Sola scripture from satan

[w_stewart]

Then I must be really reading comprehension challenged. When I read those passages I read nothing about a pope or being incapabled of erring or about the promises of the passages not applying to Protestants. But then again I must be really reading comprehension challenged.

Protestants were not known then. How could you expect the would dedicate those passages to inexistent being?

You know I could perhaps believe you if I could open my Bible and all of a sudden see the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, the pope guaranteed to speak without errors on faith and morals and …

Again, these arguments are based on an erroneous teaching that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. A corrupt teaching which the innovator, Martin Luther, failed to prove.

Instead I open my Bible and scratch my head and wonder where in the wide world of sports all of this stuff comes from. So it leaves me wondering why if the Catholic church is the only institution on this planet capable of interpeting the Bible correctly it seems to come up with stuff I just don’t see in the Bible. It just does not add up to me.

But then again maybe I am just reading comprehension challenged.

 

[mozart-250]

This is a circular argument. The only proof would be if it was written down outside of Scripture and you could say that it is not supported in the Bible.On the other hand if it is true Apostolic teaching that wasn’t actually written down during the life times of the Apostles, but instead handed down orally for generations;When it did get written down you could say that its not from the Apostles because its not supported by the Bible.Circular argument!

Yup that is a problem.

However the Bible tells me to test everything hold fast to that which is good in 1 Thess 5;21.

In other words I am not to go by your say so or anybody else’s for that matter. So before I buy into a belief that is not in the Bible being apostolic in origin, I have to have a *warm fuzzy * that it actually is and that I am not being hoodwinked here.

So you tell me how I am supposed to test the assertions made here except through Scripture. In every argument made to me thus far, it boils down to either “because I said so” or “this is my interpretation of the Bible”. The only way I know how to test this is through Scripture. You tell me how I do this otherwise.

 

[w_stewart]

Yup that is a problem.

However the Bible tells me to test everything hold fast to that which is good in 1 Thess 5;21.

In other words I am not to go by your say so or anybody else’s for that matter. So before I buy into a belief that is not in the Bible being apostolic in origin, I have to have a *warm fuzzy * that it actually is and that I am not being hoodwinked here.

So you tell me how I am supposed to test the assertions made here except through Scripture. In every argument made to me thus far, it boils down to either “because I said so” or “this is my interpretation of the Bible”. The only way I know how to test this is through Scripture. You tell me how I do this otherwise.

Go to the Church founded by Christ.

 

[mozart-250]

Not immediate? When the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles in the Pentecost, the promise of sending the Holy Spirit was fulfilled right there and then.

Yup. However, nobody was lead into all truth at Pentecost. The process of leading into all truth is not immediate.

Individually or corporately? Jesus gave the promise of infallibility to the Church by saying that even the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. The authority to bind and loose was entrusted to the prince of the apostles, Peter.

Yes I have heard that over and over. Somehow I have to believe that “gates of hell cannot prevail against her” and “bind and loose” translates into “incapable of error”. The problem is that I just don’t know how to make that leap without reading things into Scripture that just aren’t there. And once I begin reading things into Scripture that aren’t there you can get me to believe absolutely anything. And then I am reminded of the Scripture about testing everything in 1. Thess 5:21 and I just can’t go there.

So based on your statement, there is possibility that there are other teachings not recorded in the Bible. And yet you insist the correctness of Sola Scriptura.

Again, I don’t know for sure that there are not other apostolic teachings that are not in the Bible. The problem is that I don’t know what they are. All I have is your say so, and I just can’t go there since you and your interpretations of the Bible most certainly are capable of error (as are mine). So I’m still left with the only source that I know if that is incapable of error is the Bible.

 

[mozart-250]

Protestants were not known then. How could you expect the would dedicate those passages to inexistent being?

Fair enough. Retract the point about Protestants. But the points about “incapable of error” and “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals” just are not in the passages you cite.

For me to buy into this, I would have to read into Scripture something that is not there, which is a bad policy and could lead me down any number of paths. Or I have to take your say so. But the problem is once I do that, what prevents me from taking the say so of the JW in this forum.

Again, these arguments are based on an erroneous teaching that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. A corrupt teaching which the innovator, Martin Luther, failed to prove.

No…it is based on simple logic.

You claim that only your denomination has the ability to interpret Scripture correctly. But yet when you interpret Scripture, your denomination seems to come up with stuff that I must believe that just aren’t found in Scripture. This just does not add up to me.

How am I supposed to know the Assumption of Mary actually happened without looking into Scripture. Your say so just does not cut it since you (as well as myself) most certainly are capable of error.

Of course you will respond that our infallible church says it is so. Then I will ask how do I know that your church is incapable of error. You will then point to Matthew 16 and other assorted scriptures that don’t contain anything like “incapable of being incorrect”. Then I will say “sorry I don’t see incapable of error here”. Then you will say “That is because you do not have the church to provide you an interpretation that is incapable of error”

And around the cycle goes. This is all circular

 

[mozart-250]

Go to the Church founded by Christ.

See previous post. This is all circular.

 

[w_stewart]

Yup. However, nobody was lead into all truth at Pentecost. The process of leading into all truth is not immediate.

That is the reason why reason founded the Church and instructed her to preach to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He established an institution that would exist until the consummation of ages. He just did not toss a book called the Bible to the humanity. He sent people to teach and just a book to read.

Yes I have heard that over and over. Somehow I have to believe that “gates of hell cannot prevail against her” and “bind and loose” translates into “incapable of error”. The problem is that I just don’t know how to make that leap without reading things into Scripture that just aren’t there. And once I begin reading things into Scripture that aren’t there you can get me to believe absolutely anything. And then I am reminded of the Scripture about testing everything in 1. Thess 5:21 and I just can’t go there.

Well, the Scripture you revered tells you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Bible is not the SOLE source of truth.

Again, I don’t know for sure that there are not other apostolic teachings that are not in the Bible. The problem is that I don’t know what they are. All I have is your say so, and I just can’t go there since you and your interpretations of the Bible most certainly are capable of error (as are mine). So I’m still left with the only source that I know if that is incapable of error is the Bible.

You do not know what teachings are there other than recorded in the Bible because you are so fixated to believe in a heretical doctrine that Bible and Bible is the sole rule of faith–a teaching which is not supported by the Bible itself.

 

[w_stewart]

Fair enough. Retract the point about Protestants. But the points about “incapable of error” and “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals” just are not in the passages you cite.

Prove that the Popes have taught erroneous doctrines. Let us deal with that on a separate thread.

You claim that only your denomination has the ability to interpret Scripture correctly. But yet when you interpret Scripture, your denomination seems to come up with stuff that I must believe that just aren’t found in Scripture. This just does not add up to me.

How am I supposed to know the Assumption of Mary actually happened without looking into Scripture. Your say so just does not cut it since you (as well as myself) most certainly are capable of error.

Of course you will respond that our infallible church says it is so. Then I will ask how do I know that your church is incapable of error. You will then point to Matthew 16 and other assorted scriptures that don’t contain anything like “incapable of being incorrect”. Then I will say “sorry I don’t see incapable of error here”. Then you will say “That is because you do not have the church to provide you an interpretation that is incapable of error”

And around the cycle goes. This is all circular

One sentence:

Sola Scriptura is an erroneous doctrine which is not supported by the Bible itself.

 

[w_stewart]

See previous post. This is all circular.

It is not circular. Jesus founded the Church and gave her the authority to preach to all nations. The Bible says so. This is biblical while sola scriptura is not.

 

[mozart-250]

That is the reason why reason founded the Church and instructed her to preach to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He established an institution that would exist until the consummation of ages. He just did not toss a book called the Bible to the humanity. He sent people to teach and just a book to read.

I don’t disagree with that.

Well, the Scripture you revered tells you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Bible is not the SOLE source of truth.

I never said the Bible is the SOLE source of truth. I only said the Bible is the only infallible (with a minor quibble about the word) source of truth. And that only because I know of no other sources of truth that are incapable of error, be it your interpretation of tradition or the book of Mormon.

You do not know what teachings are there other than recorded in the Bible because you are so fixated to believe in a heretical doctrine that Bible and Bible is the sole rule of faith–a teaching which is not supported by the Bible itself.

Again, I never said the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

And a doctrine is only heretical if you can prove it false. You have not proven that there is another source that is incapable of error. Your denomination saying so is not proof. Your interpretation of scripture is not proof, particularly when you cite Scriptures that in no way mention being “incapable of being wrong”.

If anyone comes to me claiming their source of faith is incapable of error, be it yours or the Book of Mormon or the JW organization, they have to prove it.to me. Otherwise I just will not buy into it. That is the reason why I am not JW, Mormon, or any of the other wierdnesses out there.

 

[mozart-250]

Prove that the Popes have taught erroneous doctrines. Let us deal with that on a separate thread.

No because that is not what I said. I have no bone to pick about the Catholics teaching erroneous doctrine. For all I know Mary was Assumed (for example). I just have no way of knowing and no reason to believe that it is true.

I just said that the passages you cite in no way mention being incapable of being wrong.

Sola Scriptura is an erroneous doctrine which is not supported by the Bible itself.

And the Bible does not mention any other sources that are incapable of being wrong. Until that is proved, I’ll stick with the Bible thank you.

Otherwise I might as well become a Mormon.

(Yes I know there are other differences between you all and the Mormon’s. The point being that you both claim additional sources that are incapable of error)

 

[mozart-250]

It is not circular. Jesus founded the Church and gave her the authority to preach to all nations. The Bible says so. This is biblical while sola scriptura is not.

Actually I agree with the first statement with the caveat that the Church is not your denomination.

 

[moondweller]

Well, the Scripture you revered tells you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Bible is not the SOLE source of truth.

“Pillar and foundation” are support systems. The church (the Biblical definition) here is described as something that “supports” (upholds) the truth (of Christ) - it’s not stating that the church IS the truth (or another source of it).

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life…”

 

[chet]

Yup that is a problem.

However the Bible tells me to test everything hold fast to that which is good in 1 Thess 5;21.

In other words I am not to go by your say so or anybody else’s for that matter. So before I buy into a belief that is not in the Bible being apostolic in origin, I have to have a *warm fuzzy * that it actually is and that I am not being hoodwinked here.

So you tell me how I am supposed to test the assertions made here except through Scripture. In every argument made to me thus far, it boils down to either “because I said so” or “this is my interpretation of the Bible”. The only way I know how to test this is through Scripture. You tell me how I do this otherwise.

Now the Primacy of the Successors of Peter would be Apostolic Tradition since it originated from them. As pointed out by St. Ireneaus. Notice that Ireneaus says that the Apostles entrusted the episcopal office to Linus. They started the tradition of appointing a replacement for “the Pope” Peter when he died. This is one Apostolic Tradition I can clearly point to; And it’s one of major importance because it re-lays the corner stone and Authority on which Jesus built his Church. It enables the Office and Authority of the Chair of Peter to be past on. Because the Apostles bound it on Earth. Doesn’t the Bible say that," The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. "So if The Church founded by Christ, [built upon the 12 Apostles with Peter as it’s head; having clearly established succession which can also clearly be shown to be unbroken.] makes a declaration that a particular teaching or truth is bound on Earth; Then according to Jesus own words it is likewise bound in Heaven. If it is bound in Heaven then it has to be true. Since it has to be true, Then the Holy Spirit has done his job in leading the Church into all Truth. Thus When the Successor of Peter declares a teaching on truth and morals to be “Bound on Earth”, By Jesus Authority it must be “Bound in Heaven” It must be True! THANK YOU HOLY SPIRIT ! This is also further backed up in the Acts of the Apostles when the remaining 11 select a replacement to fill the Office Judas occupied. It was also important to them to pick a disciple who had been following Jesus from the beginning [one who had seen it all].

“Having founded and built the Church, the blessed apostles entrusted the episcopal office to Linus, who is mentioned by Paul in the Epistles to Timothy; Linus was succeeded by Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, the bishopric fell to Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, and still had their preaching ringing in his ears and their authentic tradition before his eyes. And he was not the only one; there were still many people alive who had been taught by the apostles. . . . In the same order and the same succession the authentic tradition received from the apostles and passed down by the Church, and the preaching of the truth, have been handed on to us. “The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the churches in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, not do those in Spain, not those in Gaul, not those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions [Palestine] of the world.” “When therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her [the Church] most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. Let us suppose that the apostles had left us no written records. Would we not have been able to follow the precepts of the tradition that they handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? It is this precept of tradition that is followed by many barbarian nations that believe in Christ who know nothing of the use of writing, or ink.” St. Ireneaus (c. 130-200) Against Heresies

 

[mozart-250]

Now the Primacy of the Successors of Peter would be Apostolic Tradition since it originated from them. As pointed out by St. Ireneaus. Notice that Ireneaus says that the Apostles entrusted the episcopal office to Linus. They started the tradition of appointing a replacement for “the Pope” Peter when he died. This is one Apostolic Tradition I can clearly point to; And it’s one of major importance because it re-lays the corner stone and Authority on which Jesus built his Church. It enables the Office and Authority of the Chair of Peter to be past on. Because the Apostles bound it on Earth. Doesn’t the Bible say that," The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. "So if The Church founded by Christ, [built upon the 12 Apostles with Peter as it’s head; having clearly established succession which can also clearly be shown to be unbroken.] makes a declaration that a particular teaching or truth is bound on Earth; Then according to Jesus own words it is likewise bound in Heaven. If it is bound in Heaven then it has to be true. Since it has to be true, Then the Holy Spirit has done his job in leading the Church into all Truth. Thus When the Successor of Peter declares a teaching on truth and morals to be “Bound on Earth”, By Jesus Authority it must be “Bound in Heaven” It must be True! THANK YOU HOLY SPIRIT !

Actually if you view the ECF as historical documents, there is some evidence of a the apostles appointing successors. I think St. Clement made a similar statement. I think also that the papacy lists in the ECF fathers disagree with each other (that is what I recall). So I don’t know whether an unbiased historian would view apostolic succession as a historical fact.

Notice that I said historical fact, not a Biblical dogma. And I certainly do not jump to the same conclusions concerning these statements.

But all this is far removed from the contention here that my belief that the Bible is the only infallible faith source because nobody else has proved any others is somehow from satan.

 

[chet]

But all this is far removed from the contention here that my belief that the Bible is the only infallible faith.

No my assertion is the Apostolic Tradition indicates that infallible declarations made by the Pope, are just that; because of the authority recorded in the Bible as being given by Jesus to bind and loose [what is bound of Earth, will be bound in Heaven] therefore it must be true! Is it possible that some thing is false could be held as truth in Heaven by God! It is very much to the point, and I believe a very compelling argument if you reflect upon it with out quickly dismissing it. Or is God not the source of all inflatable truth?

 

[chet]

Do you not believe that all truth comes from God, Whether it is found in science, nature, mathematics, sound reason; And they all point to God as their origin.

 

[mozart-250]

No my assertion is the Apostolic Tradition indicates that infallible declarations made by the Pope, are just that; because of the authority recorded in the Bible as being given by Jesus to bind and loose [what is bound of Earth, will be bound in Heaven] therefore it must be true! Is it possible that some thing is false could be held as truth in Heaven by God! It is very much to the point, and I believe a very compelling argument if you reflect upon it with out quickly dismissing it. Or is God not the source of all inflatable truth?

I guess I still have a hard time making the connection between binding and loosing with speaking without error on faith and morals.

That having been said, “bind and loose” does seem to be a rather ambiguous phrase. But I would think the ability to do the miraculous almost at will is a part of binding and loosing.

At any rate, the “you” in verses 17-19 seems to be clearly Peter (with apologies to Benny Hinn). Therefore I have difficulty extending this “you” to any successors of Peter.

 

[mozart-250]

Do you not believe that all truth comes from God, Whether it is found in science, nature, mathematics, sound reason; And they all point to God as their origin.

Yes. And this in no ways contradicts the fact that the only infallible source of faith that I know of is the Bible.

 

[w_stewart]

I never said the Bible is the SOLE source of truth. I only said the Bible is the only infallible (with a minor quibble about the word) source of truth. And that only because I know of no other sources of truth that are incapable of error, be it your interpretation of tradition or the book of Mormon.

Again, I never said the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

Again, this is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because you have not seen the grave of Peter, you would conclude that he did not die. This is wrong.

And a doctrine is only heretical if you can prove it false. You have not proven that there is another source that is incapable of error. Your denomination saying so is not proof. Your interpretation of scripture is not proof, particularly when you cite Scriptures that in no way mention being “incapable of being wrong”.

Wrong again. A heretical doctrine remains heretical whether it is proven or otherwise.

To show that sola scriptura is wrong:

1. The apostles did not teach this.
2. This is not supported by the Bible itslef.
3. The apostolic Tradition does not teach that.
4. The Church founded by Christ condemned it heretical.

If anyone comes to me claiming their source of faith is incapable of error, be it yours or the Book of Mormon or the JW organization, they have to prove it.to me. Otherwise I just will not buy into it. That is the reason why I am not JW, Mormon, or any of the other wierdnesses out there.

The Catholic Church declared the authoritativeness and inerrancy of the Bible. It is amazing that you accept the declaration but reject the authority of the institution declaring it.