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.
How when and where did this revelation take place? How can we know that this event is of God?Gods Canon is his he revealed it to men and he did so infallibly.
Let me try to give more detail so that what I'm saying will become clear to you.
Joe accept the standard Bible. Sally doesn't. She believes that what is God breathed are the gospels, and she includes some of the Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas. Therefore Joe thinks that Romans is inerrant and Sally does not, and Sally thinks that the Gospel of Thomas is inerrant and Joe does not. Each of them builds their theology on a different set of authoritative books and they end up with very different theologies.
No, a French monk did not say “This is my body.” Jesus said “This is my body.” You refuse to believe that Jesus meant what he said. Simple as that.
How when and where did this revelation take place? How can we know that this event is of God?
No, you changed the meaning.Oh YES IT DID!!! Do the work. Investigate where it came from and who thought it up. PLEASE do not accept what I say. YOU do the work.
Again, Yes Jesus said those words but a MAN changed their meaning for your RCC belief to mean something that Jesus never meant.
No, God said “This is my body” but you refuse to believe him. So your theology does not come from him.Yes, that is really, really helpful!
My dear, I clearly understand what you are saying. I just do not agree with you.
Let me be just as clear to you.
YOU accept and believe what the Roman Catholic Church says is doctrine. If a man says that there is something we want to do even if it is not in the Bible, we are going to do it.
I believe what the Bible says is doctrine. If the Bible does not say it, and does not validate what it is I want to do, then I do not do it.
Your theology then comes from men.
My theology comes from God.
So then I guess we can build as we go.
This is absolutely UNTRUE. The Church went through several stages in the creation of the New Testament Canon.PLEASE do the work yourself. PLEASE look up things in real history. When YOU do you will find that by 96 AD, the early church had accepted the 27 New Testament books as canonical, as seen from early church writings. The early church accepted the scriptures because it believed them to be from God. The early church saw itself as subject to the Bible's authority, not the other way around.
The Catholic church maintains that the books comprising the New Testament Canon were determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. THIS IS INCORRECT.
This council simply affirmed and restated what the early churches had always accepted.
Yes, yes. I mostly agree with you. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura divides us.YOU accept and believe what the Roman Catholic Church says is doctrine. If a man says that there is something we want to do even if it is not in the Bible, we are going to do it.
I believe what the Bible says is doctrine. If the Bible does not say it, and does not validate what it is I want to do, then I do not do it.
Your theology then comes from men.
My theology comes from God.
Good Day, I guess I will have to wait for my question... did you read my original OP?
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
Objective facts please....What did Paul teach Timothy that is out side of Scripture?
All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
The point which you missed is not that you copied and pasted the question posed. Every one copy and pastes information from time to time.
What I was trying to show you was that IF you had the time to investigate and look for a question to ask me, why in the world would you simply not use that same amount of time to do the work required to read the Bible and search it for your answers.
I find it very suspicious that YOU my friend DO NOT answer questions at all but you are quick to say that other do not answer your questions.
I will say to you that most everyone here has caught on to your plan of asking questions in order to illicit a response which you can twist into what YOU want it to say.
I say again to you that what you are doing is deceitful.
Actually, you do the same thing with the Scriptures of the Bible.
Happy to see you admit that you as well have done it.
Unfortunatly Maj1, Jesus and scripture disagrees with you. In Matt. 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group (7) rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). So why wouldn't I Maj1, spend my time to do just as Jesus say's for us to do?
Bring it! I'll answer anything you got. But keep in mind, I will not be bound to your unbiblical limitations of sola scriptura. (the bible alone)
Sorry Maj1, but untill I hear from "most everyone", your opinion means moot to me.
Really Maj1? Not only are you being a bit sophomoric, but wasen't it you that told us here on CF not to take your word for anything? I mean really dude!
Yes, yes. I mostly agree with you. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura divides us.
I'm sure you realize that I believe that in Ecumenical Councils and when the Pope speaks Ex Cathera, the theology comes via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, thus it is also the Word of God.
I believe I have the fullness of God's revelation, whereas you have only a portion.
This is absolutely UNTRUE. The Church went through several stages in the creation of the New Testament Canon.
STAGE ONE: The Church felt no need of any canon. It had the authority of the Bishops. The only Scripture at this point was the OT. The various gospels and epistles were passed around from church to church, including those written by Bishops other than the Apostles, i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Various Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Paul's third letter to the Corinthians... I could go on. They were all considered EQUAL. IOW, I Clement was considered on par with I Corinthians, the Didache was on par with the Acts of the Apostles.
STAGE TWO: Various Catholics began making lists of books they approved of. These lists were CONTRADICTORY. For example, one list might contain Revelation, another might exclude it. One list might contain the Expositions on the Gospel of John, another might exclude it. But making lists was a very different consciousness than stage one. However, these lists were not considered official canon, a must agree upon list. They were recommendations.
STAGE THREE: Call this the hunger stage. The Church now saw the need for a New Testament canon and scholars began debating in earnest. Obviously if they were debating, there was still no agreement. Indeed, right down to the moments of Stage Four, there were books in our Bible that just barely made it in, and other books that almost made it in.
STAGE FOUR: Canon was finally worked out and made official and binding on all the Church for all time at the Council of Carthage.
Here is a couple good websites to read about the difficulty Revelation had in making it into the canon of Scripture and why it was finally decided in favor, while the Apocolypse of Peter was rejected:
APPROVING REVELATION
The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon?
A good day to you as well. Anyhoo, I went to your original OP where you posted:
And I'd ask.... What church are you meaning? The Church Pre or post Reformation? or a visible or invisible church?
And your question was.....
If this is the question you spoke about waithing for, I'll give you 21 reasons what sola scriptura is and is not, and why it should be rejected. (with the help of Catholic Apologist, Joel Peters)
1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.
3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."
4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.
5 Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.
6. The first Christians did not have a Bible.
7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa
8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.
9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.
10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.
11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination.
13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.
14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.
15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.
17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books.
21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.
Summary:
For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected. Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught – even if those contradict one’s current religious system – should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.
The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established. According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority. Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:
The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or indirect rule of faith.
Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church – a historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession – is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20). It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.
With the reasons shown above that refute your beleif on "The Bible Alone", one at a time please, which are you in disagreement with, and why?
Okay, lets look at 2Tim. Chapter 3, but let's include verses 14-15 along with vs. 16-17.
“14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Would you agree that Paul tells Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief?
1. He knows from whom he has learned it.
This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, right? So right here we have Timothy’s beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.
2. From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy’s beliefs.
So, how could you not agree that right here in 2 Tim. 3:14-17, we have a double appeal to both apostolic Tradition and apostolic Scripture.
Not only that, in Matt. 2:23 it say's.... "He shall be called a Nazarene" right? would you agree this phrase cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets"? Would you deny this prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture? (The bible alone)
And also in Matt. 23:2-3 we have Jesus teaching that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat," right? You do consider this verse to be "God's Word" as well, right? If so, as a sola scripturist, could you please show where this idea or phrase can be found in the OT?
Let's also look at 1 Cor.10:4, where Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. Again, as one that adheres to the doctrine of the bible alone, as you state in the last two sentences of your OP:
Where in the O.T. does it mention this miraculous movement? To save you the time... it is not.
Surley your not suggesting what Paul said and the other examples I gave that cannot be found in scripture are not...... "binding upon the Christian conscience" are you?
No, God said “This is my body” but you refuse to believe him. So your theology does not come from him.
Zwingli developed the symbolic view of the last supper. Your theology comes from Zwingli.
No, you changed the meaning.
Jesus meant “This is my body”. That is why he said “This is my body.” It’s not that difficult. You simply refuse to take Jesus at his word.
You change his words to “This represents my body.” There is nothing good about changing the words of our Lord.
Jesus is the door my friend. The door to eternal life. Do you deny that as well?"I am the door." -John 10:9
"I am the good shepherd." -John 10:11
"Feed my sheep." -John 21:17
From this we know that Jesus was a hinged, sliding, or revolving architectural barrier that owned a herd of wool-producing livestock and asked Peter to feed them. (metaphors matter)
The problem with that is the Pope, just like you and especially me is a sinner.
Everything the Church teaches is compatible with the Scriptures. From the Largest Group to the Smallest Group:Again, the theology you have is based on a man and his theology and not the Bible which is the Word of God.
Actually my beliefs are completely different than the Mormons, who believe the Church fell into Apostasy, and there was a break in revelation.We have discussed this adnausiem, but PLEASE investigate this and you will find that there is NO command or even a suggestion that there was to be a line of apostolic succession. I know that is what you believe as do the Mormons and the Pentecostals, but it just is not there in the Bible at all...ZERO.
Do you think that God planned for his Church to be without authoritative leadership when doctrinal crises came around? What would have happened instead when Arianism almost overtook the Church? And how would we know how to handle new moral dilemmas as they came up? How would we know how to face Global Warming or the looming fresh water shortage?The idea of Apostolic sussecion is a man made dogma by the RCC.
Let me clue you in to something my friend. Our Lord Jesus is not an animal. Nor is he merely a man. He is God.NO mam, that is not the case.
YOU argue that God said......."This is my body" but I refuse to believe Him.
We both agree that God was the source of the Bible. YOU have in fact confirmed that but you have placed more obedience in the words of man than the Bible hence your belief in transubstantiation.
OK. I got it. Now I want to ask you to explain a few passages from the same God that you believe said "This is my body, eat from it and this is My BLOOD, drink it".
Genesis 9:4.........
"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."
Leviticus 3:17........
"It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Deut. 12:23..............
"It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
"but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood."
Do you find any hypocrisy in insisting that we eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood when HE was the one who gave us those verse saying just the opposite.
Again.....aren't you placing your faith and obedience in the commands of MEN over and above those of the Lord Jesus Christ?
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?