B
BobCatholic
Guest
Stick to the topic: Sola Scriptura.
BobCatholic WHOMPS you playfully with a pillow.
In fact, I’d love to see your answers to my infamous 4 questinos.
- Status
BobCatholic WHOMPS you playfully with a pillow.
In fact, I’d love to see your answers to my infamous 4 questinos.
G
go_Leafs_go
Guest
I missed these 4 questions, what are they?
B
BobCatholic
Guest
go Leafs go:
BobCatholic:
Here they are
My “infamous 4 questions” are as follows:
Using Scripture alone, please tell me:
The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.
- Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
- Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
- Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
- Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?
According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions
Now, let us Catholics NOT answer these questions for our protestant brothers and sisters. We don’t want to share that part of the TRUTH with them YET since they cannot accept it now.
The reason is: The implications of honestly answering these questions spells doom for a certain man-made Tradition that makes null the Word of God, that protestants hold on to.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
I think you may be misunderstanding something here. No one claims that the bishops are, themselves, apostles but rather that they teach with their authority. Apostolic succession, or teaching with the authority of the apostles, is indeed in scripture.
We see this succession illustrated in a couple of places in Paul’s second letter to Timothy. In 2:2 Paul tells him:
*** ******The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. ***We see the succession from Paul to Timothy to faithful men to others. Teaching authority is being passed down here. That’s what apostolic succession is; the entrusting of the truth to succeeding generations. We also see it in 1:13-14:
Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the holy Spirit who dwells within us.
Again, the truth is entrusted by one to another. It’s being passed on. That’s what apostolic succession is.
In Acts 15:24 we see that in order for the truth to be assured one must receive an apostolic mandate in order to preach. That occurs today through apostolic succession.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
I think you may have been mistaught about what purgatory is. The doctrine of purgatory in no way denies the sufficiency of Christ’s cross to cleanse the believer of all sins through his death and shed blood on the cross. In fact, it entirely depends upon it.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Kinsman,
I think it would be most helpful if you read what I write more carefully. You seem to be drawing conclusions that are neither reasonable or intended, which makes rational discourse difficult.
Case in point: you wrote, “My goodness, man, that’s your answer for Rome’s claim for dominion?”
No, and I never claimed it as such. That is a subject for another thread, as the Catholic Church’s claims for her authority are extensive—and off topic here. I presented it as an example of the exercise of teaching authority, which is a concept that you appear to have difficulty with. Authority is Biblical.
You did not address the issue of contradicting doctrines regarding “once saved, always saved” within Sola Scriptura traditions. Instead, you gave me a five-sentence sermon, complete with helpful suggestions of verses to read: I have read those verses many times over the years, Kinsman, and my interpretation does not lead me to the same conclusions that you have drawn. So, please address instead the issue that I raised.
Another example, though not from my Protestant past: an Evangelical friend of mine believes there is no hell. She has reached this conclusion from her interpretation of Scriptures. Most of my other friends are Protestants of varying stripes (hardly surprising given my past) and most scoff at this interpretation of hers, though one is not sure and is unwilling to take a position. Now, she is reading and interpreting the same Scriptures that they are—who are they to tell her she’s wrong? If Scriptures were such a clear teacher, needing no authorative interpreter, then why the conflicting ideas drawn from it? Hell cannot exist and not exist at the same time. This is merely theological relativism, and truth is not relative.
Another example: I came across a TV preacher the other day, and lingered on the channel just long enough to hear him thunder, “If your preacher isn’t preaching the Rapture, then he’ll be one of the ones Left Behind!!!” Now, my Lutheran friends would find this very offensive, as this obviously would condemn their pastor. But their fellow Sola Scriptura believers who are adherents of pre-tribulation dispensationalism are not without Bible verses to back up the theory. They simply interpret various verses differently than my Lutheran friends. It would appear that being “left behind” is a serious matter, so this is not an issue without importance—yet these Protestants cannot agree.
You wrote: “Your problem, Sherlock, is not with “Sola Scriptura” or even Protestantism, but you refuse to believe Christ did it all for you and the sufficiency of divine GRACE toward you because of Christ’s once for all sacrifice on your behalf.”
But I do believe in Christ’s “once and for all” sacrifice. So do all Catholics. I suggest you study Catholicism and attempt to understand it before making such a statement. Also, making statements about someone else’s belief as if you were intimately acquainted with them is not doing your credibility any favors…
You wrote: “You’re looking everywhere but God’s Word.”
No, I love the Scriptures, read them every day, and have done so for years. Your assessment of my actions are uninformed.
I’ve gotta run—time for Eucharistic Adoration!!
I think it would be most helpful if you read what I write more carefully. You seem to be drawing conclusions that are neither reasonable or intended, which makes rational discourse difficult.
Case in point: you wrote, “My goodness, man, that’s your answer for Rome’s claim for dominion?”
No, and I never claimed it as such. That is a subject for another thread, as the Catholic Church’s claims for her authority are extensive—and off topic here. I presented it as an example of the exercise of teaching authority, which is a concept that you appear to have difficulty with. Authority is Biblical.
You did not address the issue of contradicting doctrines regarding “once saved, always saved” within Sola Scriptura traditions. Instead, you gave me a five-sentence sermon, complete with helpful suggestions of verses to read: I have read those verses many times over the years, Kinsman, and my interpretation does not lead me to the same conclusions that you have drawn. So, please address instead the issue that I raised.
Another example, though not from my Protestant past: an Evangelical friend of mine believes there is no hell. She has reached this conclusion from her interpretation of Scriptures. Most of my other friends are Protestants of varying stripes (hardly surprising given my past) and most scoff at this interpretation of hers, though one is not sure and is unwilling to take a position. Now, she is reading and interpreting the same Scriptures that they are—who are they to tell her she’s wrong? If Scriptures were such a clear teacher, needing no authorative interpreter, then why the conflicting ideas drawn from it? Hell cannot exist and not exist at the same time. This is merely theological relativism, and truth is not relative.
Another example: I came across a TV preacher the other day, and lingered on the channel just long enough to hear him thunder, “If your preacher isn’t preaching the Rapture, then he’ll be one of the ones Left Behind!!!” Now, my Lutheran friends would find this very offensive, as this obviously would condemn their pastor. But their fellow Sola Scriptura believers who are adherents of pre-tribulation dispensationalism are not without Bible verses to back up the theory. They simply interpret various verses differently than my Lutheran friends. It would appear that being “left behind” is a serious matter, so this is not an issue without importance—yet these Protestants cannot agree.
You wrote: “Your problem, Sherlock, is not with “Sola Scriptura” or even Protestantism, but you refuse to believe Christ did it all for you and the sufficiency of divine GRACE toward you because of Christ’s once for all sacrifice on your behalf.”
But I do believe in Christ’s “once and for all” sacrifice. So do all Catholics. I suggest you study Catholicism and attempt to understand it before making such a statement. Also, making statements about someone else’s belief as if you were intimately acquainted with them is not doing your credibility any favors…
You wrote: “You’re looking everywhere but God’s Word.”
No, I love the Scriptures, read them every day, and have done so for years. Your assessment of my actions are uninformed.
I’ve gotta run—time for Eucharistic Adoration!!
M
MariaG
Guest
Kinsman,
As a Catholic Christian who belongs to the Catholic Church, I am offended by your continued use of the word Romanism to describe the Catholic church. It is a derogatory term loaded with prejudice and is meant to offend. You have been asked before to cease your prejudice use of this term. I ask you again. I belong to the Catholic Church. There is no such church or religion that practices “Romanism”.
As a Catholic Christian who belongs to the Catholic Church, I am offended by your continued use of the word Romanism to describe the Catholic church. It is a derogatory term loaded with prejudice and is meant to offend. You have been asked before to cease your prejudice use of this term. I ask you again. I belong to the Catholic Church. There is no such church or religion that practices “Romanism”.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
***One must wonder if those who knowingly and purposefully use terms that offend believe that God sees them doing this and thinks “Well done good and faithful servant. With you I am well pleased”??
***
R
RNRobert
Guest
I asked Kinsman in an earlier post, “If the Catholic church is wrong, which of the many Protestant denominations is right?” I’m still waiting for answer. No one has told me where the words “Trinity” and “Incarnation” can be found in the Bible, either…
D
Delgadoajj
Guest
Kinsman:
I’m curious to know your answer to the 4 “infamous” questions posted above.
Jorge.
I’m curious to know your answer to the 4 “infamous” questions posted above.
Jorge.
R
RNRobert
Guest
In an earlier post I asked Kinsman "If Catholicism is wrong, which of the many Protestant churches is right.
Still waiting for an answer…
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
You tell me which church [including catholic] has it all right because I want to join it.I asked Kinsman in an earlier post, “If the Catholic church is wrong, which of the many Protestant denominations is right?” I’m still waiting for answer. No one has told me where the words “Trinity” and “Incarnation” can be found in the Bible, either…
B
BobCatholic
Guest
First there has to be way to infallibly determine which one of the thousands of scritpure interpretations is the correct one.You tell me which church [including catholic] has it all right because I want to join it.
Can this be done with Scripture alone?
Hmmm…something to think about.
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Maybe the problem is man?
B
BobCatholic
Guest
The problem is: this doesn’t answer the question.Maybe the problem is man?
God made sure the Scriptures were given to Godly men, who wrote down, translated,copied, distributed, defended, laid their lives down for the Scriptures, and today, you have an inerrant set of Scriptures you can count on.
However, for some reason God didn’t do the same with the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture. That was apparently lost.
I would have thought that God protected the former AND protect the latter? Not according to Sola Scriptura. Man may be the problem, but God is the solution.
You see, If the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture were preserved (in the same inerrant way the Scriptures were preserved), we could be able to turn to it and say “AHA! You’re not understanding the Scriptures the way they did” and see it CLEARLY.
But according to Sola Scriptura, this was lost. Game over. We’re doomed. Oh well.
Gates of Hell.
Prevailing.
Not a good thing.
R
RNRobert
Guest
Yes, man is part of the problem. catholics and protestants agree that Holy Scripture is inerrant (despite what some Protestants believe, the Catholic Church considers itself the servant of scripture and does NOT teach anything contrary to scripture). The problem is, when there is a dispute over the meaning of Scripture, who has the final say? There asre thousands od Christian denominations that claim to be led by the Holy Spirit and follow the Bible, but they disagree on a number of important issues, such as the person of Christ, the Lord’s Supper, Baptism, etc. They cannot ALL be right. Did Jesus REALLY intend to leave his followers in the lurch as to what he wanted taught? Which church has the unity he prayed for. Where is the ONE faith, ONE Baptism, ONE Lord St. Paul talked about?Maybe the problem is man?
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Yes, Where is this mystical body St.Paul was talking about today?Good Question?
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Yes, it is a good question.Yes, Where is this mystical body St.Paul was talking about today?Good Question?
If it is only an invisible body, then nobody will find it. One can never join the Church for one can’t see it.
It has to be VISIBLE, a LIGHT TO THE WORLD, so it has to be both mystical and corporeal - it is the Body of Christ, and Christ didn’t have an invisible body when He walked the earth.
One visible method is to see if they hold to the same interpretation of scripture the Apostles did. Since they’re dead, there has to be a way to determine it.
Remember what I said about Scripture and the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture?
According to Sola Scripturists, the latter was lost. So if this was lost, then nobody can hold on to this, and the gates of Hell have prevailed.
K
Kinsman
Guest
To: SHERLOCK… you wrote:
*I have read those verses many times over the years, Kinsman, and my interpretation does not lead me to the same conclusions that you have drawn. *
Your problem is still is with the Word of God - *you simply refuse to believe it. *The Scriptures I provided are explicitly clear. I would present these same Scriptures to any “Protestant” who denies the sufficiency of Christ’s cross to completely cleanse the believer of all sins.
But I do believe in Christ’s “once and for all” sacrifice. So do all Catholics.
I said "once for all for the purification of sins." This Catholics cannot accept because Rome teaches otherwise:
The Second Vatican Council, p. 63, says, “The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God’s holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.”
But Scripture teaches no such thing. Nowhere does it teach personal expiation of sins; that man can purify himself through his own sufferings. In the Bible purification of sins is accomplished not in a place, but a Person, through the *once for all time *propitiatory blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That’s the Gospel, my friend, it means “good news.”
Another example, though not from my Protestant past: an Evangelical friend of mine believes there is no hell. She has reached this conclusion from her interpretation of Scriptures.
Sherlock, I’m not naive, nor should you be. She did NOT reach her conclusion from her interpretation of the Scriptures, and certainly not an exegetical study of them. Scripture is VERY clear on this issue. She simply doesn’t want to believe it, no matter what it says. She can’t handle it. You yourself could drag her to Rome and set her down before the Pope, but that still won’t convince her. This is not an argument against “Sola Scriptura.” That people won’t accept what God clearly reveals in His Word doesn’t discredit its ultimate authority. Men have rebelled against God’s Word since the Garden of Eden. In fact the only reason we know of Hell at all is not because Rome declared it, but because its revealed in Scripture. I praise Him that He doesn’t go into great detail in His written Word. I couldn’t handle it either. I praise Him still more for Christ’s once for all, substitutionary sacrifice for the purification of my sins. Ultimately, no man enters hell because of sins, but because of unbelief in what God provided through Christ on their behalf (Jn. 8:24).
“If your preacher isn’t preaching the Rapture, then he’ll be one of the ones Left Behind!!!”
No big deal here (of course you may have taken him out of context, you admit to only lingering a while on that station). What does God’s Word say? The grounds for being taken up in the Rapture is not preaching it. So based on the Word of God his comment must be filed under the category labeled "spoken absurdities." We’re to grow and mature by God’s Word, not remain sucklings (1 Cor. 14:20; Heb. 5:12).
The only way one can test the spiritual teachings of men is by God’s written Word. Therefore you need to know it. To mindlessly accept their teachings, or claims of authority over you, is unwise and cultish in nature.
*I have read those verses many times over the years, Kinsman, and my interpretation does not lead me to the same conclusions that you have drawn. *
Your problem is still is with the Word of God - *you simply refuse to believe it. *The Scriptures I provided are explicitly clear. I would present these same Scriptures to any “Protestant” who denies the sufficiency of Christ’s cross to completely cleanse the believer of all sins.
But I do believe in Christ’s “once and for all” sacrifice. So do all Catholics.
I said "once for all for the purification of sins." This Catholics cannot accept because Rome teaches otherwise:
The Second Vatican Council, p. 63, says, “The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God’s holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.”
But Scripture teaches no such thing. Nowhere does it teach personal expiation of sins; that man can purify himself through his own sufferings. In the Bible purification of sins is accomplished not in a place, but a Person, through the *once for all time *propitiatory blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That’s the Gospel, my friend, it means “good news.”
Another example, though not from my Protestant past: an Evangelical friend of mine believes there is no hell. She has reached this conclusion from her interpretation of Scriptures.
Sherlock, I’m not naive, nor should you be. She did NOT reach her conclusion from her interpretation of the Scriptures, and certainly not an exegetical study of them. Scripture is VERY clear on this issue. She simply doesn’t want to believe it, no matter what it says. She can’t handle it. You yourself could drag her to Rome and set her down before the Pope, but that still won’t convince her. This is not an argument against “Sola Scriptura.” That people won’t accept what God clearly reveals in His Word doesn’t discredit its ultimate authority. Men have rebelled against God’s Word since the Garden of Eden. In fact the only reason we know of Hell at all is not because Rome declared it, but because its revealed in Scripture. I praise Him that He doesn’t go into great detail in His written Word. I couldn’t handle it either. I praise Him still more for Christ’s once for all, substitutionary sacrifice for the purification of my sins. Ultimately, no man enters hell because of sins, but because of unbelief in what God provided through Christ on their behalf (Jn. 8:24).
“If your preacher isn’t preaching the Rapture, then he’ll be one of the ones Left Behind!!!”
No big deal here (of course you may have taken him out of context, you admit to only lingering a while on that station). What does God’s Word say? The grounds for being taken up in the Rapture is not preaching it. So based on the Word of God his comment must be filed under the category labeled "spoken absurdities." We’re to grow and mature by God’s Word, not remain sucklings (1 Cor. 14:20; Heb. 5:12).
The only way one can test the spiritual teachings of men is by God’s written Word. Therefore you need to know it. To mindlessly accept their teachings, or claims of authority over you, is unwise and cultish in nature.
K
Kinsman
Guest
I don’t argue nor promote any Denomination. That’s why you’ll never see me mention one. I’m a Biblicist, I trust in God’s Word. I study it as well as read the scholarly writings of others. Yup…even some Roman Catholics. I am born again, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and He illuminates His truth to me through these personal efforts. His Word has always pointed me to the Person and work of Jesus Christ, never away from Him. I exalt Him, never any church.
- Status