Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[EastCoastRemnant]

I love the Hail Mary. Most of it is right out of the Bible. And all of it is part of the Word of God.

Well, part of it is.

Catholicism seems like it is like horseshoes or hand grenades... if it's close, it's good enough.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Certainly not. Have you forgotten the operable premises--

1. "Word of God" means customs, legends, sanctioned opinion, etc., not the Bible.
2. If it's NOT in the Bible, this means that the Bible approves of it.

That seems to be their twisted logic... I don't even think JW or the Mormons are that out of touch.

 

[Rick Otto]

Which is different from Latria, which is the worship of God.

He denied RCs worship Mary.
You can't handle it, so you try to change the subject.
I get that.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Great point you bring up here... I don't seem to recall after this incident, Moses bowing and praying in front of a bush ever again to worship God. So please, explain your connection between the two... Moses communing with God at the burning bush and kneeling in front of a statue or image of Mary.

Perhaps he could have sculpted an image of a burning bush and prayed to that. You know....to pray to God through the bush.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That seems to be their twisted logic... I don't even think JW or the Mormons are that out of touch.

Now I wouldn't go that far.. well at least the Mormons actually stick with the teachings of the Book of Mormon and not change it up as they go.....wait. I think they have changed the BOM a few times. Eh..

 

[Fireinfolding]

Perhaps he could have sculpted an image of a burning bush and prayed to that. You know....to pray to God through the bush.

I was under the impression that the burning bush was Mary.

If so they do sculp her

 

[Rick Otto]

Where is that doctrine explicitly stated in the Bible? After all, David and Solomon had multiple wives and concubines. In other words, different minds could embrace polygamy or monogamy, because the doctrine is not explicit in the Bible. Therefore, sola scriptura is not right.

Instead of Adam and Eve, you pick David's spoiled son, as example.
It would be sad if it wasn't devious.

The Bible is just as explicit about the Trinity.

Therefore, YOU are not right... on more than one level.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I'm sure you've met all the Catholics on our planet. Pope Francis is on fire for Jesus. I remember something Jesus said about a prophet in his own place being ineffective, so there you go with your family...

No Pope Frank is on fire for his agenda...

 

[Rick Otto]

hyperdulia Means Veneration, Look it up:

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

I DID look it up. In THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA no less.

You have aposticized on this one point, or you made a mis-statement.
Choose your mistake and own it.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I think Catholics interpret the Bible mystically...

Finally, a true statement....

 

[Rick Otto]

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

It is all worship, distinguished merely by degree. Stop pretending it isn't.

 

[Rick Otto]

Finally, a true statement....

He played the wild card. It can be anything he wants it to be and then some.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Because they sacrifice Jesus every Mass with the Eucharist.

Sorry , I forgot... how sad their delusion that they believe a lie.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No Pope Frank is on fire for his agenda...

I hear the pope gave the OK on Muslims. They can be saved despite the fact they reject Christ. Ironic because the church believes it is the one true church and if you are not catholic you risk going to hell. Oh well. All non-Catholics (except Muslims) are likely going to hell.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Is it just me, or do some of the RC members on here reek of Jesuit influence?

 

[Fireinfolding]

It is all worship, distinguished merely by degree. Stop pretending it isn't.

Thats how I am seeing it, and heres a few for others to look at, just springboarding this off your post, not so much for you but whoever.

One word for worship in Hebrew is shachah # 7812 the other in Aramaic cĕgid # 5457 both are used interchangebly in respects to what not to do with images. Examples of this are found in Exodus 32:8 where shachah is used and in Dan 3:10 where cĕgid is used

The word Paul uses in respects to the bowing of the knee to the image of Baal includes in its definition "religious veneration" in Rom 11:4 the word kamptō # 2578 Outside of Rom 11:4 is used in respects to an image of Baal but in truth used 3 other times as belonging only to God as is also shown in Rom 14:11, Ephes 3:14 and Phil 2:10.

One of the Greek words for worship, is proskyneō # 4352 an example of which is shown in Rev 22:8 in respects to a man falling down before an angel and also a man falling down before the apostle Peter in Acts 10:35-36. It is also used in respects to figures they had made in Acts 7:43. But in the verse before it is used interchangably with the word latreuō # 3000 Acts 7:42 is the same word used in respects to serving the creature" more then the Creator (unto which) He gave them up to in Rom 1:25 . Also in Acts 7:42 another word for worship which is sebazomai # 4573 is used (which means to to fear, be afraid, honour religiously, or to worship) even the host of heaven (in that example). That which they gave up to the host of heaven and the creature ( which also belongs to God only) even as Jesus himself confirms in Mat 4:10

And yet another word for worship is found in ones respects to visible devotions which Paul tells them to repent of as is shown in Acts 17:23. Here would be the word eusebeō # 2151 which means to dutifully regard (which is what they were actually doing) but only in respect to these particular visible devotions. The word is used twice and shown (in the truth) as belonging to family and in respects to showing piety at home an example of which is shown in 1Ti 5:4 So it seems to be a displaced form of regarding one thing (such as handcrafted "visible devotions" and falsely doing so) over and against the other (where their regard should truly be placed). The last one I had found is called "will worship" or ethelothrēskia # 1479 and I only see that used once in Col 2:23 in a negative sense. Thats all I have, I have to update this.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Two main reason that prove the pope and the church are not infallable.

1. The cursades.
2. The inquisition.

 

[patricius79]

What do you mean? The canon is scripture and it's the point of reference any doctrine must be based on. In fact it's SS that makes anything else suspect and speculation.

I think that is an oral tradition that you believe. As far as I know, none of the New Testament texts claim to be inerrant. And the list of books that belong in the N.T.--which is called the New Testament Canon--is not given in Scripture. The only historic source of this authoritative list is the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

 

[patricius79]

Two main reason that prove the pope and the church are not infallable.

1. The cursades.
2. The inquisition.

I think that is like pointing to the sins of our own lives and then claiming that the Holy Spirit is not with us, and despairing of ever being able to find the truth.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

A brief history of the catholic church.

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”