Sola Scriptura Or Bible Alone Is False

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Frontline said:
Actually that is exactly how we see it.

Christ is the HEAD - we are his BODY - what is this ‘separation’ do you claim Protestants believe? Regardless - it is a false notion, and I want you to know that. Protestants believe that Christ is the HUSBAND and the Church is his BRIDE - and that therefore we are one with him - Eph. 5:25, 26; 1 Cor. 6:17.

This understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Church has a profound effect on our soteriology, and this is where I find the Catholic Church to fall short of the Gospel. This is why I mainly stick to the doctrines of Grace when conversing with Catholics. 👍
Click to expand...
👍

Are you in the reformed tradition by any chance?
 
SteveGC said:
But, I must debate your comment that Scripture, being God-breathed, is therefore our highest authority. No. You see, not only does this position completely separate and discredit the Christianity of the first millenium, but it also ignores the fact that God breathed on the apostles first. That is why The Church is the highest authority this side of heaven, not the Bible, as inspired and God-breathed as it certainly is.
Click to expand...
I disagree - the EFC’s appealed to Scripture alone as their final authority on matters of doctrine. No one taught a doctrine without a full demonstration of Scripture - therefore the first millennium was not what you claim it was.

Second - God did not breath upon the Church before He breathed out His word. That is fallacious and obviously incorrect. I assume you mean the New Testament - and here you may be correct - but this would necessitate that you separate the Scriptures as two separate revelations - instead of seeing the continuity thereof. All through the gospels, acts, and all through the epistles, the writers of the New Testament established every point on Scripture - as there are a multitude of Biblical quotations used to substantiate the Apostolic Doctrine. This is clear from a cursory glancing through the New Testament. So the highest authority is not the Church - but the inspired apostolic deposit - the Scriptures. The Scriptures are what were “traditioned” down from one hand to another - and this is what the EFC’s mostly meant when they spoke of the tradition of the Church. Read them in context and this will become apparent. 👍
 
Frontline said:
Actually that is exactly how we see it.

Christ is the HEAD - we are his BODY - what is this ‘separation’ that you claim Protestants believe? Regardless - it is a false notion, and I want you to know that. Protestants believe that Christ is the HUSBAND and the Church is his BRIDE - and that therefore we are one with him - Eph. 5:25, 26; 1 Cor. 6:17.

This understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Church has a profound effect on our soteriology, and this is where I find the Catholic Church to fall short of the Gospel. This is why I mainly stick to the doctrines of Grace when conversing with Catholics. 👍
Click to expand...
Ok, let me rephrase. We see the Catholic Church as one with Christ, not separate. The difference of course becomes your version of “church” and my version of “church”. You might be surprised to know that the Catholic version of “church” is nearly the same as yours…“a body of believers”. The difference is that we consider you a separated brethren from that body, yet still mysteriously part of that body. This is because you chose (or were born into) that separated state. You hold to the Reformation 5 solas, but can’t show me why I should follow the Reformers also. I look for authority, you show me the Bible. I show you 5 sola-ers with different interpretations of those 5 solas, and you can’t show me where I can find resolution to who’s right, and who’s wrong. This is why sola scriptura is wrong. It is not authoritative.

God Bless

We believe in the doctrines of grace, if by that, you mean we are saved by grace? You might be talking to uninformed, lapse Catholics perhaps.
 
Frontline said:
I disagree - the EFC’s appealed to Scripture alone as their final authority on matters of doctrine. No one taught a doctrine without a full demonstration of Scripture - therefore the first millennium was not what you claim it was.

Second - God did not breath upon the Church before He breathed out His word. That is fallacious and obviously incorrect. I assume you mean the New Testament - and here you may be correct - but this would necessitate that you separate the Scriptures as two separate revelations - instead of seeing the continuity thereof. All through the gospels, acts, and all through the epistles, the writers of the New Testament established every point on Scripture - as there are a multitude of Biblical quotations used to substantiate the Apostolic Doctrine. This is clear from a cursory glancing through the New Testament. So the highest authority is not the Church - but the inspired apostolic deposit - the Scriptures. The Scriptures are what were “traditioned” down from one hand to another - and this is what the EFC’s mostly meant when they spoke of the tradition of the Church. Read them in context and this will become apparent. 👍
Click to expand...
Let me clarify the God-breathed issue. Of course I know that the truth is that God breathed first on men who wrote what would become Scripture first. And of course I don’t need an OT/NT lesson. But thanks. I do see how I confused the issue…

What I meant was that the inspiration of Scripture came by way of the inspiration of men, first. You didn’t know the Bible was inspired until a God-breathed apostle revealed it to you. And he didn’t reveal it to you through the Bible. He revealed it through The Church (directly to Timothy, specifically). It was merely recorded in the Bible, as an inspired declaration of itself.

And so, what I mean is that your ability to discern that the Bible is inspired comes first from inspired (or “sent”) men. In our new covenant age, this equates to the apostles, as you know. And, the apostles are the founders of The Church. This is why inspired men come BEFORE inspired books…and therefore are the highest authority.

Where do you get that the EFC’s appealed to Scripture as their FINAL authority? I agree Scripture must validate teachings, and this was done. But it is not a FINAL authority.

God Bless
 
Permit me to put this another way…

First, of course we’re both talking about highest authority this side of heaven. God is the highest authority. We know that. But just wanted to clarify we are talking about what we have as our highest earthbound authority…secondly…

You can’t have inspired Scripture without inspired men.

Therefore, to claim the Bible as the highest authority is in actuality a claim that the highest authority is the Church, since The Church is the embodiment of the inspired men.

The Bible is held highly, in unison with the inspired men of The Church. They are tied together and are God-breathed.

But the teaching tradition came first. Then these teachings were compiled and declared inspired and God-breathed, declared so by The Church (the inspired men and their anointed successors).

What this all tells us is that if we’re looking for the Truth, which is Christ, we must first look for the men (specifically their anointed successors) who proclaimed Truth to the world after Christ’s death and resurrection. What did they do? What was the early Church? It was an acorn that grew to the oak tree of The Catholic Church in Rome. That is historical fact. And that’s where we must go.

God Bless
 
Frontline said:
I disagree - the EFC’s appealed to Scripture alone as their final authority on matters of doctrine. No one taught a doctrine without a full demonstration of Scripture - therefore the first millennium was not what you claim it was.
Click to expand...
Of course they made ample appeal to Scripture. No Catholic here will say that Scripture is of no import. The Holy Gospels have a pride of place at ecclesial functions, such as Mass and Councils. But, the Church Fathers didn’t only make appeal to Scripture. Nor were they the only ones who did appeal to Scripture. Arius appealed to Scripture to justify arianism just as much as Mar Athanasius and the Holy Fathers of Nicea did to proclaim the orthodox Faith. But, the Holy Fathers had Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to back them up – Arius didn’t.
 
Frontline,

Allow me to ask you a couple hypothetical questions.

Scenario 1) A man lives his entire life on a deserted island. He has never heard any religious pronouncements or proclamations of any kind from anyone. He has never been visited by missionaries from anywhere. One day a plane flying overhead drops down a Bible, a Quran, a Book of Mormon, a Hindu holy book, a Buddhist holy book, and a book of Greek mythology. He reads them all. How will he determine which if any are actually true? Which one is truly teaching the correct religion? How would he know they were even meant to be used as such and not as a form of entertainment - books from the NY Bestsellers list?

Scenario 2) A man is on a deserted island. He has some vague recollection that someone once told him something about Jesus. One day a plane drops down the Bible – not whole, but only the Gospel of Saint Matthew. He reads it and he thinks what is written is true. But, how would he know that there is a whole lot more that should go along with it? What if a year or two later another plane drops off the Letter to the Galatians. How would he know that that is also considered Scripture and should be considered true? Yet another year or two later, yet another plane drops off the Gospel of Thomas. How would he know that this work is not canonical, that it is not Scripture?
 
BILL PICK said:
LETS GET IT RIGHT ITS THE CATHLOIC CHURCH NOT THE RCC AND THAT IS BECAUSE OUR LORD SAID SO AND WHY DO YOU NOT THINK ITS NOT 32,000 DIFF NON-CATHLOIC DENOMINATIONS. DO A SERCH FOR YOUR SELF AND SEE WHO RIGHT
Click to expand...
I am guessing using the RCC is offensive to you?

As to the 32,000 denom’s you are absolutely wrong and I bet you have no clue how dishonest Catholic (notice that I didn’t use Roman) apologists have been in regards to this issue. Can you explain to me how that number was deduced? I will be very impressed if you can.

BTW, your earlier post was that there were 32,000 sola scriptura denoms not that there are 32,000 denoms…big difference.
 
You Are Right And I,m Sorry ,its 33,000 But Its Ok I Get Confussed Some Time Also.
And I Sorry About My Capps My Key Board Is Not Working I.m Not Yelling
 
BILL PICK said:
You Are Right And I,m Sorry ,its 33,000 But Its Ok I Get Confussed Some Time Also.
And I Sorry About My Capps My Key Board Is Not Working I.m Not Yelling
Click to expand...
Do you have a source?

Oh, I thought you were being angry to me all day! :o Sorry!
 
BILL PICK said:
You Are Right And I,m Sorry ,its 33,000 But Its Ok I Get Confussed Some Time Also.
And I Sorry About My Capps My Key Board Is Not Working I.m Not Yelling
Click to expand...
I get the impression that you have no idea where this number came from. If I am correct, why use a number that you have no idea of how it was derived?
 
Sorry But You Are Wrong,again Its The World Christin Encyclopclia,the Spelling May Not Be Right But You Know What Im Talking About.peace. And If I Did Not Say I.m Not Yelling My Key Board Is Not Working
 
SemperReformada said:
I am guessing using the RCC is offensive to you?

As to the 32,000 denom’s you are absolutely wrong and I bet you have no clue how dishonest Catholic (notice that I didn’t use Roman) apologists have been in regards to this issue. Can you explain to me how that number was deduced? I will be very impressed if you can.

BTW, your earlier post was that there were 32,000 sola scriptura denoms not that there are 32,000 denoms…big difference.
Click to expand...
SemperReformada said:
I get the impression that you have no idea where this number came from. If I am correct, why use a number that you have no idea of how it was derived?
Click to expand...
So how many denominations do you think that there are? What’s your tally?
 
According to David Barrett’s study (1970), there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism.

However other studies have shown 33,000 and some less than that.

Who do we believe?
 
BILL PICK said:
Sorry But You Are Wrong,again Its The World Christin Encyclopclia,the Spelling May Not Be Right But You Know What Im Talking About.peace. And If I Did Not Say I.m Not Yelling My Key Board Is Not Working
Click to expand...
No problem. I’ll try to refrain from refering to your church as “Roman”.

Anyway, you do have the source correct but did you know that the source also counts the Catholic church as having a few hundred denominations as well? Does that sound like a fair summation of the disunity within the ranks of your church?

Also, if you wish to show disunity among non-Catholic church’s the list isn’t accurate in that regards. For example their is little if any doctrinal differences between the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America, yet the source would list those churches as being different denominations.

Also, I don’t think encyclopedia breaks the protestant church’s out according to their position on sola scriptura.
 
grampben said:
According to David Barrett’s study (1970), there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism.

However other studies have shown 33,000 and some less than that.

Who do we believe?
Click to expand...
Before I used some number I think I would first try to understand exactly what the number represents and how it was determined.

For example, in my previous post I pointed out how the World Christian Encyclopedia lists the catholic church as having several hundred denominations. 🤷
 
SemperReformada said:
Before I used some number I think I would first try to understand exactly what the number represents and how it was determined.

For example, in my previous post I pointed out how the World Christian Encyclopedia lists the catholic church as having several hundred denominations. 🤷
Click to expand...
For me, the number of denominations doesn’t actually matter!
 
JMJ_coder said:
So how many denominations do you think that there are? What’s your tally?
Click to expand...
I have no idea however it is very dishonest for Catholic apologists to use this number to discredit sola scriptura.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top