Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where'd you get your authority, though? That's more important than the education you received.
You haven't shown where God said the Deuterocanonical books aren't inspired.
Common men with the gifts of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all Truth.canonized by common men according to the proofs already provided
I didn't bring up the pope. Albion did. You did, too. Why not stay out of other's conversations?
Your authority to declare 7 books as non-Biblical, you don't have. You're beginning to sound like Yoda...What's my authority got to do with the 66 books? The patterns are completely gone in the extra books. Npo numerical proofs ast all. Totally gone. Not inspired at all. Dead books written by dead guys that never heard God. Completely gone. Fiction it is
It is, because that's where Sacred Tradition comes from. Which refutes Sola Scriptura. The thing is, you don't use Sola Scriptura, because you can't tell from Scripture what's in the Bible and what's not in the Bible from Scripture. So your very premise of what's "Biblical" is outside of Sola Scriptura. That said, every Catholic doctrine has its basis in Scripture. Every one. You will say that this one or that one doesn't, but you'd be wrong, again.You would like us to think that "God speaks to man" is the issue here, I suppose. But it's not the topic. The topic and the issue is Sola Scriptura, which refers to the basis on which the church defines doctrines.
Been done over and over. The proof that the Bible alone is insufficient is that you can't agree with anyone as to what it says or means. The Bible isn't at question here, it's your interpretation. It also is about how you can excise a snippet from the Gospel and take it to mean whatever you want. We rely on the entire Bible for our doctrines.Yes that is right.
The title "Refuting Sola Scriptura" means we need to defend the practice and those who oppose it need to show why Christians should abandon it.
The suffix for the title "why the Bible Alone is insufficient" is redirect reference to "scripture alone" sola scriptura -- seemingly claiming that if one were to test tradition/doctrine by the Bible they might get a false result.
In Mark 7:6-13 Christ does not hesitate to use the sola scriptura model. Which is a big surprise since the Bible is the "Word of God" and everything Christ said was also the "Word of God" --- if anyone had the right to "just quote Himself" to make his case, it was Christ. Yet even HE demonstrates for us - how the sola scriptura method is to be applied to so-called sacred/holy/infallible tradition/teaching/doctrine.
Then it's not for him or you to declare something off-topic when someone else brings it up. Albion brought up the Pope, you mentioned him, too.Every post on this thread is - "in the conversation" of this thread.
I don't have a struggle with Mark 7. I know precisely what it says and means. The text of the actual Bible canon is only at question among protestants, Catholics know what the Bible consists of...Your struggle with Mark 7 is not a debate over Deuteroncanonical books - it is over a text in the actual Bible canon itself.
The 66 books themselves.
It is, because that's where Sacred Tradition comes from. Which refutes Sola Scriptura.
I don't have a struggle with Mark 7. I know precisely what it says and means. .
So then the issue is "My interpretation is better than yours." Ephesians 4 does not uphold SS, at all. In fact, it upholds what Catholic Church teaches.The Bible example of sola scriptura testing of all tradition/doctrine/practice - is demonstrated for us in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11 but more books of the Bible were written after Mark and after Acts.
Not only that -- in 1Cor 14 "everyone has a revelation".
Philip's 4 daughters - prophetesses, according to the Bible and in the case of the NT prophet Agabus not one single text of scripture written by him.
Sola Scriptura is not refuting that sort of thing. In fact 1Cor 12 and Eph 4 regarding spiritual gifts - is a sola scriptura demand for the very thing you seem to claim is refuting sola scriptura.!
Ignoring the first 6 verses of the chapter? And everywhere else that shows that Sacred Tradition is part of our Faith?The difference is that I appeal to it - including the "details" of Christ appealing to scripture to refute the tradition and doctrine of the magisterium of the one true nation church of his day.
No, it doesn't. Nowhere to be found.It is, because that's where Sacred Tradition comes from.
That really isn't much of an argument. You claim that your Church invented the Bible, codified the Bible, canonized the Bible, etc. and yet you also claim that we can't "tell what's in the Bible!" Well, some churchmen did canonize it, and we all have a copy, so what you're saying here just doesn't make any sense.The thing is, you don't use Sola Scriptura, because you can't tell from Scripture what's in the Bible and what's not in the Bible from Scripture.
Uh, no it isn't. You're still insisting that we can't trust the Bible to be telling us the whole truth. Moving to interpretations is premature if we can't even agree on what we're interpreting (and despite the fact that both Catholics and Protestants SAY that they consider it to be God's revelation).So then the issue is "My interpretation is better than yours." .
It's there. It helps to open your eyes and heart when you seek the Truth.No, it doesn't. Nowhere to be found.
I don't claim we invented the Bible. We did codify it, and we know what's in it. Your brain is scrambled, or something, because you constantly get Catholic doctrine wrong, relying on what some Catholic people say or do, rather than on what the Church teaches. You know, if you kept your writing on what Anglican Church teaches, or says, I wouldn't even be involved with you. I don't criticize how you worship or what you do, or put you down for how and what you do. Even if I believe it's wrong, I don't criticize it. But when you involve what you think Catholics believe or do, then I get into it.That really isn't much of an argument. You claim that your Church invented the Bible, codified the Bible, canonized the Bible, etc. and yet you also claim that we can't "tell what's in the Bible!" Well, some churchmen did canonize it, and we all have a copy, so what you're saying here just doesn't make any sense.
I've never insisted any such thing. I believe that Scripture says what it says. It's the context and interpretation where we disagree.Uh, no it isn't. You're still insisting that we can't trust the Bible to be telling us the whole truth. Moving to interpretations is premature if we can't even agree on what we're interpreting (and despite the fact that both Catholics and Protestants SAY that they consider it to be God's revelation).
If you think so, show it to us; and don't try that business of taking the word "traditions" and saying this is a blank check for inventing anything that the church wants, out of thin air.It's there.
Fine, but there is no reason for you to claim that you know more about Catholicism than I do. Especially, when you make mistakes about it often.Your brain is scrambled, or something, because you constantly get Catholic doctrine wrong, relying on what some Catholic people say or do, rather than on what the Church teaches. You know, if you kept your writing on what Anglican Church teaches, or says, I wouldn't even be involved with you. I don't criticize how you worship or what you do, or put you down for how and what you do.
This isn't about anyone taking gratuitous potshots at the Roman Catholic Church. THE THREAD itself is a denunciation of Protestant belief! You say you aren't putting down or criticizing Protestant beliefs but that's exactly what you are doing (logically enough, considering the topic) and what the thread is all about. You aren't in the habit of starting hostile threads yourself, but neither am I.But when you involve what you think Catholics believe or do, then I get into it.
You're NOT saying that Sola Scriptura is insufficient for us to ascertain essential doctrine? Really?I've never insisted any such thing.
]I believe that Scripture says what it says. It's the context and interpretation where we disagree.
Bob keeps talking about Mark 7:7-10, insisting it proves Sola Scriptura, yet before that, in verses 1-6, he's speaking to the Pharisees specifically about some Pharisaic law, which has no basis in Scripture, and ignoring the commandment to Honor your Father and Mother.
Actually, it's neither.That's a tradition of men, not a Sacred Tradition.
Maybe that's what you think you're doing with Bob, but I'm still on the subject of this thread and your difficulty in understanding what Sola Scriptura means and what it does not mean. If that were resolved, we could move to whether Sola Scriptura is adequate for God's purposes or not. Then only would whatever Bob is pointing to be taken up. Maybe. But we're a long way from there.So, we're arguing about what Sacred Tradition is, now.
This isn't "Sacred Tradition." If it's IN the Bible, it's included in Sola Scriptura; and "Sacred Tradition" doesn't come into play.Some Biblical examples of Sacred Tradition in use, which I cut and pasted below:
Acts 20:35, Paul says the following:
"In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
It's not "oral tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" either. It's IN THE BIBLE. There is nothing we need add to that.These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us.
Another example of this is in the book of Jude 1:9, which says the following:
"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
This dispute, between the Archangel Michael and the devil over Moses' body, is nowhere to be found in the written text of the Old Testament.
Matthew 2:23:And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."(This "he shall be called a Nazarene" prophecy is not in written scripture anywhere).
Matthew 23:2:"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;"(Moses' seat is not mentioned anywhere in written scripture).
1 Corinthians 10:4:"and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock whichfollowed them, and the Rock was Christ." (Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that a rock "followed" the Israelites in the desert.)
2 Timothy 3:8: "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;" (These 2 individuals who opposed Moses are not written in the Old Testament).
Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (This is a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, which Luther threw out of his bible in the 16th century. This story cannot be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible. It is in the Catholic Bible, and has been since the 4th century.)
Those extra books has been proven that it contains absolutely no pattern found in the 66 books. I've seen the numbers. I took my calculator and checked it out. The numbers match the same as in the original language of the 66 books. No authority required to use a calculator. See for yourself. Nobody is stopping ya. The extra books are absolutly dead in not having any matching patterns of the numerical facts at all. I've seen the matching numbers cause I care enough to learn the truth. You don't care. You blindly follow anything they tell ya. Your authority talk are slick words to scare people back to RCC. I don't need to follow the RCC denomination, the offspring church. I am a member of the universal Catholic church. They don't have the papal systems. The universal church is the true church. Those extra letters claims to be inspired but there's proof now before your very eyes that the holy spirit wasn't among them during writing those letters. Forget the reason why your have 73 books and the papal systems and start over and fresh and catch up with the holy spirit. I think you're a dead horse and I have no need to beat another one.Common men with the gifts of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all Truth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?