Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[patricius79]

Yikes!
Whatever gave you THAT idea?
I have no problem with Jesus.
People that try to get between me and Him all have a problem.
.

I don't see why one would have a problem with the authority of the Papacy if they don't have a problem with the authority of the Apostles or the writers of Scripture. Luke 10:16 doesn't seem to fit with the Sola Scriptura idea, but it does fit with the idea that Christ sends people to authoritatively teach us the oral Word.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Pagan Rome rolled right into papal Rome

Either you are being willfully ignorant or you're not reading the posts

Don't let facts get in the way of reason...

No I don't... our faith does not condone it because it is pagan.

I believe I and other members have addressed you with a fair amount of respect in this discussion. However the majority of your replies have been snide and borderline rude. Instead of answering fair points that have been brought up in reply, your favored tactic appears to snotty remarks. And it's getting tiresome. The above posts look to me to on the brink of violating CF rules.

The next time you shoot your mouth off like the above in this thread, I will report you to a mod so that they can sort you out.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

None of those verses say that everything practiced by pagans was wrong.

Read them again.... this time pat attention to what they are saying not what you don't want them to say.

 

[patricius79]

Read them again.... this time pat attention to what they are saying not what you don't want them to say.

It sounds like you want me to read your traditions into the text. As far as burning incense: did the Jews burn incense?

As far as Sola Scriptura, one of the problems with this tradition is that neither it nor its Canon is in the Bible.

Do you know of a non-Catholic historic source of the N.T. Canon?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I believe I and other members have addressed you with a fair amount of respect in this discussion. However the majority of your replies have been snide and borderline rude. Instead of answering fair points that have been brought up in reply, your favored tactic appears to snotty remarks. And it's getting tiresome. The above posts look to me to on the brink of violating CF rules.

The next time you shoot your mouth off like the above in this thread, I will report you to a mod so that they can sort you out.

Sorry I hurt your feelings... why don't you try refuting what I wrote, this is the GT section... and don't play sanctimonious with me, your replies to many, many posts are dismissive, derisive and condescending... usually in partnership with your friend Wgw.

I reply in the way I do after the plain words of scripture I post are replied to, either obviously not even read, or dismissed out of hand as not relevant.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It sounds like you want me to read your traditions into the text.

Understanding scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is not tradition... it is a revelation of the truth that is written.

 

[n2thelight]

Tradition is the only way you know that what you have in your hands is Sacred Scripture. The authority of the Church is your first, last and only guarantee that the "Bible" is comprised of God's inspired word. Sola Scriptura is a logical dead end inasmuch as there is no divinely provided table of contents specifying which writings are inspired. Even the ancient Israelites couldn't agree on a universal canon... because their unity was derived from other things (eg, the Temple).

You'll always make that claim,you gave the world the bible

I no you'll did'nt but for this question

What about the Old Testament?

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't see why one would have a problem with the authority of the Papacy if they don't have a problem with the authority of the Apostles or the writers of Scripture. Luke 10:16 doesn't seem to fit with the Sola Scriptura idea, but it does fit with the idea that Christ sends people to authoritatively teach us the oral Word.

One could have a problem for a number of reasons.
Apostles had a chief apostle, and scripture does not name Peter as the one.

Heb.3

1. [1] Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

1Pet.5

1. [4] And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Pet.2

1. [6] Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

 

[patricius79]

Understanding scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is not tradition... it is a revelation of the truth that is written.

Right. But the Bible doesn't teach that everything the pagans did was bad. It doesn't teach Sola Scriptura. Or tell us which books are in the N.T. Canon (the Catholic Tradition does that).

Do you know if the Jews burned incense?

Maybe this passage addresses it: Exodus 30:34

 

[patricius79]

One could have a problem for a number of reasons.
Apostles had a chief apostle, and scripture does not name Peter as the one.

Heb.3

1. [1] Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

1Pet.5

1. [4] And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Pet.2

1. [6] Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

According to the Presbyterian author, Francis Wrighte Beare, the keys that Jesus Christ promised to Rock are the keys of the Chief Steward:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

I think that by giving Simon the name "Rock", Christ gave His authority to him, making him the Chief Steward of Christ.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

According to the Presbyterian author, Francis Wrighte Beare, the keys that Jesus Christ promised to Rock are the keys of the Chief Steward:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

I think that by giving Simon the name "Rock", Christ gave His authority to him, making him the Chief Steward of Christ.

Or by first saying that "it was not human understanding that gave you this but a revelation from the Father in heaven" what was being named as solid rock understanding as it is a product not of mankind but in fact a product of the Holy Spirit communicating to the spirit of fallen mankind. Thereby giving the authority to the Father thru the Holy Spirit as it relates to the Son whom Peter recognized as the Son of the living God.
All things in context.

 

[patricius79]

Or by first saying that "it was not human understanding that gave you this but a revelation from the Father in heaven" what was being named as solid rock understanding as it is a product not of mankind but in fact a product of the Holy Spirit communicating to the spirit of fallen mankind. Thereby giving the authority to the Father thru the Holy Spirit as it relates to the Son whom Peter recognized as the Son of the living God.
All things in context.

Right, and he says "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. And whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Hope I got the quotation exactly right).

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Right, and he says "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. And whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Hope I got the quotation exactly right).

Do you think he gave that right to Peter alone or to those who Peter represented, which is Christ`s church ie: individuals who are also partakers of the Spirit ... it seems to me that the debate can only be confined to those who think that Peter passed the authority on or to those who think that the Holy Spirit passed the authority on. And it seems to me that the Lord said the confines of the book are they which testify of Him...loosely translated.

 

[Goatee]

Either you are being willfully ignorant or you're not reading the posts... I showed you how pagan Rome and papal Rome are two sides of the same coin... both called themselves Pontifex Maximus. Do you think that was a term given the Catholic church by the protestants like you think the term 'Roman' was given to the Catholics? It's because the Catholic church is just pagan Rome part deux... history proves it.

You are lost in your interpretations as usual and hatred for all things Catholic!

 

[Goatee]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and historyof these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

Typical Catholic confusion.

hyperdulia Means Veneration, Look it up:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperdulia

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Do you think he gave that right to Peter alone or to those who Peter represented, which is Christ`s church ie: individuals who are also partakers of the Spirit ... it seems to me that the debate can only be confined to those who think that Peter passed the authority on or to those who think that the Holy Spirit passed the authority on. And it seems to me that the Lord said the confines of the book are they which testify of Him...loosely translated.

Psalms 40:7 relates to Christ doing God`s will according to OT prophesy according to the written word

Do you think he gave that right to Peter alone or to those who Peter represented, which is Christ`s church ie: individuals who are also partakers of the Spirit ... it seems to me that the debate can only be confined to those who think that Peter passed the authority on or to those who think that the Holy Spirit passed the authority on. And it seems to me that the Lord said the confines of the book are they which testify of Him...loosely translated.

Deuteronomy 17:14-15,
Limitations of Royal Authority
14 When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,” 15 you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community.
18 When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. 19 It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, 20 neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.”
46 and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day,
John 5:39
“You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.​

Psalms 40:7 indicates that Christ would do God's will according to the OT prophesies about Him, yet limited to the authority set forth. Deuteronomy 17:18 limits authority to that which is written.

 

[simonthezealot]

Paul writes, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37).

 

[thecolorsblend]

You'll always make that claim,you gave the world the bible

I no you'll did'nt but for this question

What about the Old Testament?

Which Old Testament? The canon accepted by the Pharisees? The one accepted by the Essenes which was different from the Pharisees? Or some other canon?

Or are you perhaps referring to the canon recognized by the Church, which Luther felt at perfect liberty to modify because it didn't fit with his inventions?

 

[patricius79]

Do you think he gave that right to Peter alone or to those who Peter represented, which is Christ`s church

I think the literal sense of the text is that the Church is built on Rock, the first Pope. I think that there can be an allegorical/mystical sense in which this applies to all Christians.

ie: individuals who are also partakers of the Spirit ... it seems to me that the debate can only be confined to those who think that Peter passed the authority on or to those who think that the Holy Spirit passed the authority on.

I think that seems like a false dichotomy. I know that the Popes and other Catholic Bishops succeeded from Rock and the other Apostles as the leaders of the Church.

And it seems to me that the Lord said the confines of the book are they which testify of Him...loosely translated.

I'm not sure what Scripture you are referring to. I know that in the Bible, the early Christians went by the oral Word.

 

[thecolorsblend]

hyperdulia Means Veneration, Look it up:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperdulia

Indeed. And the term exists to distinguish veneration given to Our Lady from latria, which is worship, given to God alone.