Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Rick Otto]

Ahhh, the wordsmith is at it again.

I found that a very charitable assessment.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

He is infallible only when speaking to matters of faith and morals.

And the killing of millions of Muslims is not a moral issue?

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.

Reread history, it was absolutely not defensive. It was an excuse for the church and kings to grab power and wealth.

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

I can absolutely forgive a transgression that someone made against me but I cannot forgive sin. Because sin a transgression against God. Who are you, the priest, the pope, or anyone for that matter have the authority to forgive and absolve someone's transgressions against God? That is between the individual and God.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

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

Yes I see scripture as being the word of God but I don't confine the Holy Spirit to limits either. However anything that does not line up with scripture is speculation at best because I don't believe that God works outside of it. God limits Himself in that aspect so that we can have confidence in our faith. He also works within the whole scope of the bible to perfect His Word to us. When something can only be traced thru Traditions vs traced thru the bible, well, one is truth and the other speculation. If understanding of truth is not shared by all then truth does not become less than truth. So in that sense scripture does stand alone and is not open to private interpretation. No matter what you or I tend to interpret it as.

Ditto on the blessed night!

 

[Wgw]

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.

Now on this point, I feel obliged to raise these objections:

• The Orthodox also use the doulia/latria distinction, and beyond that, hyperdoulia is used in regard to the veneration offered to St. Mary.
• What we are talking about is latria vs. doulia; worship is an English language term which has been used in an indiscrete way
• The Catholic Encyclopedia is not only out of date, but also, contrary to the belief of several members, not an official doctrinal expression of the Roman church.

Now I would assume/hope you are not going to go down the road of accusing the Orthodox of eidolatria or mariolatria.

 

[thecolorsblend]

And the killing of millions of Muslims is not a moral issue?

Such would vary on a case by case basis. Neither of us is any position to speak authoritatively to the death of every single Islamic invader at the hands of every single Crusader.

Reread history, it was absolutely not defensive. It was an excuse for the church and kings to grab power and wealth.

I think you have a great many myths and misunderstandings concerning the Crusades. These links may be helpful in clearing that all up for you.

Why the Crusaders Went.
http://www.catholic.com/blog/steve-weidenkopf/why-the-crusaders-went

Were the Crusades Just Wars?
http://www.catholic.com/blog/steve-weidenkopf/were-the-crusades-just-wars

Those should be a good starting point in clarifying things for you.

I can absolutely forgive a transgression that someone made against me but I cannot forgive sin. Because sin a transgression against God. Who are you, the priest, the pope, or anyone for that matter have the authority to forgive and absolve someone's transgressions against God? That is between the individual and God.

Only God can forgive sins? That sounds oddly familiar somehow.

And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.
And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?
Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?
But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the man sick of palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.
And he arose, and went into his house.
And the multitude seeing it, feared, and glorified God that gave such power to men.
-- St. Matthew 9:2-8 (DRA)

The Pharisees agreed with you that only God can forgive sins but to prove them wrong, Our Lord healed someone and the people watching interpreted that as Our Lord demonstrating that at least certain men have or will have the authority to forgive sins. But to be on the safe side, Our Lord repeated it during His ministry:

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
-- St. Matthew 16:19 (DRA)

And in case twice wasn't enough, He repeated it again after His resurrection.

Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
-- St. John 20:23 (DRA)

So then on what basis can you say that the Church doesn't have the ability to forgive (or not forgive) sins?

 

[Wgw]

The main tragedy of the Crusades came in the form of Eastern Christian deaths, frankly.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

• The Catholic Encyclopedia is not only out of date, but also, contrary to the belief of several members, not an official doctrinal expression of the Roman church.

Seems awfully convenient that when the Catholic publications are used against her, they are, 'out of date', 'taken out of context', or the words are attempted to be remixed to say something other than what was simply and clearly stated.

Also, whether or not the members understand what their church teaches is not the point... hopefully, those within the system, when exposed to these truths will study them for themselves and make the logical conclusion to 'come out of her my people'

 

[Rick Otto]

Now on this point, I feel obliged to raise these objections:

• The Orthodox also use the doulia/latria distinction, and beyond that, hyperdoulia is used in regard to the veneration offered to St. Mary.
• What we are talking about is latria vs. doulia; worship is an English language term which has been used in an indiscrete way
• The Catholic Encyclopedia is not only out of date, but also, contrary to the belief of several members, not an official doctrinal expression of the Roman church.

Now I would assume/hope you are not going to go down the road of accusing the Orthodox of eidolatria or mariolatria.

Of course not. Not unless I find it explicitly entered in an Orthodox Encyclopedia, and I'm sure I wouldn't if one exists.

But hundreds of terms get used discretely without that fact becoming a basis for denying the truth of it.

Is there a specific indiscretion, a excitable instance of indiscretion with which to illustrate the indiscretion? Perhaps a "watershed moment" in history you can relate that iterates what the indiscretion is? I am fully aware of popular ignorance of the distinction in degree of worship, but I see that as a VERY lame excuse to deny worship of Mary over.

 

[Wgw]

Of course not. Not unless I find it explicitly entered in an Orthodox Encyclopedia, and I'm sure I wouldn't if one exists.

But hundreds of terms get used discretely without that fact becoming a basis for denying the truth of it.

Is there a specific indiscretion, a excitable instance of indiscretion with which to illustrate the indiscretion? Perhaps a "watershed moment" in history you can relate that iterates what the indiscretion is? I am fully aware of popular ignorance of the distinction in degree of worship, but I see that as a VERY lame excuse to deny worship of Mary over.

Within the Orthodox church, the distinction between latria and doulia is of extreme didactic importance. It is why for example we do not have eikons depicting God the Father.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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.

Provide the exact quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, please.

 

[Rick Otto]

Within the Orthodox church, the distinction between latria and doulia is of extreme didactic importance. It is why for example we do not have eikons depicting God the Father.

Still not enough justification to deny worshipping Mary.
In fact, if the distinctions are important enough, denial of employing them is... problematic.

 

[Rick Otto]

Provide the exact quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, please.

I already did.

"The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; fromworth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria.This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
• When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, ofangels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worshipdependent on the first, and relative, in so far as ithonours the creatures of God for their peculiar relationswith Him; it is designated by theologians as the worshipof dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants ofGod, that their service to Him is their title to ourveneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, andBouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
• 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)."

http://newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

Want respect? Put "I worship Mary" on your tagline or signature.


If I were you, I wouldn't deny it, but I would iterate that the RC has a "broader definition of "worship" that might serve to reduce the shock to protestant sensibilities". I offer that as a friendly suggestion to deal with the terminology problem. I feel offended or at least misrepresented when called a Calvinist and respond with, "I agree with his soteriology but part ways with him on sacramentology (I favor Zwingli) and ecclesiology, especially in the area of church discipline (to cover his Servitus problem).

 

[Fireinfolding]

Sounds like a mouth full of marbles

 

[Rick Otto]

Sounds like a mouth full of marbles

Yep,... but say that with affection. Latin is our "Mother Tongue" (that said without any reference to Mary. )

 

[Wgw]

Yep,... but say that with affection. Latin is our "Mother Tongue" (that said without any reference to Mary. )

Actually, its not. Your mother tongue is ancient Indo-Iranian.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yep,... but say that with affection. Latin is our "Mother Tongue" (that said without any reference to Mary. )

That was cute Mother tongue, I laughed when I found this

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Such would vary on a case by case basis. Neither of us is any position to speak authoritatively to the death of every single Islamic invader at the hands of every single Crusader.

The 'church' sanctioned them so they are held responsible for the outcomes... just like the inquisitions. Would you pin the morality for a war on the individual soldiers or the country they represent?

I think you have a great many myths and misunderstandings concerning the Crusades. These links may be helpful in clearing that all up for you.

Why the Crusaders Went.
http://www.catholic.com/blog/steve-weidenkopf/why-the-crusaders-went

Were the Crusades Just Wars?
http://www.catholic.com/blog/steve-weidenkopf/were-the-crusades-just-wars

Those should be a good starting point in clarifying things for you.

Hahaha... that's hilarious, providing sources for an argument from the one accused of the offense. Sounds like the 'history is written by the victors' truth.

Only God can forgive sins? That sounds oddly familiar somehow.

And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.
And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?
Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?
But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the man sick of palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.
And he arose, and went into his house.
And the multitude seeing it, feared, and glorified God that gave such power to men.
-- St. Matthew 9:2-8 (DRA)

Really? It's obvious from reading that text that the multitude was ignorant of who Christ was at that point and ascribed to Him the mere title of a man, not knowing He was also God. Strike that one from the list... no proof of your argument here.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
-- St. Matthew 16:19 (DRA)

Here is another over used fallacious claim... in case you guys don't really know, I'll spell it out. We all have the keys to the kingdom of Heaven... through the teachings of gospel of Christ. Binding and loosing is another way of saying that whatever I do here on earth, is recorded in Heaven, for my salvation or my destruction.

Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
-- St. John 20:23 (DRA)

Another oft misquoted text, although I will admit, this one is not as easy as the others to gain correct understanding. Only by reading and understanding all scripture pertaining to this subject can we get a clearer view of it.
The key to understanding the meaning of John 20:23 lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world. Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them. As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes. Jesus said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).

So then on what basis can you say that the Church doesn't have the ability to forgive (or not forgive) sins?

See above...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

When viewed through the lens of Christ as the center, the Bible becomes focused to His ministry, his purpose, His Glory. When viewed through the lens of an organisation as the center, the Bible becomes focused on their ministry, their purpose and their glory.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

When viewed through the lens of Christ as the center, the Bible becomes focused to His ministry, his purpose, His Glory. When viewed through the lens of an organisation as the center, the Bible becomes focused on their ministry, their purpose and their glory.

I have to agree with this statement because the focus of a Christian is Christ and if the focus is on Mary, some cause etc and not on Christ then Who is being fooled. The self is being fooled.

Hebrews 10:7 (KJV)
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.​

For those who's focus is not on Christ then it's very easy to downplay God's word and replace it with an other so as not to be accountable to Christ, but in the long run that is not possible.

 

[n2thelight]

The facts of history prove that the Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until several hundred years
after the New Testament was written. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church could not, in point of fact, be "the mother of the New Testament" nor could it have "existed before the New Testament." Therefore, the writers of the New Testament could not have been Roman Catholics!