Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JacksBratt]

Yes. The bishops at Nicea didn't get together and have a bible study and debate each others personal interpretations. They looked at what the apostles taught and sought to preserve that apostolic faith.



Trent did not condemn scripture. No one in the early church believe scripture alone or faith alone. Both are man-made traditions invented in the 16th century.

If I took all the essays of the grade nine class in History and put them in a book. I cannot claim that I wrote them.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Apostles were mere men.

Mere men, empowered by the Lord Jesus Christ.

But they were given this authority because the Church was given the authority.

They were given this authority while Christ was still on this earth. Long before there was "the church" that you speak of.

Please put the cart behind the horse again.

The Apostles were not the only ones to whom Christ gave the authority. Remember that the other disciples were also there when Christ sent the Spirit. It wasn't JUST the Apostles. In point of fact, two of the authors of the epistles and gospels in the NT were not Apostles sent directly by Christ, so the authority passed from those who recruited them, namely from Paul on to John-Mark and Luke.

Yes, others wrote as they were inspired by the Holy spirit as well. This is where we get the NT. Not thousands of years later by other special people.

So there are second-generation Christians who had so much authority in their writings and teachings that they were able to write Scripture and lead with the same authority as Paul and Peter.]/quote]

Please name some and give the name of their canonized works.

 

[samir]

And how did they look at what the apostles taught?

They looked at what the Church taught and passed down through the bishops who were the successors of the apostles.

You should really dedicate time to reading all of the sessions that pertain to the Council of Trent.

I read all of the sessions of the Council of Trent. It is a beautiful and authentic representation of the ancient Christian faith that Christians believe.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

Certainly the word of God came to those judges orally, but which did not cease to be the word of God when it was recorded, and it was the record of that word of God which the Lord is referring to in stating, Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)

And the word of God that was recorded under the inspiration of God is what the Lord referred to in stating that "the scripture cannot be broken" in the next verse.

Thus the recorded word of God is still the word of God, while you must make it to cease to be so in order to deny that what is called Scripture here is said to be the word of God.

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."

What?! That is not all that Mt. 4:4 says! Just what is the Lord quoting from in context? Why do you leave that out?

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

In order to deny that this text is referring to Scripture being the word of God then you must construe the Lord as invoking as a command what is not the word of God in teaching that man is to live by the word of God!

What lengths Caths will go to in order to support their vain traditions!

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?

And of course, you must also hold that a body of writings which are wholly inspired of God are not the words 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 does not calls itself the word of God?

 

[samir]

If I took all the essays of the grade nine class in History and put them in a book. I cannot claim that I wrote them.

That's not even close to how tradition works.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

They looked at what the Church taught and passed down through the bishops who were the successors of the apostles.

Peter was married.
How did they look at, what did they look at, that was handed down through the bishops that were the successors of the apostles?

I read all of the sessions of the Council of Trent. It is a beautiful and authentic representation of the ancient Christian faith that Christians believe.

 

[redleghunter]

Correct. They're what sociologists call "functional myths" that are important for keeping the membership believing in the organization. It's interesting to note that, when we study the cults, it can be seen that almost all of them use such myths in one way or another.

Like Mormonism.

 

[FireDragon76]

You, then, are saying that other mere men are now choosing who has this power. Right?

How is that even possible?

The Holy Spirit.

Please understand that very few historic Protestants, except perhaps those with the lowest ecclesiology, consider ordination of clergy to involve the choice of mere human beings. In Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, and similar churches, they speak of calling by God.

 

[samir]

Certainly the word of God came to those judges orally, but which did not cease to be the word of God when it was recorded, and it was the record of that word of God which the Lord is referring to in stating, Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)

All you've shown is that scripture contains some of the word of God that was revealed orally. The Catholic catechism contains the word of God from the prophets too. Does that mean the Catholic catechism is the word of God?

And the word of God that was recorded under the inspiration of God is what the Lord referred to in stating that "the scripture cannot be broken" in the next verse.

The verse is clearly referring to the verse in Psalms that says "You are gods." Jesus used that verse to show that it is not blasphemy to refer to himself as god since that verse, which is scripture, cannot be broken.

Thus the recorded word of God is still the word of God, while you must make it to cease to be so in order to deny that what is called Scripture here is said to be the word of God.

If the church of Satan wrote a book that says "Jesus wept." that sentence would still be the word of God but it wouldn't mean the Satanic book is the word of God.

What?! That is not all that Mt. 4:4 says! Just what is the Lord quoting from in context? Why do you leave that out?

It is irrelevant.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

"It is written" is referring to Jesus quoting the Old Testament verse. It says nothing about scripture being the word of God.

In order to deny that this text is referring to Scripture being the word of God then you must construe the Lord as invoking as a command what is not the word of God in teaching that man is to live by the word of God!

The OT said man shall live by the words that proceed from the mouth of God. Jesus said what he quoted was written in the OT. How on earth does that mean scripture called itself the word of God? Not even close. Try again.

What lengths Caths will go to in order to support their vain traditions!

All I did was rely on very basic reading comprehension to explain what the verse was saying.

And of course, you must also hold that a body of writings which are wholly inspired of God are not the words of God.

Strange logic.

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 does not calls itself the word of God?

You didn't refute anything. You used a combination of poor reading comprehension and very bizarre logic to attempt to refute and came no where close. Try again.

 

[PapaZoom]

It says that Jesús Wanted it that way and if you refuse to obey him you are going to be bound to your sins.

No it does not say that. That is an interpretation. A bad one too.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

Which is a false dilemma, for the fact that there is a visible church does not deny that there is an "invisible" (in the sense of a particular, defined organic community) church which may not even be able to find a visible community where he resides.

If you deny the mystical body of Christ then you are not even a faithful RC, since V2 certainly does.

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.

Which is simply contrary to what Scripture reveals of the NT church.

For the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.

Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.

No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be chanelled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Excuse me, but mine IS only one church, just like yours is.

With one voice, one doctrine? Anglicanism is just choosing your own doctrines. I've been to an Episcopal parish before and they had a pamphlet on the Virgin Mary (among other pamphlets), and inside it said not all Anglicans believe in the Virgin Birth, but nonetheless the Virgin Mary is highly regarded.

 

[samir]

Peter was married

So are many Catholic priests. What's your point?

How did they look at, what did they look at, that was handed down through the bishops that were the successors of the apostles?

They relied on the faith they were taught which had been passed down from the apostles. If you're referring to the Roman rite in the church selecting priests who made a vow of celibacy, that is not a doctrine and not part of the Christian/Catholic faith.

 

[samir]

Which is a false dilemma, for the fact that there is a visible church does not deny that there is an "invisible" (in the sense of a particular, defined organic community) church which may not even be able to find a visible community where he resides.

Scripture says Jesus founded one church. The problem with your theory is that it would mean Jesus founded two churches, one visible and one invisible. Also, every Protestant I know rejects the visible church in favor of an invisible only church.

If you deny the mystical body of Christ then you are not even a faithful RC, since V2 certainly does.

The RCC teaches that Jesus only founded one church. The mystical body of Christ is not in opposition to the visible body of Christ.

Which is simply contrary to what Scripture reveals of the NT church.

I agree Protestant heresies are contrary to what scripture revealed to the church. That's why I don't follow them.

For the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests ," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.

The Real Presence is taught in John 6. The NT contains several verses about priests in the NT church. If you bible doesn't say anything about priests it's because Protestants removed it from their bibles along with the other scriptures that Protestants reject.

Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.

I don't know too much about the mass and the papacy. I do know the catholic church teaches the gospel found in scripture that few Protestants still believe. I also found that most of what Protestants say and believe about the catholic church is a myth.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

All you've shown is that scripture contains some of the word of God that was revealed orally. The Catholic catechism contains the word of God from the prophets too. Does that mean the Catholic catechism is the word of God?

For that we must consider what Scripture is said to be, which is wholly inspired of God. Which thus means it is the word of God, which in all its forms, correctly understood, and used is for doctrine, reproof, training in Godliness, etc.

So yes, if Catholic catechism was said to be wholly inspired of God as Scripture is, then it would be the word of God. And thus your next two attempts to defend your absurdity are refuted.

It is irrelevant. "It is written" is referring to Jesus quoting the Old Testament verse. It says nothing about scripture being the word of God. The OT said man shall live by the words that proceed from the mouth of God. Jesus said what he quoted was written in the OT. How on earth does that mean scripture called itself the word of God? Not even close. Try again.

What? The Lord is quoting a command from Scripture to live by every word of God in response to a contrary suggestion, and does the same thing two more times right after this, as well as often quoting Scripture as Divine authority, yet the very command to live by every word of God is not the word of God? Logic? No, absurdity!

All I did was rely on very basic reading comprehension to explain what the verse was saying.

Which claim impugns what you claim.

Strange logic.

That "thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Timothy 3:15-17) does not teach that this wholly inspired-of-God word is not the word of God is "strange logic?"

It is you who are strange. You didn't refute anything. You used a combination of poor reading comprehension and very bizarre logic to attempt to refute and came no where close.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Laying on a hands was a common Jewish practice to confer authority or divine power. The early church was not Congregationalist.

Yet laying on a hands was not restricted to apostles, or elders.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Curators didn't paint the Mona Lisa. Members of the Catholic Church did write the New Testament, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So despite your untenable assertion, you argument is still that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)\

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

You have been avoiding these questions.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

EO and Catholics agree that the Church was united for hundreds of years. It was founded by Christ.

We disagree about who left who.

They disagree about more than that.

 

[samir]

For that we must consider what Scripture is said to be, which is wholly inspired of God. Which thus means it is the word of God, which in all its forms, correctly understood, and used is for doctrine, reproof, training in Godliness, etc.

So yes, if Catholic catechism was said to be wholly inspired of God as Scripture is, then it would be the word of God. And thus your next two attempts to defend your absurdity are refuted

I would have quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 first. Unlike the other two verses you quoted, it actually says scripture is God breathed which is equivalent to saying it is the word of God. I believe, as all catholics and Christians do, that the bible is the word of God. I just don't think it's the Word of God (since the Word is Jesus) or that scripture alone is God's word since the word of God can be found outside of scripture.

What? The Lord is quoting a command from Scripture to live by every word of God in response to a contrary suggestion, and does the same thing two more times right after this, as well as often quoting Scripture as Divine authority, yet the very command to live by every word of God is not the word of God? Logic? No, absurdity!

The OT says to live by every word of God. All Jesus did was say the OT said that. Not even close to saying scripture is the word of God. I do believe 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that but not Matthew 4:4.

That "thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Timothy 3:15-17) does not teach that this wholly inspired-of-God word is not the word of God is "strange logic?"

You didn't quote that verse earlier. You quoted 2 verses that didn't teach what you claimed. I won't dispute 2 Timothy.

 

[redleghunter]

Biblical inerrancy is a creation of the Church. It s a case of misapplied faith, a form of idol worship.

What is your understanding of Biblical inerrancy?