of salvation. But then again, thats my own interpretation.