Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[redleghunter]

Scripture says overtly that the Son was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, and all things that were made, were made by the Son. You can either accept this, or make up your own theology. You say Scripture is full of errors, yet you have the hubris to suggest your theology is superior? Where did you get yours from? You made it up. Scripture was written by holy men, who were appointed by God for missions, including writing, why is your theology superior to theirs?

Thank you for the very good defense of the Deity of Jesus Christ using Scriptures.

 

[redleghunter]

We Know that the Bible is The Truth Since the Church ratifies it as TRUE. In the Same Way, The Sacred Scripture is True since it endorses the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

A circular argument.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Thank you for the very good defense of the Deity of Jesus Christ using Scriptures.

No problem.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

Wrong. No visible body of Christ is one true church Christ founded, as even from the beginning it had tares among its visible members. (Acts 8:20) The mystical body of Christ could contain even some who were not of the apostles company. (Lk. 9:49,50)

Also, every Protestant I know rejects the visible church in favor of an invisible only church.

Then you hardly know any, or are lying.

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

It certainly is the mystical body of Christ contains members who are not in submission to the pope. As this is what you must claim then you are in a cult.

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

Which is inconsistent in the light of what the link shows.
The Real Presence is taught in John 6.
No it does not.
The NT contains several verses about priests in the NT church.
No it does not, no matter how comforting your bare assertions are to RCs.

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.

Utterly false again. Your turn:

Show me even one instance in the life of the church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) in which,

1. NT pastors are called "priests" (“hiereus” or “archiereus," despite those words occurring over 280 times collectively).

2. NT pastors engage in a unique sacerdotal function, that of offering the elements the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins, or even administering the Lord's supper.

3. The people are instructed to confess their sins distinctively to NT priests as a normal practice (James 5 does not).

4. NT priests are distinctively charged with regularly hearing confessions and granting forgiveness as a part of their basic function, like as they are with preaching the word.

5. NT priests are shown regularly hearing confessions of sins by the converted, apart from judicially hearing conflicts btwn believers and declaring souls guilty or innocent, along with the church.​

I don't know too much about the mass and the papacy...I also found that most of what Protestants say and believe about the catholic church is a myth.

So you don't know too much about the mass and the papacy but that most of what Protestants say and believe about the catholic church is a myth. Well then you need to show me how what I said can document about Rome is a myth.

" I do know the catholic church teaches the gospel found in scripture..."

Wrong, as I described.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

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?

The RCC has no exclusive right to called ministers/elders. Now read James 5:13-20 to see how the early church promoted confession of sins to elders for forgiveness and healing. This is an authority all churches could use.

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

If you believe what Jesus taught us to pray, then you should realize that all Christians have the power to forgive sins. The problem is your understanding of forgiveness vs atonement. Only Jesus died once to atone for all the sins of all the saints. Forgiveness of sins is a much more earthly concept, but with heavenly ramifications.

We have salvation because Jesus died for our sins and atoned us. We do not need to confess to a priest/pastor for Jesus' atonement to be effective and our salvation has no bearing on it being done.

However, sometimes God disciplines us for our sins so that we may learn the error of our ways. Confession and forgiveness can help in the learning of the errors of our ways. But, if I am to be honest, I have never done this.

So I don't have a problem with the Catholics using confessions. I do have a problem with their doctrine on it though.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

All were members of the Catholic Church.

Another mere argument by assertion but which is still false and akin to Muslims asserting that OT prophets were Muslims.

 

[redleghunter]

John 3:3-5

Perhaps. Was Jesus explaining Christian baptism to Nicodemus? Or explaining Ezekiel 36?

I do see clearly in Acts 2 and Acts 10 those who heard and believed were baptized. And we know from the words of Christ we are baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That's not even close to how tradition works.

This how tradition can work:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

Therefore Rome can claim to "remember" a fable that only is evidenced as being a later development and make what at best warranted only speculation into a binding doctrine approx. 1800 years after the event allegedly occurred.

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

Sorry, that is NOT the definition of SS that I know of. SS is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

That is the definition of SS. Yours does not match.

He is thinking of Prima Scriptura, the correct way.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Perhaps. Was Jesus explaining Christian baptism to Nicodemus? Or explaining Ezekiel 36?

I do see clearly in Acts 2 and Acts 10 those who heard and believed were baptized. And we know from the words of Christ we are baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

I think it is more likely Ezekiel is talking about baptism. Water could be purely figurative in both these verses, but since Christ was baptized and it was shown to be something spiritual, mystical and divine, and since he left an injunction to baptize, the simplest explanation is that these verses are talking about baptismal waters. Christ was not verbose, he didn't say things that were of minor importance, he only said things that were crucial.

Baptism is the medium God has chosen to spiritually initiate people through; in the last covenant, it was circumcision. Now it's baptism. Does that mean there are no exceptions? Of course not, baptism is a tool of God, God is not a servant of baptism. God saved the Thief on the Cross without baptism, and in my Church's tradition, martyrdom also counts as baptism if you did not have one prior. God can initiate people through any medium. But he chose baptism for good reasons. If it is literally impossible for you to get baptized but you would if you could, God isn't going to say, "Tough luck, you're locked out of the Kingdom of Heaven." But if you can be baptized but don't wish to be initiated into the Kingdom that way, you're really pushing your luck.

 

[redleghunter]

Tradition.

Actually the Rule of Faith which they vigorously defended with Holy Scriptures.

 

[FireDragon76]

“Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; [/QUOTE]

Since when is science the measure of faith? Science says dead bodies don't rise from the grave, either.

BTW, outside of Protestantism, every single Christian church has the dormition and translation of Mary to heaven as a pious opinion and a celebrated feast day. And there are even some Lutherans or Anglicans that would believe it as the same pious opinion.

What Cardinal Ratzinger says isn't so far fetched. There are plenty of Catholic theologians that would say you couldn't necessarily videotape the Resurrection or the Ascension (as Carl Sagan pointed out, if Jesus ascended upward into the sky travelling near the speed of light, he wouldn't even be outside our galaxy), so obviously the Ascension into heaven is a symbol of a hidden reality, the details of it are less important than the truth of it apprehended through faith, what it tells about God and the promises of faith.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This how tradition can work:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

Therefore Rome can claim to "remember" a fable that only is evidenced as being a later development and make what at best warranted only speculation into a binding doctrine approx. 1800 years after the event allegedly occurred.

Eh, these are pre-Nicene accounts: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

They're apocryphal of course, but it shows the belief predates the the 5th Century.

 

[redleghunter]

This is taken from : https://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation

It explains, quite easily, the fact that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

The reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is that we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8) and not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11). You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone. In the Bible circumcision was a ceremony where one person performed a religious rite on another person. Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person; but, we are saved by faith alone, and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help.

If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe and not when we get baptized, otherwise, we are not saved by faith. Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died. This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions--otherwise it isn't necessary.

One of my concerns in the baptism debates is that one side or the other accuses the other of some extreme position.

For example a Catholic can point out there are non denominational churches who refuse to baptize because "it is not required for salvation." They are right there are some who do this.

The flip side is an Evangelical could come to the conclusion a Catholic believes we can splash water on anyone and they "are saved." If they truly believed such they would be turning fire hoses on brothels.

What we miss is the point of the Biblical accounts. What does the Biblical evidence show of souls who were drawn to the Gospel message (1 Corinthians 15)?

They heard the Gospel preached.
They were cut to the heart.
They were exhorted to repent.
They immediately got in the water and were baptized.
They received the Holy Spirit.

That was Acts 2. In Acts 10 we see the first Gentiles sought out the Truth, heard the Gospel, believed the Gospel, received the Holy Spirit and then were baptized.

There was no halting or discussing which one of those "steps" or "happenings" saves. It was one fluid, uninterrupted sequence only our Sovereign God determines. Which takes us back to John 3 and Jesus telling Nicodemus "7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

 

[redleghunter]

It is. Scripture never directly says that Scripture is God's Word. In point of fact, the only Logos directly called the Logos is Christ, not the Bible.

You could be right. However what did Jesus say we live on? And where do we find that?

 

[redleghunter]

Why do we have to accept the idea that there is, anywhere, a source of incontrovertable truth?

Perhaps we could assert that we accept our ideas as, not necessarily incontrovertable, but sufficiently probable as to warrant our faith. Then we could further point out reasons for accepting ideas.

I would use evidence instead of sufficiently probable.

Christianity is evidence based. Luke 24 and 1 Corinthians 15 make that quite clear.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's a good point, a lot of the Mariology of the Roman Catholics actually came from the east, so it's probably true the Assumption/Dormition was unknown before the 5th century to what would later become the Roman Catholic Church. Latin Christianity tended to be a lot more minimalist at one time, probably due the fact the western world was fighting off barbarian hordes. The Carolingian kings (many of whom were barely literate) in the early middle ages were the first to rebuild libraries or educational systems, but that was in the 8th-9th century, centuries after the time period we are discussing.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That's a good point, a lot of the Mariology of the Roman Catholics actually came from the east, so it's probably true the Assumption/Dormition was unknown before the 5th century to what would later become the Roman Catholic Church. Latin Christianity tended to be a lot more minimalist at one time, probably due the fact the western world was fighting off barbarian hordes.

The RCC still doesn't commemorate the Dormition, just the Assumption. Although that might also be because the Dormition would conflict with their harmartology and their doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[redleghunter]

No. The reverse is true. I know some of the word of God exists in scripture because the tradition of the church says it does. If scripture wasn't part of the church's tradition, I would not accept it.



I do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine. That's what Protestants do.

What transcendent standard do you use to test if a message is inspired or false?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

No. The reverse is true. I know some of the word of God exists in scripture because the tradition of the church says it does. If scripture wasn't part of the church's tradition, I would not accept it.



I do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine. That's what Protestants do.

Are you saying the Pope is divinely inspired?