Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Chandler50]

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

Acts 8:36-39

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away,and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

 

[Chandler50]

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.

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.

1 Peter is not that long so I will post the whole thing so everyone can view your lie.

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge,[a] not by constraint but willingly,[b] not for shameful gain but eagerly, 3 not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you. 7 Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you. 8 Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. 10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen[c] you. 11 To him be the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Final Greetings and Benediction
12 By Silva′nus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it. 13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with the kiss of love.

Peace to all of you that are in Christ.

I do not see anywhere that Peter hands off the key to the kingdom of heaven. Besides, what make you think that Peter had the authority to do so? Christ said I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He could not have just given them to someone else, that is out of his authority. His immediate successor upon his death.

The only thing Peter does is in verse 2, he tells the elders to tend to their flock. How is that Peter giving them the keys? Peter was charged by Christ to lead the church, part of leadership is delegation. Peter can not be everywhere at once so he installed leadership in various locations. Why do you think we continue to do that to this day?

 

[Chandler50]

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.

Again, if you are going to make an accusation, such as Turtuillian was against Catholism because he thought that they uusuped Peters authority, then reference it. We are grown-ups, provide credible resources with any claim or accusation. At least a link to a website or something.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Acts 8:36-39

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away,and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

Kind of ironic that the eunuch was Ethiopian. The Ark of the Covenant is supposed guarded in an Ethiopian church.........

Num 12:1
Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

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

Philip the Evangelist was told by an angel to go to the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, and there he met the Ethiopian eunuch. He had been to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27), and was returning home. The eunuch was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah, and had come to Isaiah 53:7-8. Philip asked the Ethiopian, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He said he did not ("How can I understand unless I have a teacher to teach me?"), and asked Philip to explain the text to him. Philip told him the Gospel of Jesus, and the Ethiopian asked to be baptized. They went down into some water and Philip baptized him.

In the King James Version and the Catholic Douay-Rheims Version, the Ethiopian says, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (verse 37), but this is omitted in most modern versions. Hubbard suggests that confession is "not supported in the better manuscripts [i.e. the Alexandrian text-type])", although the Ethiopian is still "one of the outstanding converts in Acts."[1]..............

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/will-the-ark-ever-be-found.7453786/

The Ethiopian Church believes to guard it. Chapel of the Ark of the Covenant - Axum, Ethiopia

Interesting!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7334510-24/#post50307985
Will the Ark of God be found?

 

[tulipbee]

Acts 8:36-39

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away,and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

Believers baptism is false doctrine

 

[Chandler50]

Believers baptism is false doctrine

So much sola scriptura... False interpetations reign supreme.

 

[Job8]

Believers baptism is false doctrine

Can you show us from Scripture why it is "false doctrine"? Why don't you read and study Acts chapter 10 and digest the significance of believer's baptism from just that one chapter?

 

[Chandler50]

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.

In fact let me go a step further, you provide an accusation without any reference, this is one of the surest ways to tell a false claim.

Let me show everyone what Tertullian says about Peter handing down his authority to his successor.

"For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which make Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter."
(Prescriptions Against Heretics 32 (200 A.D.)

For those of you who do not know, Clement was the second Pope. Everyone recognized that the church was built upon Peter, and that apostolic succession is the manner in which Christ's church operates.

 

[Chandler50]

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.

There are also entire books dedicated to quoting hundreds upon hundreds of documents supporting the authority of the Catholic Church, and all Catholic doctrine. So we "can prove nothing" is an outright lie. I quoted multiple church fathers myself and many biblical passages in the OP that support Catholicism.

When you lie, it weakens your claim. I understand if you disagree with Catholicism; but only if you have evidence to back your claims, which you have failed to do so far. I do not care about if you 'feel' that you are right. Give me hard evidence such as that I have given you, or stop arguing with illegitimate accusations.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In fact let me go a step further, you provide an accusation without any reference, this is one of the surest ways to tell a false claim.

Let me show everyone what Tertullian says about Peter handing down his authority to his successor.

"For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which make Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter."
(Prescriptions Against Heretics 32 (200 A.D.)

For those of you who do not know, Clement was the second Pope. Everyone recognized that the church was built upon Peter, and that apostolic succession is the manner in which Christ's church operates.

That may be. Here is something interesting that Augustine said concerning the "rock":

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...action-concerning-peter-and-the-rock.7451655/

Did Augustine retract/change his view of Peter and the Rock?
Is this also the view of the EOs and a lot of other non-RCs concerning the confession of Jesus being the rock?
I am just a tad confused on this. Thanks

http://www.christianforums.com/t7344034/#post51145085

Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being *replaced*, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same, here it is...

............... But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

 

[Chandler50]

That may be. Here is something interesting that Augustine said concerning the "rock":

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...action-concerning-peter-and-the-rock.7451655/

I have heard this argument multiple time and it is a common misunderstanding. St Augustine's book titled Retractationes is commonly misunderstood. It does not mean 'retractions', it means 'second thoughts' or 'additions'. And no where in the text does St. Augustine make the claim that he retracts his view that Peter is the rock (quote it if you would like to challenge me, include a paragraph number). Here is an article that provides more reference to this question.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-in-the-catholic-faith-at-the-end-of-his-life

And when I say provide credible resources for an accusation, I do not mean post a link to another thread. I mean objective evidence I can review.

 

[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.

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"

We are talking about slamming the traditions of the church via the Mark 7 method - sola scriptura - where it is found to be in conflict with the Word of God.

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.

=============================

That is not rejecting all tradition - but it is submitting all tradition to the "sola scriptura" test.

If you think that Mark seven is referring to Holy Tradition

It is "more than a little obvious" that all the Jewish magisterium of Christ's day viewed the tradition he was slamming "sola scriptura" as "holy tradition".

Nothing in there about "your tradition in this case is unholy... because... it is unholy" as we can all see.

I
, then why are there so many other verses supporting tradition?

Not all tradition is bad when compared to the Bible "authority" defining what is acceptable and what is not.

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.

All RCC tradition condemned by Protestants is considered "human tradition" by definition because it contradicts the Bible.

That is "a given".

The question is how is it determined? And the answer is - it is determined to be man-made by comparing it to the Word of God - just as Jesus is doing in Mark 7.

I think both sides can see this point clearly.

It is irrefutable. Which is why I select it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tulipbee]

Can you show us from Scripture why it is "false doctrine"? Why don't you read and study Acts chapter 10 and digest the significance of believer's baptism from just that one chapter?

Regeneration precedes faith - not baptism precedes regeneration. God is going to wait forever for an unable man to choose Him. Why would God do such a thing when he's already knows it ain't gonna happen?

 

[Standing Up]

I do not see anywhere that Peter hands off the key to the kingdom of heaven. Besides, what make you think that Peter had the authority to do so? Christ said I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He could not have just given them to someone else, that is out of his authority.

Bingo. You've just destroyed your own OP.

 

[Standing Up]

In fact let me go a step further, you provide an accusation without any reference, this is one of the surest ways to tell a false claim.

Let me show everyone what Tertullian says about Peter handing down his authority to his successor.

"For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which make Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter."
(Prescriptions Against Heretics 32 (200 A.D.)

Tsk tsk. The context is not about Rome. Tertullian is establishing apostolic lineage at Smyrna, Rome, and elsewhere against those who claim authority.

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.xxxii.html

Anyway, then there's this from Irenaeus.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

And then there's Hippolytus' list.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.ii.html (see footnote)

So, no one knows whether the supposed "Petrine authority" was "handed down".

 

[Job8]

Regeneration precedes faith - not baptism precedes regeneration. God is going to wait forever for an unable man to choose Him. Why would God do such a thing when he's already knows it ain't gonna happen?

Sorry there seems to be a misunderstanding. Let's simplify (cf John 1:12,13):

GOSPEL PREACHED--->SINNER CONVICTED--->SINNER REPENTS & BELIEVES--->SINNER REGENERATED--->SINNER BAPTIZED (WATER)

A sinner can only be regenerated when he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a sinner can only receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after he repents and believes. Evidently you would prefer to put the cart before the horse.

 

[tulipbee]

Sorry there seems to be a misunderstanding. Let's simplify (cf John 1:12,13):

GOSPEL PREACHED--->SINNER CONVICTED--->SINNER REPENTS & BELIEVES--->SINNER REGENERATED--->SINNER BAPTIZED (WATER)

A sinner can only be regenerated when he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a sinner can only receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after he repents and believes. Evidently you would prefer to put the cart before the horse.

Nope, sinner believed cause sinner was first regenerated. Faith precedes regeneration is impossible and the bible said so on top of that. Regeneration precedes faith is the horse before the cart just as the bible states. Arminian theology was born from a Pelegian chief straight from the minds of men with the cart before the horse.

 

[Light of the East]

How do we know when "the tradition" is from God, or is Gods will, and not from someone else?

Your question shows that you don't even understand what is meant by tradition. Holy Tradition is that which goes all the way back to the beginning. For instance, when the Arian heretics were trying to make the Church teach that Jesus is only a created being, they referred to sola scriptura as their defense. But the trinitarians said very simply "That is not the Tradition which has been taught from the very beginning."

In other words, there is a line of practice and belief that goes back to the beginning. That is Holy Tradition.

 

[Light of the East]

Experience demands that there be SOME final authority. If "tradition" or some "head" says or does anything which contradicts clear Scriptural teaching, which DO you follow? If you say "tradition" then the "head" AND the Scripture take a back seat, and the inference is that they are not as reliable as "tradition". Likewise, if you say the "head", then the other two are suspect of possible error. In any organization, if there is no FINAL authority, there is chaos. The reason that Protestants claim the Scripture as the final authority is because it is the only one of the three which has not changed, and will not change.

Hilarious. There are hundreds of different doctrines in Protestantism, all claiming that the Bible is their final guide, and yet all disagreeing with and arguing with one another. Apparently Scripture as final authority is not very trustworthy, is it?

 

[Light of the East]

Since the concept of apostolic succession is a tradition, this would be an example of begging the question.


How do we know they come from the same source?

The concept of the passing down of authority from generation to generation is based in Scripture and the covenant structure. In any covenant relationship, the headship is passed on to the next generation. That is why it was so important to be the first born in Israel - the first born took over the authority and running of the covenant family.

We see Elijah passing on authority to Elisha. Sons of kings become kings.