Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Constantine the Sinner]

Let me help here. If you believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior.
If you believe that you are a sinner and need salvation.
If you repent of your sins and confess them to Christ.
If you ask Him to come into your life and be your guide.
If you live your life with a desire for living with God's will in mind.
Then,,,,, it matters not what church you attend, what "denomination" you call yourself....
You are saved.

Christ does not care what church you go to, or if you even go to church... He just wants a relationship with you.

Have you repented for every single one of your sins? Have you even gone through contrition for every single one?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

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.

It has not always been held to be true that God's breath is anathema.
I have read the articles. Have you?

 

[fhansen]

It has not always been held to be true that God's breath is anathema.
I have read the articles. Have you?

Of course-but they say nothing about God's breath being anathema anathema as far as I recall.

 

[FireDragon76]

And, who, exactly, determined that he was of the same honor as James? Who says that any man has this power anymore?

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

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

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

"Some book" ?

Of course-but they say nothing about God's breath being anathema anathema as far as I recall.

The council of Trent was a counter reformation move. Its primary purpose was to refute and condemn Protestantism. Gods word as scripture alone being deemed anathema by the council was condemning Gods word itself. Just as they condemned faith alone.

 

[Albion]

"Some book" ?

...and he's far from being alone in starting to speak that way of the Bible as the discussion gets more difficult for the anti-Sola Scriptura side. At the start, it's all about "we also revere the Bible, but we just don't think it's the only thing." After awhile, and after that approach has fallen though, most of them begin to let their hair down...as you saw in this case.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I am of the flock because I accepted His gift of salvation and became a child of God. It matters not what the front of my church says, if it preaches the saving blood of Christs death and resurrection......

Are you so bold to say that if I am not a Catholic and don't go to a Priest to confess, that I am damned???? Really?

I say, even though you are a Catholic, you too can be saved, just like every other human being who walked on this earth...

John 10:16

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Wasn't you suppose to be Sola Scriptura?.....

At least you should be more learned in scriptura. We catholics say that We are Scriptura and Tradition our dutty if to know well the scripture and to understand the Traditions which the Apostles didn't write

 

[fhansen]

"Some book" ?
The council of Trent was a counter reformation move. Its primary purpose was to refute and condemn Protestantism. Gods word as scripture alone being deemed anathema by the council was condemning Gods word itself. Just as they condemned faith alone.

Yes, counter-reformation/counter-confusion. And also just a good time to better categorize stuff. And while God's Word can never be considered anathema, SS rightly should be.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

In those times Jesus Was Talking of the Jews and the Non Jews who would believe in him and FOLLOW HIM, not of many "denominations" There is only one true church which Christ founded. The Catholic Church.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Yes, counter-reformation/counter-confusion. And also just a good time to better categorize stuff. And while God's Word can never be considered anathema, SS rightly should be.

Many things in God's word were deemed anathema by the council.

And every Latin Rite member is entitled to believe every decree CoT made.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Whatever you say.

I was just pointing to the consequences of using your logic when you said that what Jesus commissioned his Apostles to do stayed with them and was not passed onto anyone else.

I pointed to the ridicule you are making by trying to force my words to extremes never intended.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

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.


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

Jesus Gave and commanded only to the Apostles the Baptism of believers....¿What then? Is it that all baptized who were not baptized by the Original apostles are invalid christians? NO Then what? The Powers which Christ enabled to the apostles and the prerrogatives disapeared or pervive in the successors? They all PERVIVE, Including PRIMACY.

 

[fhansen]

Many things in God's word were deemed anathema by the council.

And every Latin Rite member is entitled to believe every decree CoT made.

Nothing in God's Word was deemed anathema. Novel interpretations of it were, however. Entitled? I guess so. Trent rocks either way.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Nothing in God's Word was deemed anathema. Novel interpretations of it were, however. Entitled? I guess so. Trent rocks either way.

So you've never read the council documents then.

 

[fhansen]

So you've never read the council documents then.

oh-if you say so. but I'd suggest re-reading them. they're quite enlightening.

 

[Albion]

I pointed to the ridicule you are making by trying to force my words to extremes never intended.

You mean you hadn't previously noticed the big contradition in your statement.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

You mean you hadn't previously noticed the big contradition in your stance.

No contradiction. I said that Bishops are Equal to Apostles and I said that Bishops do not call themselves apostles since they regard the Apostleship only to the ones called by the scripture like that.

And I said that All the Prerrogatives of the Apostles Pervive in the bishops. Including Baptizing.

 

[Albion]

No contradiction. I said that Bishops are Equal to Apostles and I said that Bishops do not call themselves apostles since they regard the Apostleship only to the ones called by the scripture like that.

And I said that All the Prerrogatives of the Apostles Pervive in the bishops. Including Baptizing.

What you said is this: "He speaks those Word to the Apostles, not any other." If that's so, then he spoke the words to his Apostles and not to any other when it comes to the other verses which are the basis for claims about the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, and all the other powers that the churches claim have been handed down through successive generations of church leaders. You can say none of it was...or all of it was...but you can't logically pick and choose.

 

[Albion]

No contradiction. I said that Bishops are Equal to Apostles and I said that Bishops do not call themselves apostles since they regard the Apostleship only to the ones called by the scripture like that.

And I said that All the Prerrogatives of the Apostles Pervive in the bishops. Including Baptizing.

You also said that the words were spoken only to the Apostles and so do not apply to those coming after them. ("He speaks those Word to the Apostles, not any other.")

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

What you said is this: "He speaks those Word to the Apostles, not any other." If that's so, then he spoke the words to his Apostles and not to any other when it comes to the other verses which are the basis for claims about the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, and all the other powers that the churches claim have been handed down through successive generations of church leaders. You can say none of it was...or all of it was...but you can't logically pick and choose.

Wrong Again, The prerrogatives Jesus Gave to The Apostles were given to Them to MINISTER THEM. And They in their prerrogative were able also to chose new apostles to preach the gospel as they did with Mathias and Paul and Banabas, The same way the letters to Timothy and Phillemon and Titus were leters directed to Bishops on how they had to manage Church issues, Including Priests Ordination which is a prerrogative of the Apostles.

The same way CONFESSION is a PRERROGATIVE of the Apostles which passed to the Bishops and presbiters.