Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Wgw]

Where did we ever say that Sacred Tradition was strictly oral?

This simply was a failed attempt by Standing up, who really ought to consider sitting down, to lay a rhetorical trap for us. It does not have the effect of being endearing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Standing up was presumably lying about St. Peter of Alexandria, a third century Pope of Alexandria who was martyred in the persecutions; his siccessor was St. Alexander who in turn was succeeded by St. Athanasius.

I guess he needs to be specific about which St. Peter...

 

[thecolorsblend]

Except that the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was enunciated by a church council and has very definite characteristics, functions, and much more that's quite specific.

Ooooooooooookay.

For people to say--as is commonly done these days by those who want to (1) maintain the claim that the church never changes its teachings but, simultaneously, (2) to find a way to cast off this outdated and now unpopular concept--that Purgatory is something or other about getting you ready for heaven is strictly disingenuous.

You're saying the Catholic Church no longer teaches about Purgatory?

 

[BobRyan]

And you don't do any of that, right Bob?

Indeed -- I prefer the "Sola Sciptura" model of testing all doctrine and practice.

 

[BobRyan]

Except that the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was enunciated by a church council and has very definite characteristics, functions, and much more that's quite specific.

For people to say--as is commonly done these days by those who want to (1) maintain the claim that the church never changes its teachings but, simultaneously, (2) to find a way to cast off this outdated and now unpopular concept--that Purgatory is something or other about getting you ready for heaven is strictly disingenuous.

As can be proven by the fact that they want to find some way to get people out of it --- as an act of Mercy.

Is it merciful "not to want those people prepared for heaven"??

The entire "payment" idea of indulgences for those in purgatory - has to do with time suffered - not with "preparation made" by the loved one in purgatory - as if they will "work faster" in purgatory to purify themselves if you get a plenary indulgence for them.

All of it - not at all condoned by the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68699883, member: 235244"]

Christ did not attack Lev 11 - regarding the prohibition of eating cats, rats, dogs, bats... etc.

Rather in Mark 7 Christ deals with the subject of church bogus traditions related to eating 'bread'' - So also in Mark 2 "eating wheat" -- there was nothing in Lev 11 against eating bread or wheat.

I say this because "details matter" and false speculation does not survive the details in the text.

In Acts 10 Peter points out that to that very day - years after the cross... Peter was still not eating rats, cats, dogs, bats etc.[/QUOTE]

On the subject of dietary requirements, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 expressly states that Christians are solely required to abstain from foods offered to idols and things strangled.

28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

Peter points out in Acts 10 - that he is sticking with the Bible in Lev 11.

Acts 15 does not say it is ok to eat - rats, cats, dogs, bats etc - it does not even address it.

Acts 15 also does not say "Love your neighbor as yourself"
or "Love God with all your heart"
or "Do not take God's name in vain".

Acts 15 does not claim to be a new "downsized Bible" rather it deals with the subject of whether Gentile Christians need to become Jews. James argues that this is not needed because Christians are "hearing Moses preached in the synagogues every Sabbath" just as we see in the case of BOTH gentiles AND Jews in Acts 13, Acts 17 and Acts 18.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[thecolorsblend]

Indeed -- I prefer the "Sola Sciptura" model of testing all doctrine and practice.

Ellen White apparently didn't.

 

[Albion]

Ooooooooooookay.

You're saying the Catholic Church no longer teaches about Purgatory?

No. I didn't say that. However, it is very common in Catholic circles these days to say that Purgatory is something like a brief transitional experience in which the person receives something akin to an orientation session or preparation for admittance to heaven. Sometimes it's said that it removes impurities or etc. but not in the way that the church taught it throughout its prior history (which is to say, punishment like that of hell but just not as long). And it's said by many that we don't really know what it'll be like but it won't be unpleasant. None of that conforms to the church's official and historic teaching about Purgatory.

OTOH, we hardly ever encounter a Catholic who thinks he's going to go to Purgatory, even though the church's teaching is that virtually everyone who's bound for Heaven will pass through Purgatory first. That shows us why the church itself has turned to downplaying Purgatory. Almost no one believes it anymore, even including those who say they do.

The next time you are in a situation where a Catholic loved one has passed away, notice how many well-wishers say something in this vein: "He's in Purgatory now paying for his sins, but he'll go to be with the Lord in the future, so that's comforting to know."

 

[BobRyan]

Ellen White apparently didn't.

I do get that sometimes from people that have not read her books.

She wrote - that she did believe in the Bible as the rule for testing all doctrine.

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

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be the rule of our faith. It is a leaf from the tree of life, and by eating it, by receiving it into our minds, we shall grow strong to do the will of God. By our Christlike characters we shall show that we believe the word, that we cleave to the Bible as the only guide to heaven. So shall we be living epistles, known and read of all men, bearing a living testimony to the power of true religion. {RH May 4, 1897, par. 9}"

 

[Root of Jesse]

Except that the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was enunciated by a church council and has very definite characteristics, functions, and much more that's quite specific.

For people to say--as is commonly done these days by those who want to (1) maintain the claim that the church never changes its teachings but, simultaneously, (2) to find a way to cast off this outdated and now unpopular concept--that Purgatory is something or other about getting you ready for heaven is strictly disingenuous.

To say that, just because something is unpopular, the Church should move to change it, is disingenuous. There are lots of unpopular rules in the Church which people don't follow. That just means they turn away from the Church, which only issues Truth. That's where the world (and Protestantism) got it wrong. The Church only proposes how to get to heaven. You have to follow through with it. But it's hard, and many people today don't do hard...like not going to services on Christmas because it would be too hard for the pastor to actually have to work a holy day, or whatever-I think it's more about the people being lazy to really worship the King.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No. I didn't say that. However, it is very common in Catholic circles these days to say that Purgatory is something like a brief transitional experience in which the person receives something akin to an orientation session or preparation for admittance to heaven. Sometimes it's said that it removes impurities or etc. but not in the way that the church taught it throughout its prior history (which is to say, punishment like that of hell but just not as long). And it's said by many that we don't really know what it'll be like but it won't be unpleasant. None of that conforms to the church's official and historic teaching about Purgatory.

OTOH, we hardly ever encounter a Catholic who thinks he's going to go to Purgatory, even though the church's teaching is that virtually everyone who's bound for Heaven will pass through Purgatory first. That shows us why the church itself has turned to downplaying Purgatory. Almost no one believes it anymore, even including those who say they do.

The next time you are in a situation where a Catholic loved one has passed away, notice how many well-wishers say something in this vein: "He's in Purgatory now paying for his sins, but he'll go to be with the Lord in the future, so that's comforting to know."

It doesn't matter what anyone says or thinks, man. It's what the Church teaches-that has never changed. We don't know how brief or lengthy the stay is, and most who say one way or the other don't really know.
It also doesn't matter what people think about the state of their own souls. Many who shoot for Purgatory will miss and end up in Hell.

 

[Albion]

To say that, just because something is unpopular, the Church should move to change it, is disingenuous.

That's amusing. There is nothing at all surprising in the fact that institutions--even churches--adjust their programs, beliefs, membership requirements, and so on in order to attract new members or keep existing ones.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Indeed -- I prefer the "Sola Sciptura" model of testing all doctrine and practice.

I find that hard to believe. Where's the table of contents of your Bible come from?

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's amusing. There is nothing at all surprising in the fact that institutions--even churches--adjust their programs, beliefs, membership requirements, and so on in order to attract new members or keep existing ones.

Not the Catholic Church. It's not a popularity contest, though we do have the most members, both 'real' and not so much.

 

[BobRyan]

To say that, just because something is unpopular, the Church should move to change it, is disingenuous. There are lots of unpopular rules in the Church which people don't follow.

True. The rule is not "is it popular" the rule is "does the Bible condone... or condemn it"


-- "Sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition

 

[Albion]

It doesn't matter what anyone says or thinks, man. It's what the Church teaches-that has never changed.

That was part of my earlier post. The church cannot change Purgatory without jeopardizing that little myth you just cited, but neither can it keep people believing in something like it's doctrine of Purgatory. As a result, it has unofficially junked it by constantly talking about Purgatory in non-traditional and almost benign terms, and that's something that's done from the Pope on down.

 

[BobRyan]

I find that hard to believe. Where's the table of contents of your Bible come from?

Is it your claim that the Bible refutes the table of contents - or that the table of contents is condemned by the Bible??

 

[Wgw]

That's amusing. There is nothing at all surprising in the fact that institutions--even churches--adjust their programs, beliefs, membership requirements, and so on in order to attract new members or keep existing ones.

The Orthodox do not.

 

[Wgw]

Is it your claim that the Bible refutes the table of contents - or that the table of contents is condemned by the Bible??

I believe his point is rather the same that I have made, that the table of contents of the Bible is Tradition, since no actual book of the NT or OT provides a list of all the other valid books.

 

[Wgw]

I do get that sometimes from people that have not read her books.

She wrote - that she did believe in the Bible as the rule for testing all doctrine.

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

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be the rule of our faith. It is a leaf from the tree of life, and by eating it, by receiving it into our minds, we shall grow strong to do the will of God. By our Christlike characters we shall show that we believe the word, that we cleave to the Bible as the only guide to heaven. So shall we be living epistles, known and read of all men, bearing a living testimony to the power of true religion. {RH May 4, 1897, par. 9}"

All Orthodox doctrine is Biblically based and justified. It has the very considerable advantage of originating in Holy Tradition rather than a single individual widely and correctly regarded as a false prophet under severe delusion, as a heresiarch and a crypto-Arian.