You can't have it both ways.

[Dokimas]

Agreed.
I won’t call you Protestant but will use the term Non-Catholic Christian, or NCC.
And I won’t say that you believe somethings just because your pastor told you.

You won’t say Catholics are taught to blindly follow the Church’s teachings.

For the record: I did NOT say catholics are taught to blindly follow the CC’s teaching. I said,

[SIGN]There’s a difference between respecting and blindly following or being under their authority.[/SIGN]

 

[ron77nyc]

How could they be in union if they are not holy, catholic or apostolic and not in submission to the pope? Those were the requirements for unity from the beginning.

By faith in Jesus

I agree that we are united by faith in Jesus. The purpose of my arguments are to make a statement about the change in Catholic teaching.

 

[gtrenewed]

*Acts 8:35 *Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.

This verse here, where is says, "Then Philip opened his mouth and with this scripture passage…." , supports the belief in oral tradition, this is a “Catholic verse”. Also, what does he say when he, “proclaimed Jesus to him"… he “proclaimed” what? Because, the next couple of verses say,"As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. (now eunuch is being quoted) What is to prevent my being baptized?” Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.”

Most experts agree that The Acts of the Apostles were written around 64 A.D., This is the most probable the date for the Acts. It was written by St. Luke and not by Phillip. Keep in mind that the Bible your using today, is not the “scripture” that Phillip is talking about here, although some of what he said may have been included in the Bible… it may have come from the Old Testament, it may be something that was eventually included in the New Testament. We don’t know from this verse, because it doesn’t say what “scripture” that is was, that he (Phillip) used , or the he “beginning” what he said. And, there is no “Book of Phillip” in the Bible.

First, the Scripture quoted here is in my bible, Isaiah 53:7. All the apostles used Scripture to prove Jesus was the Messiah by showing events in His life were foretold in Scripture.

Second, of course Philip spoke orally but he was referencing Scripture and the life of Jesus. This is very different from oral tradition. When a preacher preaches he speaks of Jesus referencing Scripture. Since the Holy Spirit made certain that a sufficient record was created for the New Testament as he did for the Old, we can tell the story of Jesus sufficiently to come to faith and live as a disciple.

While you have interesting info above, you miss the point again - we can rely on Scripture alone, rely on preachers preaching Scripture, rely on leaders leading by Scripture.

 

[1holycatholic]

Gee, you may have the answer.

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. It fails it’s own test!

The sentence I posted earlier is Scripture - it says it is! :hypno:

 

[Jimmy_B]

First, the Scripture quoted here is in my bible, Isaiah 53:7. All the apostles used Scripture to prove Jesus was the Messiah by showing events in His life were foretold in Scripture.

Second, of course Philip spoke orally but he was referencing Scripture and the life of Jesus. This is very different from oral tradition. When a preacher preaches he speaks of Jesus referencing Scripture. Since the Holy Spirit made certain that a sufficient record was created for the New Testament as he did for the Old, we can tell the story of Jesus sufficiently to come to faith and live as a disciple.

While you have interesting info above, you miss the point again - we can rely on Scripture alone, rely on preachers preaching Scripture, rely on leaders leading by Scripture.

hello gtrenewed,

If you need to “rely on leaders leading by Scripture” than how that much different is that than Catholicism? Is this based on how far in time, you’ll go back to, “rely on (those) leaders”? Or, do they still have be alive? I don’t get it. Please explain. Thank you.

 

[Dokimas]

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. It fails it’s own test!

The sentence I posted earlier is Scripture - it says it is! :hypno:

Thanks for your opinion.

I wasn’t aware that SS had a test like that.

 

[ron77nyc]

We don’t need a complete summary of infallible teachings, ron.

We have the Catechism.

That’s the problem. The catechism teaches contrary to infallible teachings.
INFALLIBLE TEACHING
In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

THE CATECHISM
‘Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.’" (C.C.C. # 847)

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these community that resulted from such separation’ and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (C.C.C. # 818)

 

[StTommyMore]

Thanks for your opinion.

I wasn’t aware that SS had a test like that.

It is implied. If Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are the only source of doctrine, and this teaching cannot be found in the Scriptures, it becomes self-refuting.

 

[gtrenewed]

This same pattern carries on throughout the Old Testament. Jews had a liturgical form of worship. This is not changed under the New Covenant. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill. The Liturgy was not abrogated, ab in fact, we see a very explicit account of the Heavenly Liturgy in Revelation. As long as you separate the written Word form the Liturgy, you will have an incomplete understanding of it.

Hebrews 8:13 “When He said “A new covenant” He has made the first obsolete.”

You need to understand? The old liturgy was made obsolete except for Judaizers.

Liturgy is a prescribed set of rites and regulations as you mentioned. Jesus ended the earthly pattern of worship by entering the heavenly sanctuary with His Blood.

Now we worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Scripture says where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. So we have liberty in defining what liturgy looks like.

Liturgy, like all we do, must be done in faith. When you follow yours in faith that is Spirit and Truth. When I follow mine in faith that is Spirit and Truth.

 

[StTommyMore]

Hebrews 8:13 “When He said “A new covenant” He has made the first obsolete.”

You need to understand? The old liturgy was made obsolete except for Judaizers.

Liturgy is a prescribed set of rites and regulations as you mentioned. Jesus ended the earthly pattern of worship by entering the heavenly sanctuary with His Blood.

Now we worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Scripture says where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. So we have liberty in defining what liturgy looks like.

Liturgy, like all we do, must be done in faith. When you follow yours in faith that is Spirit and Truth. When I follow mine in faith that is Spirit and Truth.

But Jesus is our High Priest. If High Priest, then he must be offering a sacrifice. What is this sacrifice? Himself, which is the eternal heavenly Liturgy which the Catholic Liturgy is a participation in. We see evidence of this Liturgy in the Revelation.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

In all fairness to your question here, there have been several posts here by "Sola scriptura, non-Catholic Christians. I went back and browsed through all 700+ posts on this thread (only because I like you ) and this is what I discovered -

Here are the non-Catholic posters and their number of posts where Bible verses were used to try to justify Sola scriptura -

gtrenewed - 3
Rightlydivide - 4
Dokimas - 5
Bysatine Wolf - 1
Roy 5 - 1
Schaick - 13

---

Total posts, 27 out of 710 posts… I expected the “Bible alone” people would stick to using the Bible alone, when making their argument. Am, I wrong in believing that? When I went through these verses, few, if any came close to supporting a belief in Sola scriptura and many were just completely off topic. And, for the Catholics here, who don’t believe in Sola scriptura, there were far many more Bible verses used, can anyone explain how that happened?

I posted numerous “Catholic verses” on posts #86-88 and #96 and would like a biblical response from the other side.

My main point here being, shouldn’t people who believe in “Sola scriptura” be able to support that belief by using the Bible alone?

Your thoughts?

Hi Jimmy,
I guess we Lutherans depend too much on tradition.

Jon

 

[Dokimas]

It is implied. If Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are the only source of doctrine, and this teaching cannot be found in the Scriptures, it becomes self-refuting.

You mean like the CC saying it’s the one and only church founded by Jesus?

 

[StTommyMore]

You mean like the CC saying it’s the one and only church founded by Jesus?

Except for the Jesus founded only one Church, and the theology of said CHurch is CAtholic, so what are you getting at?

 

[gtrenewed]

hello gtrenewed,

If you need to “rely on leaders leading by Scripture” than how that much different is that than Catholicism? Is this based on how far in time, you’ll go back to, “rely on (those) leaders”? Or, do they still have be alive? I don’t get it. Please explain. Thank you.

Paul used His example as one means to verify his authority. When Peter erred with the Judaizers, Paul held up the gospel to show his error.

The Gospel as recorded in Scripture is the ultimate leader judge. A leader is called by God and leads by reason of spiritual maturity.

Past leaders writings can help, but it is todays leader guided by Scripture that lead.

 

[StTommyMore]

Paul used His example as one means to verify his authority. When Peter erred with the Judaizers, Paul held up the gospel to show his error.

The Gospel as recorded in Scripture is the ultimate leader judge. A leader is called by God and leads by reason of spiritual maturity.

Past leaders writings can help, but it is todays leader guided by Scripture that lead.

That is supremely arrogant to think that ones own understanding is above those of the holy men of the past.

 

[Simka]

Would somebody please, simply post a list of the “Protestant verses” that supposedly support a belief in Sola scriptura?

First, Jimmy, you ought to better understand what a Protestant means by “Sola Scriptura”. It is not a doctrine that says the Bible alone is sufficient for all things to all people in all circumstances. It teaches that the Bible alone contains everything necessary for SALVATION ! And do you really need to have Scripture pointed out to you that supports that position ?

II Tim 3:15-17 is probably enough.

“I wish I could meet one Christian who attributed to the Bible the same authority that Jesus did!”

 

[StTommyMore]

First, Jimmy, you ought to better understand what a Protestant means by “Sola Scriptura”. It is not a doctrine that says the Bible alone is sufficient for all things to all people in all circumstances. It teaches that the Bible alone contains everything necessary for SALVATION ! And do you really need to have Scripture pointed out to you that supports that position ?

II Tim 3:15-17 is probably enough.

“I wish I could meet one Christian who attributed to the Bible the same authority that Jesus did!”

There as many different definitions of “Sola Scriptura” as there are denominations.

 

[Simka]

It is implied. If Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are the only source of doctrine, and this teaching cannot be found in the Scriptures, it becomes self-refuting.

Sola Scriptura DOES NOT say that Scripture is the only source of doctrine. It says that Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary FOR SALVATION. And this doctrine IS taught in the Bible.

---

“If only I could meet one Christian who attributes to the Bible the same authority that Jesus did!”

 

[StTommyMore]

Sola Scriptura DOES NOT say that Scripture is the only source of doctrine. It says that Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary FOR SALVATION. And this doctrine IS taught in the Bible.

---

“If only I could meet one Christian who attributes to the Bible the same authority that Jesus did!”

Like I said, it depends on which definition of SS you use…and no where does the Bible teach that Scriptures alone are sufficient.

 

[Simka]

There as many different definitions of “Sola Scriptura” as there are denominations.

I find that difficult to believe. Of course, you can set up as many straw men as you like, and knock them all down, but what have you accomplished?

Could you identify even one denomination that teaches as official doctrine - based on its doctrine of Sola Scriptura - that the Bible is its only source of doctrine? There are individuals, even within my own Anglican church, that are misguided enough to believe that. But it is not official church doctrine.