Why is Peter’s successor in Rome any more significant than his successor in Antioch?
oh! oh! I know the answer to that one. It is because the Pope has told us so.
Upvote
0
Why is Peter’s successor in Rome any more significant than his successor in Antioch?
You know, I was starting to write a longer reply explaining, again, the point you don't seem to get. But having said it several different times already and in different ways, I wonder how else to correct your misunderstanding and get you to see that Sola Scriptura is about the authority of God's word, not a a method by which everyone who reads the Bible is guaranteed to come up with the same interpretation of it.You gotta be kidding, we witness right here on CF forums sola scriptura conformist posters disagreeing on what they or their church interprets and believe on any certain bible verse say's or means all the time..... you included!
You know, I was starting to write a longer reply explaining, again, the point you don't seem to get. But having said it several different times already and in different ways, I wonder how else to correct your misunderstanding and get you to see that Sola Scriptura is about the authority of God's word, not a a method by which everyone who reads the Bible is guaranteed to come up with the same interpretation of it.
oh! oh! I know the answer to that one. It is because the Pope has told us so.
If a brother has something against another brother he is to go to him in person. If the problem is not resolved, then he is to bring two or three others. If they cannot resolve it then the matter is to be laid before the church (a larger body of believers) who will judge the matter.
The local church, of course.
If you suppose that the pillar and ground of truth rests with a self-professedly infallible leader of a huge religious bureaucracy, you are most assuredly wrong. It rests with Jesus Christ alone and His word, the Bible, alone.
It is akin to Sola Catechisma in the Catholic Church. How many varieties of Catholic thought have we encountered here at CF, especially on such significant doctrines as Purgatory?
Why is Peter’s successor in Rome any more significant than his successor in Antioch?
You know, I was starting to write a longer reply explaining, again, the point you don't seem to get. But having said it several different times already and in different ways, I wonder how else to correct your misunderstanding and get you to see that Sola Scriptura is about the authority of God's word, not a a method by which everyone who reads the Bible is guaranteed to come up with the same interpretation of it.
You can 'sigh' all you want, but the fact remains, your accusation is still unjustified.
I disagree - with good reason.Again, my answer (what, at least twice? I lost count.) was successfully presented.
Unfortunately for you, I see you are still struggling with reading comprehension if that description is what you have derived from my posts, either that or you just have a penchant for labelling.Unfortunately for you, it didn't feed your seemingly anti Catholic narrative.
You are limited by your own understanding of what you believe sola scriptura is, as Albion has attempted various times to point out to you, and it is to the point of becoming almost painful to watch.First off, just because you are limited to the unbiblical belief of sola scriptura, doesn't mean I am.
I was being kind, why give you any more ammunition to continue to embarrass yourself with by your distorted understanding.Secondly, couldn't help noticing you deflected/side-stepped providing what you believed with the bible.
And lastly, by not being able to provide it, you should at least try to make an attempt of not being so transparent of continually going to the old anti-Catholic play book, if you can't show it from the bible, deflect and turn to the page were it says.... "If you find yourself with a question you can't answer, just throw the Catholic Churches sex abuse scandal at them to deflect."
Must have been disappointed then!Ha-ha... I wouldn't go so far as calling it "desperate" but only to see which one of the many flavors and interpretations of Protestantism or non-denominational of said Scripture you would provide.
Well, I will stick with what Jesus say's about His Church. He said in Matt. 16:18, "You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," The Catholic Church!
I hope you ordered your Zucchetto as well.
As I stated in my previous post, I really do trust Him to lead me to where He wants me to be. I don’t put my faith and trust in men, but in HIM.So how do you know if any one of these churches are "teaching and preaching Christ' unadulterated, uncontaminated gospel message?" How do they get the authority to do so? Surely, as a Protestant you do not consider any of them to be infallible do you? If not, do you agree any one of these churches you are attending at any certain time could not be teaching and preaching ' unadulterated, uncontaminated gospel message?
Ahem....as you being a Protestant non-Catholic, I'm pretty sure the church that you happen to be attending at any certain time is not the Church referenced in these passages, for they didn't come into existence until the sixteenth century.
Well thank you. Now I'll be able to sleep at night.Nope, you can believe whatever you want.
I disagree - with good reason.
Unfortunately for you, I see you are still struggling with reading comprehension if that description is what you have derived from my posts, either that or you just have a penchant for labelling.
You are limited by your own understanding of what you believe sola scriptura is, as Albion has attempted various times to point out to you, and it is to the point of becoming almost painful to watch.
I was being kind, why give you any more ammunition to continue to embarrass yourself with by your distorted understanding.
Oh, but I ‘answered’ your question, you just didn’t like answer. Sound familiar? Not deflecting at all, as you never answered the question where Catholics are supposed to take this issue too when their church has proven unreliable, deceitful and very UN-Apostolistic when dealing with this issue.
Except He didn’t specify His Church as being “The Catholic Church!” – so no, you’re not sticking with He said at all, you’re sticking to what the Catholic church self proclaims about itself. Big difference!
Yes, and I’ve made sure that it is WHITE, to show that I’m the head honcho!
As I stated in my previous post, I really do trust Him to lead me to where He wants me to be. I don’t put my faith and trust in men, but in HIM.
As a non-Catholic Christian, and as I've already stated, I really do trust Him to lead me to where He wants me to be. I don’t put my faith and trust in men, but in HIM.
You can take it up with Him, when and if you do see Him.
Well thank you. Now I'll be able to sleep at night.
oh! oh! I know the answer to that one. It is because the Pope has told us so.
Yes, Jesus often cited Scripture as being authoritative and referred to it when being questioned by others.
Apparently the other 4 patriarchs disagreed since they excommunicated the bishop of Rome and all of them adopted the name Orthodox Catholic Church. So 4 of the 5 head bishops of the Catholic Church rejected Rome’s claim to supreme executive authority leaving only the bishop of Rome all alone in his claim. It’s definitely something to think about. Since the church was governed by ecumenical council can one member excommunicate all the others or can all the others excommunicate one member? In a council setting the majority rules not the minority and it also raises the question is it more likely that all but one bishop fell to corruption or that one bishop fell to corrupt and all the rest refused to go along with it?
But what's your point? Yes, Jesus obviously valued Scripture, and I'm sure that you consider the books that were canonized by the church to be Holy Scripture.Yes, Jesus cited Scripture, the Old Testament, but the New Testament was not yet determind, do you not agree?
However Albion, that's not what the question asked. The question was..... Did Jesus teach Sola Scriptura?
I have indeed read and considered those questions, but none of them seem actually to address the matter of the authority of divine revelation. Maybe you want to follow-up?A couple of other observations/questions that maybe you could address.
Could you cite the source of your information so I could relay it to my spiritual advisor when I see him?
Thanks, and Have a Blessed Day!
But what's your point? Yes, Jesus obviously valued Scripture, and I'm sure that you consider the books that were canonized by the church to be Holy Scripture.
But I do not have to play along with any verbal tricks when answering the question.
I can recognize when the attempt is being made in redefine Sola Scriptura in order to be able to denounce it.
I have indeed read and considered those questions, but none of them seem actually to address the matter of the authority of divine revelation.
Maybe you want to follow-up?
Even if we were to entertain that rather unusual theory--that Christ only considered the verses in Scripture that he referred to personally to be, in fact, Scripture--and also that the Church didn't have anything to do with canonizing Scripture, or if it did, it was mistaken...My point is, yes Jesus valued and cited Scripture, the Old Testament Scripture, for the New Testament had yet to be written. And yes, I do consider the books of the bible, Old Testament as well as the New Testament combined together by the Church as the Bible.... Holy Scripture. That my friend, was over three hundred years after Christ's Ascension. So we know for sure Jesus was not citing the same Bible as a whole that we have today.
IMO, you cannot really have it both ways in this discussion.And what Church do you believe it to be that canonized and compiled these writings to give us the Bible we have today?
So what do 'you' mean by sola scriptura? That’s really the key here. What do you mean by that word? Before one can believe in a doctrine, they would need a clear explanation of what the doctrine actually entails.
As for my self, I'd have to ask, and if it's not to painful, where does the Bible claim that all Christian doctrine is found in the Bible, which is the only infallible source for such doctrine? So basically where does the Bible teach sola scriptura? If you are going to try and convince anyone in this doctrine, then they surely going to believe the Bible teaches this doctrine. If it doesn’t, well, then that’s a nonstarter for believing in this doctrine.
Expecting an honest answer to a serious question and not getting one, does not equate to being "anti-Catholic". Perhaps you can ask your 'spiritual advisor' to help you out - what happens when Catholics take an issue to the Catholic church and the "Church" doesn't do anything about it, except prove itself to be unreliable, untrustworthy and corrupt, where should they turn too, what church should they take it too???Back to the old anti-Catholic play book again, huh? Go figure
Sure, why not!?So if He wasn't talking about the Catholic Church, are you suggesting He may have been talking about one of the thousand of different splinter churches that came about due to the reformation fifteen hundred years later? Or maybe the one you just so happen to be affiliated with this time around?
These bible verses all pertain to having/putting trust in God.As do Catholics, for we believe 100% what it says in Chronicles 5:20, Psalm 4:5, Psalm 9:10, Psalm 22:4 – 5, Proverbs 16:20, Proverbs 28:25-26, Proverbs 29:25, Isaiah12:2, Isaiah 26:3-4, Jeremiah 5,7, Jeremiah 39:18, Daniel 6:23, and Proverbs 3:5 . I could show more if you'd like.
The Westminster Confession of Faith - scripture final authority for the the church is something I could agree with.
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of Faith
As a non-Catholic Christian, and as I've already stated, I really do trust Him to lead me to where He wants me to be. I don’t put my faith and trust in men, but in HIM.
You're so funny........sigh....I'm not trying to convince anyone about this doctrine.....you're shadow boxing with yourself...derailing your own thread, perhaps in an attempt to deflect from actually answering my original question from zonkers ago?
Expecting an honest answer to a serious question and not getting one, does not equate to being "anti-Catholic". Perhaps you can ask your 'spiritual advisor' to help you out - what happens when Catholics take an issue to the Catholic church and the "Church" doesn't do anything about it, except prove itself to be unreliable, untrustworthy and corrupt, where should they turn too, what church should they take it too???
Sure, why not!?
These bible verses all pertain to having/putting trust in God.
These prayers below, based on the developed teaching of men from the Catholic church show where Catholics are taught to put their faith and trust and it's NOT in Him.
Even if we were to entertain that rather unusual theory--that Christ only considered the verses in Scripture that he referred to personally to be, in fact, Scripture
and also that the Church didn't have anything to do with canonizing Scripture, or if it did, it was mistaken...
it doesn't seem to do anything to make any man-made alternatives be Scripture's equal or superior to Scripture.
But I must also say that I am surprised to read you apparently writing off both Scripture (or some of it) and the Church's role in identifying which writings are Scripture.