And here is the fruit of trying to equate anything else's supposed authority with that of the Bible. Very sad. Most of all sad that the little child is exposed to such nonsense.
God is simply not the author of confusion.
Posted on 09/10/2007 7:32:00 AM PDT by NYer
Haha...you really want me to hit it out of the park dont you?
Though I could give a million, I will only provide three examples of your so-called solo scriptura as practiced by none other than Jesus Christ himself. [because the Bible itself is the arbiter; "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let a thing be established].
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, 1. It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God[Deuteronomy 8;3].
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, 2. It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God [Deuteronomy 6;16].
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: 3. for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve [Deuteronomy 6;13].
Now, with that single passage from a single chapter of the New Testament [referencing the Old] I have absolutely crushed the flawed doctrine that opposes solo scriptura.
You have quoted Jesus citing Deuteronomy.
I will repeat the question: Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Where is that in the Bible?
Oh wait....it doesn't.
Forgive me but I do not speak for Protestants, I speak for myself. Again, try not to tackle a doctrine...stick with my comments.
My citing of Jesus was to show an example of when confronted with a twisting of scripture [something catholics are intimately familiar with]; the Lord quoted the scripture alone [not referring to any tradition].
I assumed that would be enough for any humble individual or you...
But I guess not, okay.
The Bible alone is the measuring stick by which we are to judge anyone’s word, deeds, actions, declarations of prophecy or interpretation of scripture etc, etc. If any of those things do not line up with the Word then it is error.
The only way that you can have duel source authority [the 2nd source being your traditions] is if traditions or some person in the loop is infallible. You claim the pope is just that person when it comes to doctrine and interpretation. But you are unable to back this up [by the Word]. However I am more than able [as I have done] to show how no man is infallible but one...Jesus.
If not enough, the fact of the matter is that for more than 200 years after the apostles [closer to 300], catholicism has little to no evidence to support any one of your traditions. And some of the evidence you do have actually argues against catholic tradition. Modern [observed] traditions like the sacrifice of mass and especially when the traditions relate to the priesthood are clearly almost arrogantly in opposition to the Bible.
How can the Bible and tradition be contradictory? One must take precedence because the Bible makes clear the principle that a house divided cannot stand. This you know...so instead of humbling yourselves to the Word...you give tradition equal footing.
Come now, traditions and the Word of God are not equal. The traditions of Men make the Word of God of non effect. Jesus’ own words.
The last [and major] problem is that traditions by their very nature can become imprecise and liable to adulteration. As I have pointed to above and as has been done by at least one [cuz that is all I need] catholic pope [that I have previously cited].
So neither traditions nor the people enforcing them are incorruptible. Like the Word itself is.
Jesus said it clearly “they worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. ‘You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” [Mark]
-and-
“why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” [Matthew]
No, traditions are not equal with the Bible itself as sources of authority. The only way catholic doctrine attempts to foster this foolishness is by twisting and intentionally misinterpreting Paul’s words [I do not care to waste my time deconstructing that silliness].
The Bible says that every good tree [The Bible] brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree [Human traditions] brings forth evil fruit. [Matthew]
To give some ground, the fact of the matter is that a great many of your traditions came about at a time when the Word simply was not as accessible as it could’ve been had man obeyed the Lord from jump. Regardless, catholicism filled the vacuum with its traditions. And as a result of Man’s natural inclinations toward worship, these traditions gained prominence. However, popularity is not the standard by which to judge catholic exploits.
The Bible alone is.
The men who administrated the catholic church understood [and understand] this. But for convenience they intentionally chose incorrectly [tale as old as time]. And subsequently persecuted those who through study were able to expose these errors.
As for what the Word itself says...I told you that I had a million examples...
Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven [Psalms].
Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep Your word [Psalms].
If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free [John].
Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room to receive them, not even near the door. And He preached the word to them [Mark].
Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you [Deuteronomy].
So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD [Deuteronomy].
With my whole heart I have sought You; Oh, let me not wander from Your commandments [Psalms]!
You rebuke the proud, the cursed, who stray from Your commandments [Psalms].
Again I can go all day with this...but I am afraid if you choose not to humble yourself by now then it is of none affect. The bottomline is: The catholic doctrine [see not God’s] of duel source authority is fundementally flawed.
We [I believe] comprehend if not outright worship the same God and Lord. Unfortunately you have chosen to add traditions and give them prominence in God house. Men’s traditions and God’s own Words coequals on a universal stage. This was and continues to be incorrect. Ultimately harming only yourselves and keeping you from the true power & authority that God has given through Jesus to all men who confess him as both Lord [boss] and savior.
I think that catholic doctrine straddles very close to the following...for all I know, you may have crossed that line already.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables [2nd Timothy].
Evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work [2nd Timothy].
It really is just about that deep.
It [catholicism] is basically a Liberal form of theology.
The micromanaged [and more and more disingenuous & self serving] rules and regulations come down from the brilliant beacons of light to the unlearned, helpless little people who just do not know any better.
And anyone...ANYONE...who dares to say contrary is attacked, slandered and ridiculed....regardless of what the actual rules say.
Christ's power allows you to be your own "priest." You can confess to Him, pray to Him, and worship Him alone.
Your Liberal theology analogy is a good one, and I have not heard it stated that way before.
Just as the Liberals of the world want us to depend on THEM to be our masters, the 'church' demands the same thing.
I was always so offended that so many Catholics accept the demand that the Pope be called "Holy Father." There was a priest on Meet The Press who repeated that label about 20 to 25 times once.
I guess Christ's words don't really mean what they mean. That sole scripture being a dirty term, you know...
Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."
I guess this doesn't count to them either. They must have a special permission slip written a yellow stickie or something....
Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy.
Thank you.
"Christ's power allows you to be your own "priest." You can confess to Him, pray to Him, and worship Him alone."
While this is true, I do believe the Word directs us to have a covering or Pastor. We are indeed now Kings & Priests but we should desire to become accountable not only to peers but to spiritual leaders as well.
"Your Liberal theology analogy is a good one, and I have not heard it stated that way before."
It really is basic. The Devil uses what works...and he'll cross level schemes out to different areas. Liberalism can be applied to a great many facets of life. Religion [see not relationship] is but one of them.
"Just as the Liberals of the world want us to depend on THEM to be our masters, the 'church' demands the same thing."
I assume by 'church' you mean the catholic church, if so, I agree.
"I was always so offended that so many Catholics accept the demand that the Pope be called "Holy Father."
One of many direct violations of the Word. They make excuses for them all...but an excuse is not magic blanket that covers violations...it is just an excuse.
"I guess this doesn't count to them either. They must have a special permission slip written a yellow stickie or something..."
Basically, they've made their own permission slip for a great many things that directly contradict the Word...they stick the title of tradition onto it and voila, presto chango...God accepts their foolishness.
I do believe there are a many members of the catholic church "body" that desire the truth...but sometimes people just do not know. And if individuals in positions of authority misled them either intentionally or through simple error, then they slowly begin to get locked in a man made box. Line upon line and precept upon precept they slowly are led away from the truth.
The truth is simple, it is pure.
catholic doctrine has made it terribly difficult and brutally dry..and void of power.
I pray for them...out of love...I may mock it's defenders here but that is only because God Himself mocks the uptight religious crowd...in the end, He loves them too...and I do love the ones that I take apart here.
If each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study, correct? The universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular.
This, however, was completely impossible before the invention of the printing press, for without that there could not be enough copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to use. Sola scriptura therefore presupposes the inventing of the printing press, something that did not happen for the first 1,400 years of Church history.
Of course, the invention of the printing press does not itself enable us to give Bibles to every Christian in the world, not even today. In the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped.
If the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure, to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and he can keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.
if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine (for example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?).
If the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays. If the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill. That level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills (a level which does not even exist today).
Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura. In Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith. Luke 1:1-4 acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.
In 1 Thess. 2:13 Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Look at 2 Thess 3:6 where Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).
Sola Scripture is unhistorical and unbiblical, as you have just demonstrated.
He he. Pretty much. Also code for, "we have no standards".
BWAHAAAAA!!
Yes, she sure was.
Obviously the objective was altering that fact.
Imagine the shock, frustration she had to have felt following surgery when an unpleasant realization sunk-in.
...she was now an ugly man. :o)
LOL, attempting to cut & paste Michael Lopez's talking points is yet another example of your inability to debate this point. Now you are simply parroting some human construct. Again, you should be ashamed.
I tried to tell you to go get someone with a little more skill on this. I could really clown you, but I wont. At least not too much.
Myself being more familiar with the catholic argument than you are, I addressed this before you had an opportunity to attempt to prove a point with it [notice that I did not use any other man's words, save Jesus'];...as I said...the fact of the matter is that a great many of your traditions came about at a time when the Word simply was not as accessible as it could’ve been had man obeyed the Lord from jump. Regardless, catholicism filled the vacuum with its traditions. And as a result of Man’s natural inclinations toward worship, these traditions gained prominence. However, popularity is not the standard by which to judge catholic exploits.
The Bible alone is.
Regardless of the natural circumstances that existed then that helped produce your flawed doctrine...those circumstances no longer exists. Yet you attempt to maintain the purely human administrative process [Tradition] that was brought about and apply it in a far different set of circumstances.
This is just as flawed as if I were to try and apply the rules that governed baseball in 1845 to the game of baseball in 2007.
It would be laughable...and you yourself would scoff at it.
Yours are not traditions handed down by God or Jesus. They were set in place by men. The overwhelming majority of which do not come close to dating back to the apostles. So there is nothing sacred about them. As I stated before, they do not have equal footing with the Bible.
"Sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy."
~chuckle~ catholic doctrine presupposes you cannot teach an individual to read inside of a year. So, once you teach someone to read, then sola scriptura is allowed?
Your logic is flawed.
"Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word."
???
Again, flawed logic. By the same coin scripture not only never equates tradition with the Bible it actually comes against human traditions.
"Scripture also mandates the use of tradition."
The word mandate is not in the bible. Command is. Nowhere does the Word command tradition...that is laughable. Try again.
"In Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write..."
LOL, come now. Jesus did not command anyone not to write. That is just silly. Haha...forgive me for laughing at you but c'mon...anyway...
As I said before, Jesus himself came against man made traditions. For every twisted scripture you can point to that does not reference writing...I can provide two that do. Therefore using your approach I would overwhelm you with references and using your flawed logic, carry the argument.
The bottomline is that catholic doctrine lies and attempts to claim that the authority given to Peter by Jesus was by simple default transferable to the next head honcho.
There is no single declaration by Peter conferring this authority. Not one. NOT ONE. 1.
None.
There is not a single scripture explaining how a corporation [catholic church] has Jesus' authority to be the source of truth or to set forth laws for God.
Only the prophets first and then the apostles themselves [alone], were commissioned by Jesus himself. And nowhere did He command them to somehow be sources of new truth, His assignment was for them to reveal truth.
Once they [the apostles alone] provided the New Testament, their job was finished. Your job now is not to add vain rules and traditions onto it...you were supposed to defend it and teach it to others.
Instead you have intentionally perverted it for your own gain.
catholic doctrine vainly tries to lay down other sources of righteous authority. The Bible they must acquiesce to, then the catholic church and it's oral traditions [all running independent of the Word, then in the chair [ex cathedra] grand proclamations from popes [of which I have easily shown to be flawed] and finally supposed successors of the apostles.
I would love to see a single [1] scripture in which Jesus himself makes plain the authority of a corporation [church]. Mind you that before you try in vain, prophets and apostles are not "the church". Any scripture that refers to them does not magically confer any authority whatsoever to a church...for that to be the case, you would have to show where one of those prohets or apostles directly conferred that authority to a church. YOU CANNOT.
As it is, I have shown where a pope was in error in an ex cathedra proclamation.
I showed where catholic tradition directly violates the Bible.
Neither of which have been [nor can be] defended against.
And as a result, both papal infallibility and traditions given equal footing with the Word are false.
From here on out, you somehow properly and clearly defend those two things...or your rambling, twisting words are empty.
~grin~
I'm trying to tell you, you cannot win this.
You have only twisted or misapplied scriptures and human rules to back you up.
I have the Word itself, catholic doctrine's [well documented] fatal [almost laughable] errors and clear plain logic.
And I'll bend you over all day with them.
And here is the fruit of trying to equate anything else's supposed authority with that of the Bible. Very sad. Most of all sad that the little child is exposed to such nonsense.
God is simply not the author of confusion.
Who is Michael Lopez?
The Bible alone is.
Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth"
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings.
To summarize, sola scriptura is unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable.
Thanks for posting the link. It looks like the pastor, Fr. Chuck, is light in the loafers. Fortunately, his generation is rapidly passing into the twilight. He may look strange but unless he teaches something heretical, the bishop will keep him there.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you simply cut & pasted it from another catholic doctrine apologist site.
Regardless, you have shown on several posts your inability to remain focused on the points being discussed or to form your own sentences when attempting to introduce disingenuous distractions.
You did not answer the foundational issue regarding errors cited in papal ex cathedra proclamations and you did not answer the issue of catholic tradition's direct violations of the Bible.
Both of which, left unaddressed...shatter catholic doctrine of duel source authority...and as a result catholicism itself.
You see, I go straight to the heart of the matter as opposed to letting lightweights bog me down in minutia. ~grin~
Study up little man, maybe later you'll actually be able to form your own paragraphs when getting into the deep waters of catholic foolishness.
As it stands right now, you are dismissed.
:o)
And since our discussion began with this question, my reply is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus [the Word] said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life...[John].
~smile~
Jesus ALONE is the truth.
Study up little Man. ;o)
Yes .... for the Catholic Church.
You were unable to prove Sola Scriptura because it is unprovable. There is no Scriptural reference in its defense.
Thank you for the discussion. It's been a pleasure.
Haha, okay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.