500 years of protesting what?

FireDragon76 · Nov 7, 2017

Mountainmike said:
By your statement - You clearly have no idea what papal infallibility is or means.

Yes, I do. It means the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra, speaks infallibly. The problem is that there is no infallible list of infallible decrees of the Pope, even Catholics cannot agree on what is infallible. In practice it's just an ad hoc appeal to traditionalism... which is unreasonable and unwise. Much better to have ones conscience be bound solely by the Word of God.

2/ A misunderstanding of the early church both the doctrineand how Jesus instructed the faith handed down

I don't think so. Lutherans do engage in patristic studies, moreso than any other Protestant denomination except perhaps for the Anglicans. And yet, we do not regard the church fathers as infallible in all matters, much less do we uncritically accept their interpretations of the Scriptures.

... that scripture is only the word of God IF you take the right meaning of it - you dont get to choose what the words mean, and any interpretation compatible is not necessarily the truth! Which is why catholics teach not sola scriptura but sola dei verbum.

I don't disagree. But the Word of God, the hermeneutic by which we understand teh Scriptures, is Christ himself.

I am leaving the thread now, just requoting Newman.

I respect Newman alot but in many ways he never really left his evangelical faith. And by the standards of the typical Roman Catholic, he was a liberal and a modernist who was controversial for a century after his death.

Except as I remarked - those who preach OSAS - product of the "instant quick fix, fastr food society" we now live , who I think wholly mislead those who follow them. If "do this one thing, be saved forever" was enough...I ask them why did Jesus ask us to do and not do , so many things ?

Few Protestants actually preach "OSAS". Lutherans certainly do not.

BobRyan · Nov 7, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
Yes, I do. It means the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra, speaks infallibly. The problem is that there is no infallible list of infallible decrees of the Pope, even Catholics cannot agree on what is infallible. In practice it's just an ad hoc appeal to traditionalism... which is unreasonable and unwise. Much better to have ones conscience be bound solely by the Word of God.

In fact Clement XIV makes a statement "we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power..." -- and then declares the Jesuit order to be forever abolished

Apparently that "also" is not "infallible" or "ex cathedra" from the looks of how that turned out.

BobRyan · Nov 7, 2017

Mountainmike said:
you should study ignatius- because Jesus chose apostles in succession to hand down the faith

there is not one example of Apostolic succession in the NT - apart from the succession of Judas.

And that is true even in the case of the death of the Apostle James -- no Apostolic successor chosen to replace him.

BobRyan · Nov 7, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
And some of the points you raise are less problematic from a Lutheran standpoint, and some objectionable (we aren't sabbatarians, and would regard the stance on the issue as a kind of vain enthusiasm).

1. "Points you raise" -- I assume this is a reference to the OP

2. "sabbatarians" -- is God "sabbatarian" according to Luther??

In any case I have never accused Luther of keeping God's Sabbath.

I think his views are something like the following loose interpretation --

The Third Commandment

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it. (when not editing/downsizing it??)

=======================================================

Luther's statement on the TEN Commandments in his "Small Catechism".

http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#tencommandments

Luther’s Small Catechism by Dr. Martin Luther

Martin Luther: "Small Catechism" -

TEN COMMANDMENTS:

I. The Ten Commandments

As the head of the family should teach them in a simple way to his household.

The First Commandment.

Thou shalt have no other gods.

What does this mean?--Answer.
We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things.

...

What Does God Say of All These Commandments?

Answer.

He says thus (Exod. 20:5f): I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

What does this mean?--Answer.

God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.

http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#tencommandments

BobRyan · Nov 7, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
Protestants don't all believe or practice the same things, though, and some Protestants are much more similar to the Romans than to other Protestants. This is obviously true for Lutherans and Anglicans. And some of the points you raise are less problematic from a Lutheran standpoint, and some objectionable (we aren't sabbatarians, and would regard the stance on the issue as a kind of vain enthusiasm).

Tony Palmer made the case with Kenneth Copeland and some other charismatic groups - that since the Lutherans had come to terms with Catholic doctrine -- the entire Protestant Reformation must now be over. ...

But as you point out.. there are more differences between Protestantism and Catholicism than the differences that Lutherans today have with Catholicism.

Root of Jesse · Nov 7, 2017

Ah, digging up the old stuff, eh???

BobRyan said:
Since there is at least some focus this month on the reformation, the protestant reformation and how wide the GAP is between protestant doctrine and Catholicism - lets work out some of the details.

While Luther may have "started" with 95 objections to selling indulgences.. that is not the sum total of the "gap" between protestantism and catholicism.

Foundational in Protestantism is this - (at the very least).

1. Sola Scriptura - Acts 17:11 (testing all doctrine and practice against the standard of the Bible instead of Bible+traditions-of-men). Col 2:22 "—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men"

Acts 17:11 says they listened to the word as well as read the Scriptures. This is what Catholics do, to this day. Strike 1.

2. Grace alone (mankind is saved by grace through faith - Ephesians 2) not saved by powers of sacrament or powers in a "rite" or ritual plus ...

We agree-grace alone, which inspires faith and works. Belief, you may know, is a work.

3. Faith alone - justified by faith alone - meaning that when the lost person comes to Christ - they are saved not on the basis of good works done as a lost person - but saved by faith alone.

Yeah, not sure where you found that in Catholic doctrine.

4. Christ alone - "there is no OTHER name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" -- so then no earthly priest or pope stands between us and Christ who is the "one mediator between God and man" 1 Tim 2:5-6

Once again, you're misstating Catholic doctrine. Pope or priest do not stand between us and Christ.

We come boldly to the throne of grace - directly to God in prayer. No earthly mediator or Pope between.

(And of course both sides agree that all the glory goes to God alone for the plan of salvation)

===============================================

I am not sure that whatever meetings are going on this month and next .. in Germany are going to find agreement on the points listed above.

In addition there is in the "gap" between the Bible and catholicism

1. Prayers to the dead -- called "the Dead in Christ" in 1Thess 4.

Forgetting what it says in 2 Maccabees

2. Claims to confect the "body, blood,soul and divinity of Christ in the mass" - by contrast Christ was offered up "once for all" Hebrews 10 and no earthly priest has been given the powers to confect the "body, blood,soul and divinity of Christ in the mass"

We don't re-sacrifice Christ...

3. The "doctrine of discovery" regarding what Catholics are allowed to do to the natives of newly discovered lands in cases where those natives refuse to convert to Catholicism

Forgetting "Go out into all the world baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.." And we don't force it on anyone. Never did.

4. Infallibility of Catholic church councils and popes.

Where's it against Councils and popes in the Bible?

5. Authorizing violence against Christians for "thought crimes" for doctrinal differences with the Papacy.

No such thing. Maybe you're thinking of Scientology...

6. Editing the Sabbath Commandment to point it to week-day-1

Didn't touch the Sabbath. We worship on day 1.

7. Apocryphal books injected into the Bible canon -- (books that even Jerome declared were not legitmately part of the Canon of scripture)

Nope. Jerome wasn't infallible, and he changed his tune. You folks strip those books.

8. The Pope's claim to in any way be the head or leader of any denomination on earth - other than his own denomination - the Roman Catholic Church.

He's the head of Christianity, as Christ named him.

9. Purgatory -- does not exist according to the Bible but the RCC promotes it anyway.

It might not be in your Bible (it is), but it's in the Catholic Bible...

10. Praying to angels

There's no prohibition to ask anyone to pray for us.

11. Bowing down before images to pray to and to promise to serve those whom they represent.

Nothing against this in Scripture, either.

12. The idea that Catholic Church tradition holds equal weight to scripture or that an understanding of scripture that does not agree with the RCC is by definition incorrect.

nm

13. Monastic celibate orders that appear to have promoted certain forms of sin at some level within the group.

Elaborate, please

14. "power" in the bishop or the priest to give sacraments power to mark the soul, or effect the New Birth, or forgive sins.. etc.

Every sacrament is an invokation of the Holy Spirit, the real enactor of the Sacraments.

I am probably missing a few of the topics in "the gap" between Catholicism and Protestantism
==================================

So then what are the odds that the folks in Germany are ever going to be able to close the gap on such key doctrinal points of difference?

============================= finding
Interesting that after 11 pages of discussion on this thread - it boils down to "sola scriptura" -- the posters here seem to acts as if getting protestants to toss the Bible under the boot of man-made tradition... would narrow the gap would narrow. (even though protestants would use their own magisterium's man-made-tradition in that scenario not the Papacy's)

Still I think they may have a point there - it would most certainly narrow the gap.

(don't forget this post... Oct 29, 2017 #5

Same old stuff, different day. You guys never learn.

BobRyan · Nov 7, 2017

Root of Jesse said:
Ah, digging up the old stuff, eh???Acts 17:11 says they listened to the word as well as read the Scriptures. This is what Catholics do, to this day. Strike 1.We agree-grace alone, which inspires faith and works. Belief, you may know, is a work.Yeah, not sure where you found that in Catholic doctrine.Once again, you're misstating Catholic doctrine. Pope or priest do not stand between us and Christ.Forgetting what it says in 2 MaccabeesWe don't re-sacrifice Christ...Forgetting "Go out into all the world baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.." And we don't force it on anyone. Never did.Where's it against Councils and popes in the Bible?No such thing. Maybe you're thinking of Scientology...Didn't touch the Sabbath. We worship on day 1.Nope. Jerome wasn't infallible, and he changed his tune. You folks strip those books.He's the head of Christianity, as Christ named him.It might not be in your Bible (it is), but it's in the Catholic Bible...There's no prohibition to ask anyone to pray for us.Nothing against this in Scripture, either.nmElaborate, pleaseEvery sacrament is an invokation of the Holy Spirit, the real enactor of the Sacraments.
Same old stuff, different day. You guys never learn.

You have posted your old stuff here ... thanks for those words..

you said

Root of Jesse said:
Ah, digging up the old stuff, eh???Acts 17:11 says they listened to the word as well as read the Scriptures.

But Acts 17:11 actually says this -- by contrast

"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

As we saw here

BobRyan said:
And since that "sola scriptura" point from the OP will keep coming up this thread -- might as well get this on "page one".

in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact --

"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The model some people use does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment they conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" their story "ends".

And then of course we have this from Christ Himself --

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact --

"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The anti-sola-scriptura model does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment it finds that "well it is a church Apostle that is speaking" or "well it is an angel from heaven that it speaking" it immediately goes for the "we-say-so" over the "sola scriptura" test.

Root of Jesse · Nov 7, 2017

BobRyan said:
You have posted your old stuff here ... thanks for those words..

you said

But Acts 17:11 actually says this -- by contrast

"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

As we saw here

You left off part of it. It says "These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so."

FireDragon76 · Nov 8, 2017

I don't think the Protestant Reformation is over. There are still differences between us and the Roman Catholics.

Lutherans have always been more liberal than Catholics, going back to Luther himself. Whereas, Catholics feel the need to uphold a strong sense of traditionalism, for Lutherans the doctrine of justification is what our theology is centered around.

BobRyan · Nov 8, 2017

Root of Jesse said:
You left off part of it. It says "These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so."

no it does not say that.

Acts 17
2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds

Acts 18
4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

And Christ makes the same sola-scriptura point in Mark 7.

Mark 7:6-13
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - this text should not exist!

It is the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible which says "'they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO". Acts 17:11

The point remains.

Root of Jesse · Nov 9, 2017

BobRyan said:
no it does not say that.

Acts 17
2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds

Acts 18
4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

And Christ makes the same sola-scriptura point in Mark 7.

Mark 7:6-13
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that - this text should not exist!

It is the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible which says "'they studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO". Acts 17:11

The point remains.

It's great. You say "No, it doesn't say that", then you cut and paste from your Bible and it does say that. The point remains. You're wrong. Scripture is important, but the meaning is obscure without context.

Root of Jesse · Nov 9, 2017

BobRyan said:
The USA certainly has a lot of Protestants - but this month in Germany there are a lot of meetings and focus with church leaders from many different denominations coming together to work out a document of common understanding and to declare that the protesting in the protestant reformation - is less of a doctrinal issue now - between Protestants and Catholics.

So it is raises the question about defining just exactly what are the items in that "gap" that would need to be addressed before declaring that the gap had narrowed over the 500 year span of time.

Only the Holy Spirit can bring back Protestants to the Catholic Faith-the universal Church Christ spoke of. I know, you all think the Catholic Church is the Devil and all, but even Luther didn't want to split up the Church. He knew what was right. He wanted some things to change, and like all of us, was not humble enough to just let it change. The Catholic Church has been in a constant state of Reformation since her founding at Pentecost.

Root of Jesse · Nov 9, 2017

BobRyan said:
Jesus was sinless.

He did not take God's name in vain.
He did not covet
He honored His parents.

So should we if we are Christians. (Not that we are perfect... but under the NEW Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33 we have the LAW of God written on the heart)

1 John 2:6
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

=================================

And since that "sola scriptura" point from the OP will keep coming up this thread -- might as well get this on "page one".

in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact --

"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The model some people use does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment they conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" their story "ends".

And then of course we have this from Christ Himself --

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact --

"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The anti-sola-scriptura model does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment it finds that "well it is a church Apostle that is speaking" or "well it is an angel from heaven that it speaking" it immediately goes for the "we-say-so" over the "sola scriptura" test.

I love how you say we should all be like Jesus, that one of the things you like is that he honored his parents, yet, when we honor his parents you call it worship.

Root of Jesse · Nov 9, 2017

BobRyan said:
"Sola Scriptura" was one of the solutions adopted within Protestantism.

What you are talking about is "exegesis" vs "eisegesis" there are good principles already worked out for maintaining a level of objectivity when studying the Bible - otherwise "sola scriptura" would not even work at all.

Acts 17:11 NON-Christians "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so" ... these were Jews and gentiles (not Christians) able to pick up a Bible - read it and tell if the doctrine of Paul "was so".

We have that same ability today.

=================

As for the LAW found in the Bible -

Paul says "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
He also says that in the case of the lost "they do not submit to the LAW of God - neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8:4-9 -- by contrast to the saved in those same verses

The idea that you can pick up a Bible - read it... and tell if a given church doctrine or tradition measures up to scripture - was a key part of the Protestant Reformation... "Sola Scriptura"

You're right. Sola Scriptura was something adopted by Protestantism. The purpose was to excise all the doctrines of the Catholic Church that you didn't like. But it was an innovation of Protestantism, it was never there until you changed the meaning of a few terms to suit your desires.

Root of Jesse · Nov 9, 2017

JackRT said:
The "doctrine of discovery" was for all intents and purposes adopted into law by a USA Supreme Court decision in 1818 (?) and was used through the remainder of the 19th century to justify the attempted genocide of the American Indians particularly in the west. Even before that time the largely Protestant settlers in the USA treated indigenous peoples as subhuman and were even known to hunt them for sport.

Yes. Thanks, Andrew Jackson.

Root of Jesse · Nov 9, 2017

Albion said:
"Widely accepted?" No. And not by people who understand what Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Gratia actually do mean--and it is important that they do, since these are the foundation principles of the Protestant Reformation.

That said, yes, we do read posts saying something along the lines of "Sola Scriptura means that everyone can decide for himself what the Bible means," but that most often comes from Roman Catholics here and they have simply heard it from someone else in their own religious circles. I think of it as another religious 'old wives tale' or slur not unlike "Catholics worship the Pope" except going in the opposite direction.

How can you have "Only" Scripture, and "Only" Faith, and "Only" Grace? Three only's?

So then we should ask, what is Sola Scriptura? We know one thing it's not, from Albion. But what IS it?

Root of Jesse · Nov 9, 2017

Albion said:
To be clear, you COULD associate some version of that idea with the Reformation. But not with Sola Scriptura.

The Reformers did, we know, assert that the Bible should be available to every church member and not forbidden to them by church authorities (as was the case during the Middle Ages).

Nope, wrong. From the time of the Printing Press, the Bible was available to anyone who could afford it. The ONLY reason for lack of bibles in homes is that they were very expensive, so only held in the Church.

Root of Jesse · Nov 9, 2017

Albion said:
Sola Scriptura means that it's the Bible (Alone) that is our ultimate, final authority for determining doctrine, as opposed to Papal decrees, "Holy Tradition" as used by the RCC at that time, the decisions of the historic church councils, etc.

By the way, this does not rule out using reason, archaeology, church history, etc in order to understand Scripture properly, but all these are just aides or tools to be used towards understanding the Bible. They are not the authorities in themselves.

The other point that came up concerned the availability of the Bible to ordinary people, but that--although important to the Reformers--actually is separate from Sola Scriptura.

What's funny is that you seem to not believe that all papal decrees and Holy Tradition aren't Scriptural. What's really true is that you disagree with the interpretation of Scripture held by the Church. So it's just a difference of opinion, then.

Albion · Nov 9, 2017

Root of Jesse said:
Nope, wrong. From the time of the Printing Press, the Bible was available to anyone who could afford it. The ONLY reason for lack of bibles in homes is that they were very expensive, so only held in the Church.

That's the usual Catholic excuse, but it's not true.

Albion · Nov 9, 2017

Root of Jesse said:
What's funny is that you seem to not believe that all papal decrees and Holy Tradition aren't Scriptural.

I never said that. It's that they aren't the equal of Scripture, which is what opposition to Sola Scriptura is all about.

So that answers your other question, too...Sola Scriptura means simply that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining doctrine.

500 years of protesting what?

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Junior Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Facilitator

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency