Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Chandler50]

Every group, including RC, believes it follows Christ their head. The head is continuous, just like His body on earth.

Your job is to prove that hell prevailed, closing the doors to the kingdom that Peter opened. And along came RC to open them back up. If you can't do that, then your OP is utterly null and void.

Please explain why you think that hell prevailed and the RCC opened the doors to the kingdom afterwards? I have never made that assertion.

I will break this down for you really, really simple and in order:

1. Christ told Peter that He would build His church upon Peter.

2. Christ told Peter the gates of hell would not prevail over the church.

3. Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter alone.

So how are you possibly interpreting that as the 'the gates of hell must have prevailed' and the RCC opened them back up?

Christ established His Church on earth through Peter and we have been going ever since. Hell has never prevailed because the Church is still here. And to suggest otherwise is explicitly going against what Christ told Peter in Matt 16.

 

[Goatee]

Pleas explain why you think that hell prevailed and the RCC opened the doors to the kingdom afterwards? I have never made that assertion.

I will break this down for you really, really simple and in order:

1. Christ told Peter that He would build His church upon Peter.

2. Christ told Peter the gates of hell would not prevail over the church.

3. Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter alone.

So how are you possibly interpreting that as the 'the gates of hell must have prevailed' and the RCC opened them back up?

Christ established His Church on earth through Peter and we have been going ever since. Hell has never prevailed because the Church is still here. And to suggest otherwise is explicitly going against what Christ told Peter in Matt 16.

Again, i agree with you Chandler50. Jesus built his Church upon Peter. Now, i have thought if Jesus meant upon the 'Faith' just like Peter means 'Rock', and we all know that Peter believed in Jesus 100%. But, Jesus knew what was ahead for himself and wanted Peter to be a figure head of his on earth, while the Holy Spirit flowed through him and the Apostles. Spreading the truth and the true 'Word' of God to all manking.

I am sure that our good Lord wanted Peter to carry on proclaiming the good Word and thus continue the Church that Jesus started, the true Church of Christ. The Universal (Catholic) church.

Who else could Jesus choose other than Peter. The Rock. The man with true Faith in Jesus!!!

 

[Chandler50]

Every group, including RC, believes it follows Christ their head. The head is continuous, just like His body on earth.

Your job is to prove that hell prevailed, closing the doors to the kingdom that Peter opened. And along came RC to open them back up. If you can't do that, then your OP is utterly null and void.

Also, you are right, many denominations do claim to have Christ at the head. But do you know what the difference is? None of those denomination have documentation to prove this assertion, only the RCC.

In fact I know that every Protestant church cannot claim that Christ is the head because they started their church no earlier then the 1500's.

The RCC has the documentation, the history, and the Bible itself to show that Christ literally started our church.

Any other congregation claiming that Christ is the head of their church is doing so without an explicit endorsement.

I don't know about you, but if I were in a church that claims it is headed by Christ, I would want to be absolutely sure that it has Christ's approval. And outside of 'personal revelation' you could never claim that He approves.

 

[tulipbee]

I think you mean weeping.

And please tell me why Christ or any of the apostles speak of this encriptic code in the scripture? Seems like it would be rather important if it was true. But it is not.

No where in the Bible or Holy Tradition would lead us to believe that God placed 'codes' in His scripture. In fact, this bogus assertion has been refuted many times over. And guess what, I actually have crediable references for you to support this claim. Follow the link below, and there are ten resources that absolutely disprove the 'so-called' bible code.

http://bib.irr.org/bible-codes-how-not-defend-bible

Panin's work isn't in the link and not the same system. Try agian

 

[Chandler50]

Panin's work isn't in the link and not the same system. Try agian

The resources refute every form of the bible code non-sense.

 

[tulipbee]

The resources refute every form of the bible code non-sense.

Those that see proofs as nonsense are the unregenerated who doesn't understand spiritual things of God, anyway.

 

[Chandler50]

Those that see proofs as nonsense are the unregenerated who doesn't understand spiritual things of God, anyway.

Really, so anyone who does not believe in the bible code is unregenerated? That is just heresy.

Since you adhere to sola scriptura let me correct yet again another mistake. The only time the word regeneration appears in the bible is in the following verse:

He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. -Titus 3:5

So that means that anyone who is baptized is regenerated. Now I 100% sure that not everyone who has been baptized believes in this bible code conspiracy. So where do you get off making such a claim?

I have never thought of this, but I suppose you present yet another danger of sola scriptura. You yearn for more information from God and create your own out of desperation.

 

[tulipbee]

Really, so anyone who does not believe in the bible code is unregenerated? That is just heresy.

Since you adhere to sola scriptura let me correct yet again another mistake. The only time the word regeneration appears in the bible is in the following verse:

He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. -Titus 3:5

So that means that anyone who is baptized is regenerated. Now I 100% sure that not everyone who has been baptized believes in this bible code conspiracy. So where do you get off making such a claim?

I have never thought of this, but I suppose you present yet another danger of sola scriptura. You yearn for more information from God and create your own out of desperation.

I made the claim based on believing the bible is inspired by God. The unregenerates believe God isn't the author of the 66 books even if proofs are provided. Baptism doesn't save a person due to already being saved long before water even existed. No mistakes here but I see you made epic mistakes in your post.

 

[Chandler50]

I made the claim based on believing the bible is inspired by God. The unregenerates believe God isn't the author of the 66 books even if proofs are provided. Baptism doesn't save a person due to already being saved long before water even existed. No mistakes here but I see you made epic mistakes in your post.

Yes, that absolutely coincides with the Bible. Oh wait...

"No one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:3-5)

Darn, you were so close.

 

[tulipbee]

Yes, that absolutely coincides with the Bible. Oh wait...

"No one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:3-5)

Darn, you were so close.

To be born of water meant to be born physically

 

[Standing Up]

1. Christ told Peter that He would build His church upon Peter.

2. Christ told Peter the gates of hell would not prevail over the church.

3. Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter alone.

Following your lead ...

4. Peter gives the keys to the elders in Asia Minor, instructing them just like Christ instructed Peter (feed my sheep). See 1 Peter 5.

 

[Standing Up]

Also, you are right, many denominations do claim to have Christ at the head. But do you know what the difference is? None of those denomination have documentation to prove this assertion, only the RCC.

RC has smoke and mirrors. The extant works of lineage contradict each other. RC doctrines contradict scripture and tradition. RC can prove nothing, except, to paraphrase Tertullian, that they usurped what was given to Peter alone.

 

[Chandler50]

To be born of water meant to be born physically

So then, everyone who is born is regenerated...
Take the scripture at face value.

 

[tulipbee]

So then, everyone who is born is regenerated...
Take the scripture at face value.

And of the spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

Nothing in Christ's statement to the magisterium in Mark 7 claims "this is not from scripture but from the church".

Mark 7
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.[/QUOTE]

Nor does Christ make the circular argument "your doctrine is unholy because it is unholy" -

This is a "not so subtle point" that keeps getting glossed over. circular arguments don't work.

Nor does Christ say "you do not have your scripture confirmed by an outside source"

Nor does Christ say "ignore the scripture I am quoting to prove you are in error"

Sola scriptura testing? That would make sense if they were talking about scripture, but they were not. They were talking about the traditions of man.

That makes no sense.

We are talking about slamming the traditions of the church via the Mark 7 method - sola scriptura.

you and I both know that in real life everyone reading that text can see it.

You have yet to provide evidence for sola scriptura though.

Until you see that I have posted the text of Mark 7:6-13. Which all readers of this thread can see as we both know.

The only thing you have tried to do is refute Holy Tradition, not support sola scriptura.

false.

I have not identified a single tradition of the Jews or the RCC in my comments - I merely point to the sola scriptura testing model used by Christ to slam the Jewish one-true-church magisterium.

And all of us can see that as we read the points made.

Your problem is that you are posting your answers from some sort of "play book" where supposedly I am not quoting Mark 7 but rather I am simply selecting RCC tradition and after RCC tradition and finding fault with it. A wonderful thread -were it to have existed here as this thread - but in real life that is not what we are posting here. At least not in the case of these Mark 7 posts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Chandler50]

Nothing in Christ's statement to the magisterium in Mark 7 claims "this is not from scripture but from the church".

Mark 7
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.

If you think that Mark seven is referring to Holy Tradition, then why are there so many other verses supporting tradition? Out of all the verses that talk about tradition, only one condemns tradition, Mark seven. Do you know what the difference is about Mark seven? It is the only verse out of all of them that clearly states they are referring to human tradition.

You can ride Mark seven all day long, but you know there are many other verses that say tradition is good, and that the apostles used tradition ( ref. my OP for a few of those verses).

You cannot cherry pick one verse to make a point. Use every verse that has the word tradition in it in your next post and counter each one.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This illustrates the weakness in sola scriptura, it does not trust God to teach people supernaturally with the holy spirit. And because it does not come from faith, it is sin. (Romans 14)

Perhaps that is why the RCC and most of Christianity are confused. Where is the Holy Spirit when ya need it.....

................

..........

 

[Chandler50]

Perhaps that is why the RCC and most of Christianity are confused. Where is the Holy Spirit when ya need it.....

................

..........

Name one time an ecumenical council did not reach a decision. Please do not make accusations without references.

 

[Chandler50]

And of the spirit.

Exactly, so your assertion that baptism does not save is false.

 

[tulipbee]

Exactly, so your assertion that baptism does not save is false.

Salvation from baptism in water as spinkle or immersion is false.