Solas of the Protestant Reformation

[sola_scriptura]

Protestants prefer the King James Version of the Bible, most of those I know anyways. What version do you prefer? Does it include the deuterocanonicals?

I personally do not prefer the KJV because it is taken from the Latin Vulgate (even the NKJV does this as far as I know). I think the best Bible out there is the NASB. However, the NIV and ESV are useful as well – but they all have a different focus.

The ESV for example is “idea” oriented. They take the idea presented and present in our vernacular, whereas the NASB is very literal, using a word for word approach.

I will use the KJV, but just for the effect of words like ye, yeah, shalt, etc. It just adds a very powerful ring to the words. However, I will always check any version against the NASB as a hard rule. There is almost always conformity – but I like to be sure.

Luther’s influences on scriptures went out with all translations after his “tamperings” with what was passed down through the Church. He removed the deuterocanonicals and added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, hence the belief in faith alone excluding works required as supported by many other scriptures. How is it the King James Version has those changes but claims it was not influenced by Luther’s tamperings?

**For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:28 NASB). **

The above represents a word for word translation from the Koine Greek into the English language.

Do you deny the Catholic Church canonized the Bible and cared for it through the ages until Luther took the Bible and left the rest of the teachings of the Catholic Church behind? With that said, it is easy to find he took some teachings with him but through schisms since his reformation, those have been diluted.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

They have been further refined. Today’s protestant scriptures offer something you won’t find in Bibles like the Catholic “New American” that is translated from the Koine Greek and Hebrew, into Latin, and then into English. We go directly from the original languages to English. I find this far superior.

As far as the apocrypha and deuterocanonical the KJV retains many of those works, however, reformation churches do not. Simply stated their authorship is too dubious. However, I’ve studied them out of interest & for the most part they are useful. Some protestant bibles (notably the Good News bible) includes I think all of those works (I seen this version used in Methodist churches).

 

[PerryJ]

I’m a reformed Protestant and while I find much in common with Luther I think Calvin developed theology further. In other words, Luther gave us a good foundation, by grace through faith . . . not by works or personal human endeavor (as Scripture states). That works proceed from faith is not refuted by Luther or Calvin, but rather in the first instance it is the grace of God that draws us.

The sacrifice of our Lord was made in propitiation & as a penal substitution for the punishment we deserve. Charging money for forgiveness, much less charging money to forgive the sins of dead relatives and remove them from purgatory was in no uncertain terms heretical – no matter how creatively this practice is framed by the revisionists. God gave us Luther for this task.

Luther never quite wanted to break from Rome, the choice was thrust upon him by the church. He naively thought that his complaints given up through his chain of command would be heeded and the heresies of men like Johann Tetzel (who was merely one of many) would be dealt with. Eventually Tetzel went to far for even Pope Leo’s taste, but his minions were never stopped from the basic practice of charging money to forgive sins, forgive sins not yet committed, and removing souls from purgatory.

This change required the reformation to reach its fullness, until the point Protestantism was creeping in their home territory – Italy itself. Then the church had two choices, reform or die, they smartly chose the former.

Then came Calvin, who was quite the logician and rigorous theologian. He took Luther’s doctrines to their logical end. Luther didn’t solely sit in a room and write (even though he was confined to his room for quite a while because the church was hunting him). He translated the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew into German. He offered wonderful commentary. However, obviously work such as this is built on. Like engineering, we had to invent the wheel and the combustion engine before the car.

You are well read and know that his changing of the faith had nothing to do with indulgences. His theory of faith “alone” was based upon personal inadequacies and the feeling of being damned. This theory was completed prior to his supposed distate for indulgences. This can be verified by his own writings. In fact when he first visited Rome he makes no mention of any issues with Rome.

Indulgences were also being addressed within the Church itself by priests and bishops. The Church was not entirely corrput and many were working within the faith to change indulgences.

To connect the two together is revisionist.

As you are also aware Calvin followed Luther for the same feeling so inadequacies and a feeling of being damned. He was also a murderer. One can attempt to depict him as a righteous man; however, if one reads about him one knows that he was a man that was given to plotical power and revenge. The theology of Protestants are based upon men that clearly broke the most basics of teachings.

Have Pope’s failed? Yes, however, we hold our doctrine as being protected by the Holy Spirit and the succession of Peter. Not murderers that had feelings of rejection by God.

You may dispute these thoughts; however, I am sure you have read histories on both of these men and know that what I am stating is supported by secular authorship. These were not pious men.

 

[PerryJ]

I personally do not prefer the KJV because it is taken from the Latin Vulgate (even the NKJV does this as far as I know). I think the best Bible out there is the NASB. However, the NIV and ESV are useful as well – but they all have a different focus.

The ESV for example is “idea” oriented. They take the idea presented and present in our vernacular, whereas the NASB is very literal, using a word for word approach.

I will use the KJV, but just for the effect of words like ye, yeah, shalt, etc. It just adds a very powerful ring to the words. However, I will always check any version against the NASB as a hard rule. There is almost always conformity – but I like to be sure.

**For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:28 NASB). **

The above represents a word for word translation from the Koine Greek into the English language.

They have been further refined. Today’s protestant scriptures offer something you won’t find in Bibles like the Catholic “New American” that is translated from the Koine Greek and Hebrew, into Latin, and then into English. We go directly from the original languages to English. I find this far superior.

As far as the apocrypha and deuterocanonical the KJV retains many of those works, however, reformation churches do not. Simply stated their authorship is too dubious. However, I’ve studied them out of interest & for the most part they are useful. Some protestant bibles (notably the Good News bible) includes I think all of those works (I seen this version used in Methodist churches).

What is the NASB based upon? Which scripture source is it based upon and who did the research to verify it’s scripture is authentic without man’s bias?

 

[sola_scriptura]

What is the NASB based upon? Which scripture source is it based upon and who did the research to verify it’s scripture is authentic without man’s bias?

You know, Perry as much as I generally enjoy your well thought out opinions of some things, going down this road is a slippery slope to the mud pit. I say we avoid it before we get there? What say you …

As for your above comment regarding Luther … come on – you can’t be serious? The charging for indulgences started it – your engaging in revisionism to deflect blame from where it should be applied.

Obviously I understand your agreement with my view will not happen, and vice versa – so perhaps we might talk about the merits of the doctrine itself without personalizing it to individual men? This way we can avoid the ad hom slippery slope and have a useful discussion…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Luther added the word “alone”, because the NASB words it differently does not change the interpretation based on Luther’s addition.

The answer to O.S. Luke’s question is that once Luther started tampering, Protestants based their translations on his beliefs.

When I said, Luther took some teachings with him that have since been diluted, I know Luther believed, inititally at least, in the perpetual virginity and the Real Presence.

As for having multiple translations, welcome to the club. I have 16 versions including Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Those versions also include 3 King James Versions.

Your prefence is similar to Luther’s preference of Hebrew Palenstinian Old Testament and Greek New Testament. His rejection of Greek Old Testament was for what reason? It was the common language of those times. Was his choice based on his interpretations of the deuterocanonicals that he believed were not inspired? They were considered inspired until the 1500s when his private interpretation superceded all other interpretations. He had a dislike of New Testament books as well, but his backers told him they would not continue to back his movement if he removed anymore books.

Now, I’ve addressed all questions thrown out there and have yet to see scriptural support for sola scriptura. Is this just more an avoidance of that subject?

sola_scriptura, did you miss my request for scriptures limiting Peter’s authority as you expressed?

Seems to be a sway from subject to subject with questions in response to my questions to be honest. If you think I’m going to continue responding to all the issues you can bring up while not providing support for the issues you bring up, you’re wrong.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[sola_scriptura]

Golly let’s just settle this the easy way shall we?

For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28). This is from the Catholic New American Bible.

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans3.htm

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:28 NASB).

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203:28&version=49

No material differences. The Catholic Bible states “we consider” the NASB states “we maintain” the Catholic uses the word “person” the NASB “man” other than that the pertinent language “justified by faith apart from works of the law” is EXACTLY THE SAME.

Can we move on?

 

[PerryJ]

You know, Perry as much as I generally enjoy your well thought out opinions of some things, going down this road is a slippery slope to the mud pit. I say we avoid it before we get there? What say you

Actually, I felt you were probably more knowledgeable in this area than me and thought your insight would be good for all to know. I do not believe many Catholics of Protestants understand how much the Bible they read has been changed throughout the centuries. How many verses have been added, changed and modified to meet the ruling powers thoughts.

I do believe it does support the RCC. I do; however, believe arguments can be made against it. As a Catholic you know I would refute them; however, I think it is important for all to understand how the Bible was constructed. I see many posts on here using verses that have been knowingly changed to support an individuals thought. (I have to admit I have used them in the past and I am sure there are many more that I do not even know about.)

For my own knowledge, I would like to know what the basis of your Bible is constructed from. (I am not saying I won’t use it against you someday; but, for now it is curiosity)

 

[PerryJ]

As for your above comment regarding Luther … come on – you can’t be serious? The charging for indulgences started it – your engaging in revisionism to deflect blame from where it should be applied.

We can discuss the merit of Luther’s teaching; however, I do believe it starts with the man himself. It is a very important distinction. We do not believe we hold faith in a man and his interpretations. Protestant also do not; however, they followed the teachings of a man that is held out as pious. Catholic’s do not hold this man as pious and; therefore, find it hard to believe he is a truly inspired man of God given the authority to redirect the Church.

Is this not the essence of what Protestant’s tend to refute. That the Pope is pious and is the leader of the Church. We agree that the Pope’s are not always pious. As such we hold that the Faith is protected by the Holy Spirit. We do not hold that man’s interpetation of the Bible is sufficient. As such we can not hold that a man especially a man that is not pious can direct the faith.

I believe you have probably read two secular author’s I have already submitted postings on showing that by his writings in his own hand his theology was defined prior to his issues with indulgences. He had no issues until the indulgences were being accepted for the building of the sistene chapel, if I recall correctly, and it is documented. Prior to this we have no record of him having issues with Rome or indulgences. This even though he had visited Rome and stayed there. He did in fact already believe in faith 'alone" and was presenting his ideas.

I can give you sources and pages if you would like to read these books. Both are not Catholic and do not show the Catholic faith in a postive light. I accept the negativities they show about my faith as some of them are very true.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Golly let’s just settle this the easy way shall we?

For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28). This is from the Catholic New American Bible.

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans3.htm

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:28 NASB).

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203:28&version=49

No material differences. The Catholic Bible states “we consider” the NASB states “we maintain” the Catholic uses the word “person” the NASB “man” other than that the pertinent language “justified by faith apart from works of the law” is EXACTLY THE SAME.

Can we move on?

Move on? As in provide more questions in response to my questions? As to avoid any specific questions asked of you? As in change the subject at your whim?

I tried to keep up, with a storm that has knocked out my power 3 times. It is my fault for falling into that kind of game. It won’t happen anymore I assure you.

Luther added the word alone (which is some of the basis of the Protestants belief in sola fide.):

Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[3] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[4] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning.[5]

Sola fide is on the list of the OP’s original post that he said he could support with scriptures. First on the list was sola scriptura. Since we’ve asked for that scriptural suppport, he had avoided the issue and tried everything possible to change the subject. If he didn’t want to discuss it, he should have never supplied a list.

I have a lot of scriptures and explanations how sola fide is wrong. But, I’m afraid others will have to argue the point with you. So far any scriptures and explanations I have provided to this point has been ignored.

Continue your search for truth and God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[sola_scriptura]

Actually, I felt you were probably more knowledgeable in this area than me and thought your insight would be good for all to know. I do not believe many Catholics of Protestants understand how much the Bible they read has been changed throughout the centuries. How many verses have been added, changed and modified to meet the ruling powers thoughts.

I’m sure we’re both very knowledgeable in this area – but in my experience the topic is one of great tension between Catholics & Protestants, so it always seems to invigorate heated passion on both sides and steer us away from more productive issues.

 

[sola_scriptura]

As far as production of the Bible; obviously it was a collection of works, some first written by the Apostles (or scribes) and copied by others, the Pauline epistles were written by Paul and sent to various churches, the Old Testament came from a variety of sources. The Mosaic Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, etc.

These collections were first put together by first Eusebius then St. Jerome in the west (the Vulgate); but there were other ancient translations (such as the Syriac).

However, they have developed over time. For instance today we have more recently discovered original manuscripts (i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls), a better understanding of the original Koine Greek, etc.

Interestingly an early version of the Greek Bible exists called the Codex Vaticanus (one of the oldest Greek Bibles) exists. It for example contained a complete copy of the Septuagint. However, of course the Septuagint differs slightly from the original Mosaic Hebrew text (used during the Second Temple period). The Mosaic is a truer Old Testament (the writing of which dates back to around 700 BC).

In sum Protestant Bibles today stem from the Texus Receptus.

The canonization process within the RCC was a long one spanning centuries. The first four Gospel New Testament the Tetramorph was mentioned by Irenaeus in mid second century. In the mid fourth century the bishop of Alexandria listed the 27 books that would eventually become NT canon. At the end of the fourth century the Synod of Hippo approved the book. The Septuagint books were adopted over the Mosaic version. Then of course the Council of Trent approved the RCC Bible we see today. Because of Luther’s demands the books not included in the Mosaic text were termed Deuterocanonical (meaning their authenticity will be reviewed later).

This is a summary, from memory a little refresher research. The Bible authorship was a long process and not as Roman as most think. Luther’s complaints were considered at Trent (after the official break from Rome and development of the Lutheran church, but apparently there was still hope for reunification even during Luther’s lifetime). Before the Roman church the Bible circulated in the Hellenic world for two centuries. Moreover, there are editions out there that were around before what was used to form canon.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Move on? As in provide more questions in response to my questions? As to avoid any specific questions asked of you? As in change the subject at your whim?

I tried to keep up, with a storm that has knocked out my power 3 times. It is my fault for falling into that kind of game. It won’t happen anymore I assure you.

His claim was that it was a fair rendering when translating from the Koine Greek to German. Current versions translated to English do not contain this variant. I actually don’t think his adding of the word alone is very problematic & I accept his explanation (although I also agree with the later removal of the word). The bottom line is the passage reads: we are justified by faith apart from works of the law. This means the same thing as faith alone. Luther simply translated the idea rather than using a word for word approach (I personally do not like idea translation approach, I’m a big fan of the NASB for the very reason that it is the best word for word translation available).

Shall I list all the changes the RCC made throughout the centuries, or are you under the delusion that the bible canonization process occurred at an instant?

Look the bottom line is you will search for every perceived mistake Luther made. Whether in his work or in his life or whatever. Then when I list the multitudes of mistakes of the Catholic Popes, scholars, and theologians you will cry infallibility does not mean impeccability. It seems pretty hypocritical; but I’m not surprised.

Frankly this is one reason I strongly prefer Calvin. He did not dispute the canonicity of the book of James, nor did he find any problem harmonizing the Pauline Epistles with James; while Luther did (in fact he called James the “epistle of straw”).

However, Luther still did a better job than earlier RCC versions (that did not use the Mosaic Hebrew Old Testament, but rather its Greek variant, the Septuagint, which contained all sorts of books not included in the Tanakh).

 

[sola_scriptura]

We can discuss the merit of Luther’s teaching; however, I do believe it starts with the man himself. It is a very important distinction. We do not believe we hold faith in a man and his interpretations. Protestant also do not; however, they followed the teachings of a man that is held out as pious. Catholic’s do not hold this man as pious and; therefore, find it hard to believe he is a truly inspired man of God given the authority to redirect the Church.

Really, boy do you really want to open this flood gate? Shall I go through the Popes and list their sins? The bishops the clergy, etc.

I actually think compared to men like Pope Leo X Luther was a saint. I’ll gladly compare his piety against these men any day.

It’s great that you think it begins with the man himslef – of course you only apply this standard to Protestants and not the RCC; because if you do think that proper succession from the teachings of Jesus rely on personal character – then hey I’m all for it. Let’s engage in this rather silly competition of whose church founders were more sinful? I’m confident I’ll win …

Golly, where to start is my only challenge?

I assure you this will be a sad road for you to travel down. You might get away with such a statement against one who has no grounding in history, but I’m not that guy … so if you would like, bring it on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really, boy do you really want to open this flood gate? Shall I go through the Popes and list their sins? The bishops the clergy, etc.

I actually think compared to men like Pope Leo X Luther was a saint. I’ll gladly compare his piety against these men any day.

It’s great that you think it begins with the man himslef – of course you only apply this standard to Protestants and not the RCC; because if you do think that proper succession from the teachings of Jesus rely on personal character – then hey I’m all for it. Let’s engage in this rather silly competition of whose church founders were more sinful? I’m confident I’ll win …

Golly, where to start is my only challenge?

I assure you this will be a sad road for you to travel down. You might get away with such a statement against one who has no grounding in history, but I’m not that guy … so if you would like, bring it on.

Two posts and you refuse to address the assertion you made that Peter’s authority was limited. Not only refused to address that assertion, you bring up other issues, on both posts, to further avoid sticking to a subject. This just shows if one of your “winning” points were refuted, we’d just be moved to another issue.

Argue with yourself, I’m not interested in your “debate” tactics.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[O.S.Luke]

The answer to O.S. Luke’s question is that once Luther started tampering, Protestants based their translations on his beliefs.

When I said, Luther took some teachings with him that have since been diluted, I know Luther believed, inititally at least, in the perpetual virginity and the Real Presence.

As for having multiple translations, welcome to the club. I have 16 versions including Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Those versions also include 3 King James Versions.

Your prefence is similar to Luther’s preference of Hebrew Palenstinian Old Testament and Greek New Testament. His rejection of Greek Old Testament was for what reason? It was the common language of those times. Was his choice based on his interpretations of the deuterocanonicals that he believed were not inspired? They were considered inspired until the 1500s when his private interpretation superceded all other interpretations. He had a dislike of New Testament books as well, but his backers told him they would not continue to back his movement if he removed anymore books.

Now, I’ve addressed all questions thrown out there and have yet to see scriptural support for sola scriptura. Is this just more an avoidance of that subject?

You have a very interesting way of practicing apologetics - you obviously believe that you are above your own rules and critique and above correction when an obvious mistake is pointed out.

I have a great deal of respect for Catholicism. But let’s be honest when engaging in Christian apologetics. It’s called “Christian” for a reason.

O+

P.S. Not all Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura, nor regularly use a KJV bible.

 

[PerryJ]

Shall I list all the changes the RCC made throughout the centuries, or are you under the delusion that the bible canonization process occurred at an instant?

Look the bottom line is you will search for every perceived mistake Luther made. Whether in his work or in his life or whatever. Then when I list the multitudes of mistakes of the Catholic Popes, scholars, and theologians you will cry infallibility does not mean impeccability. It seems pretty hypocritical; but I’m not surprised.

The first point here is true. The Catholic Church made intentional and unintentional changes to the Bible which impacted interpretation just as the Protestants did. That is one of the reasons I am Catholic. I believe in Papal Infallibility. Without that then we are no better then when the Pharisees disagreed with the Sadducees. Jesus rebuked both the Pharisees and the Sadducees for not understanding. They had scripture and did not understand it. They even had different Bibles just as we do now. Without Papal Infallibility we are just men making things up. Whether it is 20 or 30,000 Christian religions does not matter to me. The point is that it shows that individual men are creating doctrine without God’s inspiration. God can not have more than one truth.

When Christ came to earth he saw that man could not interpret the Bible on his own. So why would he leave us in the same mess. I do not believe he would or did.

One could argue that he left the Holy Spirit to protect us from this problem reoccurring; however, it is clear that we are in the same mess again. How did we get in the same mess again? The Devil reuses old tricks and tricked man into believing he can interpret scripture on his own, just as he did with the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Is not the whole New Testament a statement against man interpreting the Bible on his own? The Pharisees and Sadducees time and again tried to use the Old Testament against God. Is this not now what people try and do to the RCC? Use the Bible against the revelation of the Lord.

Does not the New Testament state the wise man will be humbled? Does this apply to the people that think they are smarter than God and can figure out the Bible on his own. One may state that it their interpretation is based upon the Holy Spirit; however, I again asked how can it be with some many different versions of “inspired” truth.

 

[PerryJ]

Really, boy do you really want to open this flood gate? Shall I go through the Popes and list their sins? The bishops the clergy, etc.

I actually think compared to men like Pope Leo X Luther was a saint. I’ll gladly compare his piety against these men any day.

It’s great that you think it begins with the man himslef – of course you only apply this standard to Protestants and not the RCC; because if you do think that proper succession from the teachings of Jesus rely on personal character – then hey I’m all for it. Let’s engage in this rather silly competition of whose church founders were more sinful? I’m confident I’ll win …

Golly, where to start is my only challenge?

I assure you this will be a sad road for you to travel down. You might get away with such a statement against one who has no grounding in history, but I’m not that guy … so if you would like, bring it on.

I agree with your point and that is the whole argument. I do not believe the Pope or anyone else can interpret scripture on their own. Without the Grace of God interceding to protect his teachings we are lost. I could perhaps believe in the teachings of Luther if he was righteous like John the Baptist. John the Baptist was a righteous man that fought the good fight and was martyred for his convictions. Peter again martyred for his convictions. Luther and Calvin were not martyred in fact they both killed people to protect their territory just as many Popes have done.

Perhaps I could also believe in Protestantism if the faith did not immediately break apart into many little factions with its own truth. The Protestant faith is based upon personal interpretation. If it was not there would not be many denominations there would be one.

I believe that the Lord saved us and deposited the truth in our world. That truth is one truth and not many. No man on this earth can understand God and know the way as evident by our actions of this earth.

 

[Reformed]

What version of scriptures are you referring to? Did you know that in the 1600s a Protestant actually found of 30,000 variations within scripture. I am not referring to misspellings etc. I am referring to actual variations to scripture. Most Protestant scriptures have not been corrected for these errors. You place all of your faith on books of the Bible that do not read as they did when they were first created. To a Catholic we have tradition and the magesterium. We have the Holy Spirit protecting our Faith. You have personal interpretation based on a book changed over and again to fit the culture of the times.

I am also curious why you read the Bible. It is a Catholic book. It was defined by the Catholic religion from 50 Gospels, 22 books of acts and numerous epsitles. Did your faith look at all the books that existed and define the Bible. They did not. They took what was provided them by the Faith. Why didn’t your faith include the Didache? Did you faith ever look to see if it should be included? If no why not. Because they accepted the authority of the Catholic Faith. Yet they do not accept us interpreting our own book of faith.

As Protestant did not look at all books to see which ones should be included in the Bible they did deny several books in their entirety and several partially. The only books thrown out though were books that did not meet their ideaology. Old Testament books that early Protestant Bibles showed 102 cross references between the New Testament and the Duetercanoncals books. 102 times Christ and the Apostles directly refered to the books that you no longer consider inspired because a man told you not to believe them.

If you truly want to follow only the word of the Lord you need to get the entire Bible in its correct form. Which you do not have.

I like Roman Catholic translations. Please share the website link to Roman Catholic translations and I will copy and paste from those authorized RC translations.

 

[Reformed]

Let me explain how they are considered separated. The Catholic Church has the fullness of Christ’s teachings. When the reforms and schisms took place, they took a “part” of the teachings with them, mostly a belief in Christ. They left behind sacred traditions, the Church and scriptural interpretations that had been considered by Holy Spirit guided men who canonized the Bible.

Still no scriptural support of sola scriptura? You have none, do you?

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

The Mormon Churches uses that same exact terminology of “fullness of the gospel, the fullnes of Christ’s teaching”. The Mormon Church makes very similar claims as Roman Catholicism. Check it out:

mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-restoration-of-truth/the-great-apostasy

 

[Reformed]

Actually, try doing one argument at a time. You provide this to avoid providing support for sola scriptura as you claimed to begin with.

I am not being drawn into your game of distractions from what you said to begin with by entering into another “debate” until you finish where we’ve started.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

I think my friend has already posted the Westminster Confession of Faith in regards to the Scriptures with scripture proofs. Please go to the link to the WCF on the Scripture section, and use the Scripture links for the biblical proofs. BTW… where is the scripture proof for the Roman Catholic magestrium? You cannot build a faith based on private interpertation of Matthew 16. The Apostle Peter would have been Protestant if you determine what he believed in his two Epistles. The only way Roman Catholicsm can claim her teachings is to go way beyond the Scriptures.

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/