Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[patricius79]

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

We believe in Christ's once-for-all Sacrifice, and in what Scripture says about eating Christ's Flesh and Drinking His Blood.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

How about a claim to be on par with what you consider to be inerrant? Do you not consider scripture to be inerrant? If so, then an NT claim to being on par with, or to actually BE scripture should suffice, yes?
Brace for incoming!(lol)
1Cor14:
[37] 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.

Eph3
[3] How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
[4] Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
[5] Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Gal1:
11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
[12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I checked those out personally for you, but the article I am looking in for them also had this to say if you need more:

Thessalonians 4:8 - The message was originated by God, not by the men who penned it (v2). So, those who reject it are rejecting, not the men, but God.

2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All Scripture is inspired by God: not just the Old Testament, but all of it. It is profitable for teaching, reproof, instruction in righteousness and to provide us to all good works. In short, Scripture is what we claim it to be: a revelation of God's will to teach us how to live our lives. But is the New Testament "Scripture"?

1 Timothy 5:18 - The same writer quotes two passages that he calls "Scripture." One is from the Old Testament, and the other is from Luke 10:7. So, the New Testament is "Scripture" just like the Old Testament, and both are cited as authority that proves what we ought to practice.

2 Peter 3:15,16 - Peter referred to Paul's epistles as "Scripture," right along with other Scripture. We can appreciate the significance of this only when we understand what Peter and other inspired men mean by "Scripture." This same apostle, in 1:19-21, said Scriptures come from God, not man.

[2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; 3:14; Revelation 1:11,19,9; 22:18,19; chap. 2,3; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; Acts 15:22-29; 16:4,5; 1 Peter 5:12; 1 John 2:7-17,21,26; 2 John 5]

 

[Rick Otto]

We believe in Christ's once-for-all Sacrifice, and in what Scripture says about eating Christ's Flesh and Drinking His Blood.

Me too, just like Zwingli does.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

This dovetails with a study of the four horses in Revelation... the first horse, the white horse , was the church in the apostolic age, when it was still pure. The next horse, the red horse was the persecuted church until Constantine...

Also a study of the seven churches will also give the same history of the Christian church through the ages.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The terms dulia, hyperdulia and latria exist to express different ideas and intentions from one another. In terms of the practical and day-to-day, as a Catholic I would know more about the intentions of my heart than you do. I therefore cannot be held responsible for your apparent refusal to recognize the definitions of words even when the definitions are provided for you. You are, however, teetering on the brink of accusing me and others of idolatry... which would be a violation of CF rules. I would encourage you to tread carefully on this.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

We believe in Christ's once-for-all Sacrifice, and in what Scripture says about eating Christ's Flesh and Drinking His Blood.

We understand it as metaphorical... the flesh and blood of Christ being His Word. We are not called to be cannibals.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The terms dulia, hyperdulia and latria exist to express different ideas and intentions from one another. In terms of the practical and day-to-day, as a Catholic I would know more about the intentions of my heart than you do. I therefore cannot be held responsible for your apparent refusal to recognize the definitions of words even when the definitions are provided for you. You are, however, teetering on the brink of accusing me and others of idolatry... which would be a violation of CF rules. I would encourage you to tread carefully on this.

Ahhh, the wordsmith is at it again.

 

[patricius79]

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The terms dulia, hyperdulia and latria exist to express different ideas and intentions from one another. In terms of the practical and day-to-day, as a Catholic I would know more about the intentions of my heart than you do. I therefore cannot be held responsible for your apparent refusal to recognize the definitions of words even when the definitions are provided for you. You are, however, teetering on the brink of accusing me and others of idolatry... which would be a violation of CF rules. I would encourage you to tread carefully on this.

I agree. And I'm not sure we are staying on topic either. I would love to talk about the Mother of God, the highest of creatures, here. But the purpose of this thread is to discuss the foundations of Christian doctrine.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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.

Don't catholics believe the pope to be infallable? How would you explain the crusades where millions on Muslims were slaughtered by crusaders who believed that they would be completely absolved by all sin? Who had this belief because the pope said "with absolute infallibility " that it was true?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

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.

It's not an oral tradition, it's scriptural, unlike many of your Traditions of the Catholic Church.

When scripture claims that it's inspired by God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness in order to make a person of God thoroughly furnished unto all good works that's good enough for me as to the authority claimed. When God has given His word as the sword for our warfare, I would question His judgement if it were any less than inerrant.

 

[Albion]

That is what it means. Name one case of a precedent that's not a precedent

Oh, they're very common. The Marian doctrines are good examples. Anything that's said of Eve is transferred to and applied to Mary, even though they don't apply to her. But she's the 'New Eve,' you see, so that's a blank check for comparing the two women in EVERY way.

Since she carried Jesus for nine months, she's been predicted by the Ark of the Covenant. They both carried God, so.... That's "carried" in quite different ways, but no matter.

You gave us one example yourself a little while ago by saying that when Gabriel said "Hail, full of grace" -- which even Catholic Bibles translate as "Found favor with God" -- you compare her to a gas tank and, volia -- there's no room in a spacial sense "in her" for sin, as though it comes in gallons and is stored in us sinners.

The examples are many. We hear them here all the time (depending on the thread, of course).

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Um, that would be here -

Mark 10:1 Getting up, He went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.


2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Bad example. Would you like to try again?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You are, however, teetering on the brink of accusing me and others of idolatry... which would be a violation of CF rules. I would encourage you to tread carefully on this.

Well I personally don't think it is fair to say that Catholics are practicing idolatry. I believe they are simply told what to believe and to believe it without question. Even if it does contradict the bible. Because "the Church teaches that 'the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ." [LG 20 # 2.] Catholic Catechism, par. 862

Translation : if you don't believe us you don't believe God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Folks call the sin of adultery "having an affair" and the practice of homosexuality is now called an "alternative lifestyle" the names of sin changes to the more glorfied version of whatever thing. Worship of graven images is not quite full blown worship of them (even though praying and kneeling before them (censing them) etc but is venerating them (a lower form of worship (sort, kinda, but not really)

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Did anyone read my history lesson on the Catholic church on #2520? Please don't take my word for it. I would invite anyone to do a fact check on it. I am curious to hear what anyone has to say. It only shakes the entire motives and foundation of the Catholic church thus proving that Scriptura is the only legitimate foundation for a christian.

 

[patricius79]

It's not an oral tradition, it's scriptural, unlike many of your Traditions of the Catholic Church.

When scripture claims that it's inspired by God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness in order to make a person of God thoroughly furnished unto all good works that's good enough for me as to the authority claimed. When God has given His word as the sword for our warfare, I would question His judgement if it were any less than inerrant.

Hi Cassia,

I appreciate your sincerity. You see Scripture as being the Word of God, and Tradition as not being the Word of God. I think you see Scripture as standing alone. I see Scripture as part of the Word of God, which is Tradition (the source of the N.T. Canon). Some relevant verses are 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2, 1 Thessalonians 2:13,, and 2 John 12, which talk about how we should hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter. Whereas you see the Catholic Church as relying on oral traditions, I believe that Protestants rely on oral traditions just as much. I think we do agree though that Scripture is the inspired, Written Word of God.

Hope you enjoy a blessed night,

Pat

 

[thecolorsblend]

Ahhh, the wordsmith is at it again.

If understanding simple concepts and the definitions of words makes me a wordsmith, pass me a keyboard.

 

[Rick Otto]

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The terms dulia, hyperdulia and latria exist to express different ideas and intentions from one another. In terms of the practical and day-to-day, as a Catholic I would know more about the intentions of my heart than you do. I therefore cannot be held responsible for your apparent refusal to recognize the definitions of words even when the definitions are provided for you. You are, however, teetering on the brink of accusing me and others of idolatry... which would be a violation of CF rules. I would encourage you to tread carefully on this.

Yes, it does work that way, and I spent the first 18 yrs of my life as a Roman Catholic, and the intentions of your heart are made clear more than you are aware of. The Catholic Encyclopedia definition of worship includes latria, dulia AND hyper-dulia for Mary.

I wouldn't even PRESUME to be held responsible for your refusal to acknowledge the truth cited from RC sources, under ANY circumstances.

Spare me the bluster of your empty threats. It has nothing to do with your heart or its intentions. It has everything to do with one of you denying Mary is worshipped. So man up to your own church's doctrine, and definitions.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Don't catholics believe the pope to be infallable?

He can express an opinion concerning, for example, political issues but the faithful are permitted to have an opinion of their own. He is infallible only when speaking to matters of faith and morals.

How would you explain the crusades where millions on Muslims were slaughtered by crusaders who believed that they would be completely absolved by all sin? Who had this belief because the pope said "with absolute infallibility " that it was true?

I regard the Crusades as century of Islamic aggression that the western world finally responded to with the Pope allowing it as a defensive measure.

Forgiveness of sin is given to those who ask for it. As a Christian, surely you agree with that, right?

Well I personally don't think it is fair to say that Catholics are practicing idolatry. I believe they are simply told what to believe and to believe it without question. Even if it does contradict the bible. Because "the Church teaches that 'the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ." [LG 20 # 2.] Catholic Catechism, par. 862

Translation : if you don't believe us you don't believe God.

Actually we're taking Our Lord at His word.

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
-- St. Luke 10:16 (DRA)

 

[Rick Otto]

Um, that would be here -

Mark 10:1 Getting up, He went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.


2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Bad example. Would you like to try again?

I doubt you will receive a thank you for the bible study.