Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[SPOKENWORD]

BobCatholic:

Yes, the Word of God (Jesus Christ) created the Church.

After the Resurrection and before Pentecost, where was the NT? Not yet written, passed on orally. After Pentecost? Still passed on orally. Until it was finally written down, where was the NT? That’s right, passed on orally. But look what was first? The Church came first, THEN the NT!

Church —> NT Scripture

that’s the historically accurate story.

Of course, you can show me the Bible verses that show the NT having been finished by the time Pentecost came.

Ok .so where was the word of God Jesus was talking about when He said it is written?

 

[BobCatholic]

SPOKENWORD:

Ok .so where was the word of God Jesus was talking about when He said it is written?

The Old Testament

Notice you never mentioned anything about my NEW TESTAMENT statement. The Church came before the New Testament. Do you deny that?

 

[RNRobert]

SPOKENWORD:

Ok .so where was the word of God Jesus was talking about when He said it is written?

He was quoting from the OLD TESTAMENT. The New Testament, as BobCatholic and I have been saying (over, and over, and over:banghead: )
DID NOT EXIST in Jesus time. At the risk of being redundant, the church existed for a decade or more before anything of what we know to be the New Testament existed. It was the CHURCH that created, approved, defined and preserved the New Testament.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

RNRobert:

He was quoting from the OLD TESTAMENT. The New Testament, as BobCatholic and I have been saying (over, and over, and over:banghead: )
DID NOT EXIST in Jesus time. At the risk of being redundant, the church existed for a decade or more before anything of what we know to be the New Testament existed. It was the CHURCH that created, approved, defined and preserved the New Testament.

Jesus was the Word and its been around since the beginning.

 

[RNRobert]

BobCatholic:

Yes, the Word of God (Jesus Christ) created the Church.

After the Resurrection and before Pentecost, where was the NT? Not yet written, passed on orally. After Pentecost? Still passed on orally. Until it was finally written down, where was the NT? That’s right, passed on orally. But look what was first? The Church came first, THEN the NT!

Church —> NT Scripture

that’s the historically accurate story.

Of course, you can show me the Bible verses that show the NT having been finished by the time Pentecost came.

Thanks for your help, Bob. However, I think Kinsman is the poster child for invincible ignorance. :nope:
When I first came to these boards, I saw Kinsman and others like him say “It’s not scriptural” whenever Catholics tried to explain their beliefs. I started this thread to explain why Catholics aren’t ‘Bible-only’ Christians. But it seems he just doesn’t get it.

 

[RNRobert]

SPOKENWORD:

Jesus was the Word and its been around since the beginning.

Yes, Jesus is the Word, and has been around since before time. HOWEVER, the same cannot be said for the New Testament.

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

Jesus was the Word and its been around since the beginning.

When the Scriptures speak of Jesus as the Word, the concept behind the word “Word” is that of the Divine Logos or Holy Wisdom, not Holy Writ. If that is not true, then according to John 1:1, Holy Writ, Sacred Scripture,*** is * ** God and we should worship the Bible :

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Common sense tells us that this cannot be true and demands that we recognize that the “Word of God” does not always mean Scripture.

Justin

 

[RNRobert]

1962Missal:

When the Scriptures speak of Jesus as the Word, the concept behind the word “Word” is that of the Divine Logos or Holy Wisdom, not Holy Writ. If that is not true, then according to John 1:1, Holy Writ, Sacred Scripture,*** is ***God and we should worship the Bible :

It seems some Protestants treat the Bible as the Fourth Person of the Trinity!

 

[1962Missal]

RNRobert:

It seems some Protestants treat the Bible as the Fourth Person of the Trinity!

Either a fourth Person, or one must say that only the accidents of paper and ink remain…

 

[Shibboleth]

We do not worship the Bible any more than you worship the Magisterium. If you do not want the embarrassment that I call my fellow protestants stating that the Pope is your fourth in the Trinity then do not commit the same crime with your tongue.

 

[1962Missal]

Shibboleth:

We do not worship the Bible any more than you worship the Magisterium. If you do not want the embarrassment that I call my fellow protestants stating that the Pope is your fourth in the Trinity then do not commit the same crime with your tongue.

I do not and have not accused anyone of bibliolatry. I said that if we confuse the written Word with the incarnate Word, then it must follow that the written word is God.

As for the “transubstantiation” remark, if you cannot appreciate flippancy, then perhaps you need to take a breather, friend. And as for the threat to slander Catholics to your Protestant friends, shame on you.

Justin

 

[RNRobert]

Shibboleth:

We do not worship the Bible any more than you worship the Magisterium. If you do not want the embarrassment that I call my fellow protestants stating that the Pope is your fourth in the Trinity then do not commit the same crime with your tongue.

My apologies. However, certain Protestants (not all protestants, of course) seem to act like they worship the Bible. Many of these will hear of nothing that is not written in the black letter of the Scriptures.

 

[BobCatholic]

RNRobert:

When I first came to these boards, I saw Kinsman and others like him say “It’s not scriptural” whenever Catholics tried to explain their beliefs.

Neither does Kinsman practice Sola Scriptura for he accepts HIS INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE just as authoritatively as Scripture. He confuses both as the same thing.

Where does say in the Bible “and thus the Catholics belief on [whatever] is contrary to what we Apostles teach.” Nowhere. Such a judgment is made by an extra scriptural authority.

Protestants have Tradition, they just don’t want to admit it, or if they admit it, they’ll claim it is not authoritative (then why use it? Why not use another non-authoritative tradition?) or not infallible (then how do you know 100% sure your interpretation is correct? What if you’re wrong? Your soul could be at risk!)

 

[BobCatholic]

RNRobert:

However, certain Protestants (not all protestants, of course) seem to act like they worship the Bible. Many of these will hear of nothing that is not written in the black letter of the Scriptures.

For these “Many” I’ll ask them my infamous 4 questions. Then sit back and watch them ATTEMPT (and fail) apply their own standard and sqirm.

I don’t say that protestants commit biblioatry, but if I were to use the protestant’s standard of what worship is, Joel Olsteen crossed over the line:

lakewood.cc/faq.htm

What is the confession that Pastor Joel makes before he preaches?
At Lakewood Church, Pastor Joel leads the congregation into the following confession before he begins to minister:

This is my Bible.
I am what it says I am.
I have what it says I have.
I can do what it says I can do.
Today I will be taught the Word of God.
I boldly confess my mind is alert, my heart is receptive.
I will never be the same.
I am about to receive the incorruptible, indestructible, ever-living seed of the Word of God.
I will never be the same.
Never, never, never.
I will never be the same. In Jesus name.
Amen.

At the least, it is a confession that says that Pastor Joel’s interpretation of scripture IS the word of God.

Either which way, it is scandalous for them.

 

[BobCatholic]

RNRobert:

When I first came to these boards, I saw Kinsman and others like him say “It’s not scriptural” whenever Catholics tried to explain their beliefs.

Neither does Kinsman practice Sola Scriptura for he accepts HIS INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE just as authoritatively as Scripture. He confuses both as the same thing.

Where does say in the Bible “and thus the Catholics belief on [whatever] is contrary to what we Apostles teach.” Nowhere. Such a judgment is made by an extra scriptural authority.

Protestants have Tradition, they just don’t want to admit it, or if they admit it, they’ll claim it is not authoritative (then why use it? Why not use another non-authoritative tradition?) or not infallible (then how do you know 100% sure your interpretation is correct? What if you’re wrong? Your soul could be at risk!)

 

[Shibboleth]

I would like to rename this thread, “How many Bob-s does it take to reeducate a Protestant?”

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Shibboleth:

I would like to rename this thread, “How many Bob-s does it take to reeducate a Protestant?”

It doesnt take any. All it takes is the Holy Spirit who will teach us.

 

[Kinsman]

3. When the early church leaders had a debate about Gentiles entering the Church (Acts 11), they could not use the scriptures to decide the issue as the Old Testament didn’t apply and the New Testament didn’t exist. Instead, they met and discussed the issue, with the church leaders making a statement as to what should be done.

This, of course, is not an accurate statement when one actually goes to the Scriptures and reads for himself the recorded account as to what actually happened at that Church council. This is a perfect example of why God provided us with His inspired, written Word, and according to divine wisdom did not rely upon the fallible memory of men to preserve His truth down to this present generation. Men who could innocently be mistaken or consciously contort or misrepresent the accounts in order to conform them to their own religious slant. The Scriptures were given to us that we may test the words and traditions of men (2 Tim. 3:16).

The question at the council was whether or not Gentile believers needed to be circumcised. In other words, need they submit to Judaism and the Law of Moses? Peter stood up and testified of his experience with Cornelius and his family and friends, how after hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ they believed and were given the Holy Spirit, as did they on the day of Pentecost, cleansing their hearts by faith (Acts 15:7-11; Acts 10-11). Paul and Barnabas then related how God performed signs and wonders among the Gentiles through them, apart from their being circumcised (i.e., submitting to the Mosaic Law). The final word came not from Paul, Barnabas, and not even Peter, but James, the brother of the Lord, not even one of the apostles. And his authority was written Scripture itself (Acts 15:15). He quoted the prophet Amos where in the future Millennial Kingdom (“after” this Church age) Gentiles will be ushered in as Gentiles (Acts 15:16-18; cf. Amos 9:11-12). And so it is during this Church age, as well. The Gentiles are brought into the Church (the Body of Christ) by faith alone.

This conclusion by James, was backed up by both Peter and Paul (Apostles) and is consistent with all New Testament teachings - our final authority.

Yes, the Church existed prior the New Testament. Just as Israel existed prior to the Law of Moses. But as the Law of Moses (God’s written Word) became Israel’s divine authority, the New Testament Scriptures (God’s written Word) became the divine authority for the Church. The Church has no higher authority than God’s written Word.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

RNRobert:

Thanks for your help, Bob. However, I think Kinsman is the poster child for invincible ignorance. :nope:
When I first came to these boards, I saw Kinsman and others like him say “It’s not scriptural” whenever Catholics tried to explain their beliefs. I started this thread to explain why Catholics aren’t ‘Bible-only’ Christians. But it seems he just doesn’t get it.

RnRobert, You can attack the argument but not very Christlike to attack the character.

Kinsman is the poster child for invincible ignorance.

 

[RNRobert]

Kinsman:

This, of course, is not an accurate statement when one actually goes to the Scriptures and reads for himself the recorded account as to what actually happened at that Church council. This is a perfect example of why God provided us with His inspired, written Word, and according to divine wisdom did not rely upon the fallible memory of men to preserve His truth down to this present generation. Men who could innocently be mistaken or consciously contort or misrepresent the accounts in order to conform them to their own religious slant. The Scriptures were given to us that we may test the words and traditions of men (2 Tim. 3:16).

The question at the council was whether or not Gentile believers needed to be circumcised. In other words, need they submit to Judaism and the Law of Moses? Peter stood up and testified of his experience with Cornelius and his family and friends, how after hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ they believed and were given the Holy Spirit, as did they on the day of Pentecost, cleansing their hearts by faith (Acts 15:7-11; Acts 10-11). Paul and Barnabas then related how God performed signs and wonders among the Gentiles through them, apart from their being circumcised (i.e., submitting to the Mosaic Law). The final word came not from Paul, Barnabas, and not even Peter, but James, the brother of the Lord, not even one of the apostles. And his authority was written Scripture itself (Acts 15:15). He quoted the prophet Amos where in the future Millennial Kingdom (“after” this Church age) Gentiles will be ushered in as Gentiles (Acts 15:16-18; cf. Amos 9:11-12). And so it is during this Church age, as well. The Gentiles are brought into the Church (the Body of Christ) by faith alone.

This conclusion by James, was backed up by both Peter and Paul (Apostles) and is consistent with all New Testament teachings - our final authority.

Yes, the Church existed prior the New Testament. Just as Israel existed prior to the Law of Moses. But as the Law of Moses (God’s written Word) became Israel’s divine authority, the New Testament Scriptures (God’s written Word) became the divine authority for the Church. The Church has no higher authority than God’s written Word.

But the point I was trying to make (which apparently sailed over your head :banghead: )was that the New Testament DID NOT EXIST, so it was up to the CHURCH to make the decision. The same thing goes for doctrines like the Trinity and Incarnation (which are believed by the vast majority of Protest-ants even though those words aren’t found in Scripture): It was up to the church to decide what Scripture meant (Scripture can’t interpret itself, and there are many fools in the world who can take the Bible and twist it any way they want to suit their fancy (Like the JWs, Branch Davidians, Jim Joneses, etc…)