Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AnticipateHisComing]

No where in the catechism of the Catholic Church you read of Peter at the Gates of Heaven. That is Gringo Cartoon fantasy.

Wow ethnic slurs to refute something so glaring wrong. My comment while containing an extreme example of common/simple Christian/secular understanding of the concept. It perfectly conveys the pedestal that the RCC has taught that Peter is on.

When James died A new Bishop was put in his place just before Jerusalem was Destroyed.

Saint Simeón of Jerusalem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_of_Jerusalem

This proves that all authority Jesus gave to Peter was transferred to another? Not.

 

[samir]

Scripture never directly says that it is God's Word? How direct do you want it:

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken... (John 10:35)

Just because the phrase "word of God" and scripture are used in the same verse doesn't mean it's saying scripture is the word of God. The scripture Jesus referred to is the Psalms where it refers to the judges of Israel as gods. The word of God came to those judges orally, through the prophets, not through scripture.

The argument Jesus was making was:

If he called the judges of Israel gods, unto whom the word of God came orally through the prophets, and the scripture that says they were gods cannot be broken then it is not blasphemy for Jesus, whom the Father consecrated, to call himself god.

Where? The text referred to was part of the written word called scripture, and is called the word of God.

As was the case in Mt. 4:4, among other places.

Scripture isn't even mentioned in Mt. 4:4 so how could you possibly interpret it to say scripture is the word of God?

Mt 4:4 says "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God."


Now that you've been refuted and shown the verses you quoted don't teach what you claim, are you willing to retract your statement that scripture calls itself God's Word?

 

[Xalith]

One thing we need to consider, is that prior to the coming of Jesus, the Torah (aka, The Old Testament) was the "Written Word of God", because that's all that existed back then that was from God, right?

Well, what did the Pharisees do in reaction to Jesus bringing new Words from God?

They hung Him on a Cross and killed Him.

That's what happens when people worship a book rather than worshipping God and His Son.

The Pharisees didn't see that the Old Testament spoke of Christ, they refused to believe in Him, and refused to depart from their corrupt version of the Scriptures (the Talmud had what again, 600+ rules? How many rules were defined in Leviticus? Like <50?).

Nothing new under the sun.

Now we have corrupt Bibles (NIV, NKJV, etc etc etc etc) floating around all claiming to be "The Word of God". Okay, which one exactly is the "Word of God" again?

All of them? Then why do some versions of the Bible seem to contradict each other, some versions leave things out, others add things that were never there.

Surely all of them can't be "THE" Word of God.

The REAL Word of God is incorruptible. But since we have corrupt versions of the Bible floating around, then the Bible isn't the incorruptible Word of God then, is it?

Stop worshipping a book.

Don't be a Pharisee.

2 Timothy 3:16-17:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

You'll notice that the writer does NOT say "Scripture is the one-and-only source of divine inspiration or instructions from God".

 

[samir]

He did indeed, and which is likely refers to offensive assault by the church, however this is not referring to one particular organic church, but to all who make up the body of Christ. Which is the only one true church, since it alone only and always consists 100% of true believers, while the visible organic churches inevitably are or become an admixture of wheat and tares.

The problem with your interpretation that the church Jesus founded is invisible is that the rest of scripture clearly shows Jesus founded a visible church.

Then you are as an evangelical in essence, for rather than obeying the papal admonition [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906. [/FONT]instead you ascertain the veracity of teaching by examination of the evidence for it.

And what [/FONT]the church taught it from the beginning means the NT church as revealed in Scripture.

Most "evangelicals" I've met reject the ancient Christian faith in favor of modern heresies like faith alone, scripture alone, baptism is just a symbol, the Eucharist is merely symbolic, OSAS, etc. I like the RCC and OC because they teach the same gospel taught in scripture that was taught by the church throughout history in every century. If "evangelicals" followed the biblical and historical gospel of justification by faith and works, baptismal regeneration, the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and that justification can be lost then I could at least consider becoming an "evangelical".

 

[Albion]

One thing we need to consider, is that prior to the coming of Jesus, the Torah (aka, The Old Testament) was the "Written Word of God", because that's all that existed back then that was from God, right?

Well, what did the Pharisees do in reaction to Jesus bringing new Words from God?

They hung Him on a Cross and killed Him.

That's what happens when people worship a book rather than worshipping God and His Son.

The Pharisees didn't see that the Old Testament spoke of Christ, they refused to believe in Him, and refused to depart from their corrupt version of the Scriptures (the Talmud had what again, 600+ rules? How many rules were defined in Leviticus? Like <50?).

Nothing new under the sun.

Now we have corrupt Bibles (NIV, NKJV, etc etc etc etc) floating around all claiming to be "The Word of God". Okay, which one exactly is the "Word of God" again?

All of them? Then why do some versions of the Bible seem to contradict each other, some versions leave things out, others add things that were never there.

Surely all of them can't be "THE" Word of God.

The REAL Word of God is incorruptible. But since we have corrupt versions of the Bible floating around, then the Bible isn't the incorruptible Word of God then, is it?

Stop worshipping a book.

No one's worshipping a book. The whole point of Sola Scriptura is that we ought to make the Bible, being universally agreed among Christians to be divine revelation, the ultimate source of essential information related to God's will and our salvation. And the fact that there are faulty translations doesn't change a thing, since the point is that the correct one is of greater reliability than any human customs or speculation.

 

[samir]

One thing we need to consider, is that prior to the coming of Jesus, the Torah (aka, The Old Testament) was the "Written Word of God", because that's all that existed back then that was from God, right?

Well, what did the Pharisees do in reaction to Jesus bringing new Words from God?

They hung Him on a Cross and killed Him.

That's what happens when people worship a book rather than worshipping God and His Son.

Not only that but the book worshipers who like to proudly proclaim they follow the bible the most don't even follow what it teaches.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former (Matthew 23:23, NKJV)".

 

[Xalith]

No one's worshipping a book. They whole point of Sola Scriptura is that we ought to make the Bible the most reliable source of essential information related to our salvation. And the fact that there are faulty translations, doesn't change a thing, since the point is that the correct one is of greater reliability than any human customs or speculation.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding SS then? Whenever I see someone talking about SS, they usually mean "The Bible is the one-and-only source of divine knowledge."

To the point said SS believers will instantly disbelieve anything that's not in the Bible, even if it doesn't contradict the Bible.

Now yes, if something contradicts the Bible, then that something is dead out wrong. The Bible is the final but not the only say-so in all matters.

I've come across SS people who take it to extremes and literally worship the book: they refuse to believe in anything that's not in that book. If ain't in the book, it's a lie in their eyes.

 

[Albion]

That's what happens when people worship a book....

Not only that but the book worshipers

Wow. You wasted no time in adopting that slur as your own, didn't you?

 

[samir]

You mean that when popes and councils teach binding doctrine (the supreme law for RCs) - whom you are to follow as docile sheep - then they are speaking as wholly inspired of God as Scripture is?

The Ecumenical Councils relied upon Tradition, not some book, to preserve the ancient Christian faith and teach the doctrines that Christians accept today.

 

[samir]

That "rule" would effectively eliminate all of us.

Just because you don't obey Christ, by your own admission, doesn't mean no one else does either. Some of us do follow Christ because we love Him and have accepted Him as our Lord and not just our Savior.

The point of the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ is not that he will save those who are obedient (for that is what the existing policy already was at the time of Jesus' birth) but that he will save sinners.

Christ came to save sinners who are willing to repent and obey Christ. If sinners aren't willing to repent and turn from their sins they will not be saved since scripture says God hates sinners.

 

[samir]

No, it isn't. The change is small, and affects the Apocrypya, but the point is that when people try to argue that the canon of the 4th century is unchangable, set in stone, etc. (except that those awful Protestants did change it)....

...it's not so.

And then there are all sorts of churches that are ancient and not at all Protestant which have their own additional books that most of the rest of us have never even heard of. Someone posted a list of these awhile back, but I don't know now easy it would be to find that now.

Which books do you think were added or removed from the canon?

 

[JacksBratt]

Wrong, Go and Read John 20:23, again, He speaks those Word to the Apostles, not any other. And Pauls call himself MINISTER of RECONCILIATION. 2 Corinthians 5:18

This has nothing to do with me, or you, today. We can go directly to Christ, in prayer. We need no other. Paul may have been given that power but no body to day has that kind of power. Even if they did, it would not have been a transfer of all Christ power. Christ will always be the savior and the one who can forgive sins...

Again, I Need nobody but Christ.

 

[Albion]

The Ecumenical Councils relied upon Tradition, not some book, to preserve the ancient Christian faith and teach the doctrines that Christians accept today.

In case you haven't noticed, you're kind of putting the lie to the claim of EOs and RCCs that, sure, they hold the Bible in high regard as divine revelation, that it's part of what they consider to be Sacred Tradition, and so on. These and other reassuring statements are made to us in every thread that's about Sola Scriptura...but, as the thread grinds along, sooner or later the truth comes out.

 

[JacksBratt]

People called in the Church today by the Holy Spirit are called to serve the Church. They have some authority, but not that of the apostles. The first 12 apostles had a special authority to speak God's word that would be recorded as scripture. They were promised 12 thrones. They had Jesus and miracles to testify to their authority. Today you don't.

So this would, of course, mean anyone called by the Holy spirit. That would include the minister of the church I attend, who was called to the ministry.

Or are you stating that only the RCC has people who are called to the ministry?

Even so, not one minister that has been ordained by any "body" or council, has the ability to forgive another humans sins... period.

 

[Albion]

Just because you don't obey Christ, by your own admission

I suppose you figured that being as outrageous as you could imagine would win something for you? It didn't.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Luke 10:16

"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Christ said this to the ones who he sent. Yes you can proclaim Him as the Lord and savior, but you MUST analyse what is causing you to hate to enter in his body the way he wants you to do it.

Meaning you have no real argument and must resort to ad hominem.

Lk. 10:16 refers to the basic message of repentance and faith preached by the 72 disciples (whom there is no record of successors to), not a church or all of distinctive RC doctrine, much less preached by distinctive RC "priests," which themselves do not even exist in the NT.

In addition, the same Lord reproved the sectarian spirit of the apostles by affirming one who was doing manifestly supernatural in the name of the Lord, but who was not part of the company of the apostles. (Lk. 9:49-50)

Those who reject even a stranger - or a computer - reading a gospel message such as Acts 10:36-43 from the Bible are rejecting Christ.

As for your attempt at ad hominem, rather than being driven by irrational hatred for Rome or Catholics, it is actually love for the Truth and souls that brought me to leave the church of Rome for evangelical faith after being manifestly born again, and yet seeking to serve God as a faithful weekly mass-attending lector and CCD teacher.

And thus I seek the salvation of those of any church, but the fact is that the distinctives of the church of Rome are invisible in the NT, and contrary to it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Barnabas was also regarded as an apostle. Yet he was not called directly by the Lord in person, (Acts 14:14)

And in the case of Mathias the apostles ratified him as an apostle, yet he was not called by Jesús in person.

The Apostles/Bishops share responsability over the church, but we differenciate the Apostle title to the Ones the Sacred Scripture regards as Apostles.

You do not know if Barnabas was not called directly by the Lord in person, as Paul was via a vision, but as with Paul, to be one of the Biblical apostles one must have seen and been personally discipled by the Lord. and manifest the credentials of an apostle.

But Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Co. 6:4-10)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I think you missed Catastrophically the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 5:8 8 and when he disclosed it,[1] the four living figures and the twenty-four elders fell down in the Lamb’s presence. Each bore a harp, and they had golden bowls full of incense, the prayers of the saints.

The only thing catastrophic is your attempt to support praying to created beings in Heaven by a text which simply records prayers being offered as a memorial (cf. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) by elders (likewise angels in Rv. 8:5) in the latter days before the final judgments upon the earth.

Now, how did the Prayers of the Believers reached the bowls of the Elders in heaven???????

How? Because as with all prayers, they were made directly to God, who treasures those in the name of Christ, and gave them to the angels and elders as a testimony against the world system which persecuted them, and which the Lord will judge.

Such as And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? (Revelation 6:10)

Thus you still have no examples of anyone but pagans praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord.

 

[fhansen]

Trent was empowered to create teachings exclusive to the catholic faith. Nothing more.

Nope, just further clarify and define what had always been held to be true-against a lot of different novel ideas that were being promoted at the time. It would be worthwhile to carefully study the actual articles that came out of the council, particularly on justification, if you haven't already.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

On the contrary, You know well that the See of Rome is the only see regarded as Apostolic see since it never fell into heresy. While all the other Eastern churches all of them fell into Arianism, Monophitism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasticism, And in our days, Phyletism.

I don't really want to argue this in a thread that has nothing to do with it, I only said that in this thread because I was directly asked.