Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

Catholic Apologetics ^ | Joel Peters

[papertyger]

Dude, you can "literary device" it any way you like. If the seven letters aren't about doctrine, the Bible ain't about God.

[hosepipe]

[ Dude, you can "literary device" it any way you like. If the seven letters aren't about doctrine, the Bible ain't about God. ]

You can believe that, I have no problem with you believeing that..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Indeed, the Holy Spirit is often ignored in these types of discussions. And sometimes when we testify to the Spirit, others leap to accuse us of gnosticism or being possessed by a demon.

Jeepers...

[LordBridey]

I grew up in the catholic church an in my experience, the church places itself first, Mary second and Jesus last. The Holy Spirit is an after thought.

Apparently your experience was tragicly divorced from anything even remotely resembling understanding, otherwise you would would find it impossible to make such an ignorant and absurd statement.

I guess if I were in a religion that was so damned by the scriptures I would want to minimize their importance too.

That's a double-edged sword. If I left a religion I might find it useful to interpret scripture as condemnation of that religion as well. That is one of the attractions of sola scriptura.

In fact, if I were the devil himself, I wouldn't want people following scripture or even reading it.

Or better yet, and much more subtle, is to have people use scripture to create divisions, thereby contradicting Christ's will for his followers to remain as one, and justify the insipid and malicious tenor of your rhetoric.

The Holy Spirit is an after thought.

The truth is that the Holy Spirit is a fore-thought, evoked before every prayer, and specifically during the liturgy, prior to one's full and undivided attention is given to Christ and what He accomplished, the Holy Spirit is always summoned for His blessing. The Holy Spirit is not an after-thought, and saying Christ is last is pure scandal.

Mary's blood cant forgive sin no matter what your scholars write.

LOL. You are not going to criticize the Vatican's treatment of the sacred flying monkeys are you?

[raygunfan]

they didnt appoint successors? but as the apostles began to pass from the scene, they appointed certain non-apostles-like Timothy, Titus, Mark, Philip, and Apollos-to oversee multiple local congregations and to appoint (Tit. 1:5) and discipline (1 Tim. 5:19-20) individual presbyters within them.

How is that not Christ based?

[hosepipe]

[ How is that not Christ based? ]

Because Jesus gave zero instructions for doing this..
It was merely an attempt at organization.. and control..
Sometimes with good results sometimes with bad..

What were bad results?.. When the Holy Spirit was forgotten and usurped..
Meaning when clergical control was developed.. and it was developed..
When the "church" became like a club.. with bylaws and officers..

It happened quite quickly in some places..

In the beginning the Holy Spirit was honored as "real and present"..
In the end (like now in most places) the Holy Spirit was not needed..
The "congragation" could function fine withour him..
But was called, out to, like a dog.. or retarded janitor..

Most churchs I've visited could function nicely without the Holy Spirit..
And DO... except when called on to perform, like a Penn and Teller Magic Show..
i.e. was it the Holy Spirit or just an entertainment trick..

[raygunfan]

oh, i get it, the word of God that i posted, that you claim as the sole rule of faith, that shows the apostles, appointing successors and telling others to do the same, to run the church, is wrong?

can you tell me what they meant in those scriptures then?

i mean, so far, you have done nothing but disagree with the written word of God....the same written word you claim is the end all be all of the faith...

so please, re-interpret those scriptures and make them say something other than what a plain contextual reading means....

im anxious to hear how to change the plain meaning of the text...

[hosepipe]

[ oh, i get it, the word of God that i posted, that you claim as the sole rule of faith, that shows the apostles, appointing successors and telling others to do the same, to run the church, is wrong? ]

Yes they were wrong.. but they did the best they could do..
As "we" may have done the same.. Who knew that church officers would evidentially become Pharisees.. as they have, mostly, almost universally..

Jesus did not forbid sheep pens(John ch 10).. or denominations.. Yet surely he knew it would happen.. It is just the way sheep are.. Forming "clubs".. or "folds" along certain lines of thought.. The Jews did the same.. i.e. Pharisees, Sadducee's, Essenes etc.. The human condition requires "grouping" to hear what we want to hear.. by those that will tickle our ears.. i.e. sheep pens.. The walls of the sheep pen are dogma and doctrines.. We self sort ourselves into groups.. Jesus evidently knew that..

If Jesus forbade it "WE" would have done it anyway.. SO he didn't.. Christians have self sorted themselves into thousands of groups.. Not only that but so have the non christians.. Lets call THOSE Goat pens.. i.e. Buddhist, Hindi, Islam, Mormons, ATHEISTS etc.. Sheep and Goat pens are quite brilliantly devised.. Humans self sorting themselves into pens..

As John ch 10 suggests.. The Shepherd calls out to the sheep and SOME of them COME OUT..(of the sheep pens) which have hirelings feeding them.. Be advised that, that is what the word church(Eklesia) MEANS(called out ones).. Anyway some come out others do not.. (according to the metaphor)..

The sheep pens seem to need officers(hirelings).. or think they do.. The New Testament just says what happened right or wrong.. There MUST BE sheep pens.. and there also must be the flock outside of the sheep (and goat) pens.. following the shepherd..

[raygunfan]

so again ,you have not addressed the scriptures i sited, the words inspired by the HS.

please explain what those mean....

[hosepipe]

[ so again ,you have not addressed the scriptures i sited, the words inspired by the HS. please explain what those mean.... ]

I did addrees them.. There are quite a few more than you mentioned.. I addressed them too.. What the apostles and others did does not mean thats the way it(whatever) should have happened.. or that the Holy Spirit was behind it.. or instigated it.. The apostles and others did many things wrongly.. Like...... Argueing amonst themselves who would be greatest in heaven... Especially Cephas(Peter)..

[raygunfan]

no,you did not address them, when the inspireed inerrant word of God says to appoint others to teach, that doesnt mean something other than what it says...

im done here...you have shown you are not only ignorant of the word, but are willfully ignorant.

[hosepipe]

[ no,you did not address them, when the inspireed inerrant word of God says to appoint others to teach, that doesnt mean something other than what it says... ]

I see... you worship the word of God like an idol..
Many do... I do not.. idolotry is nasty stuff.. be careful..
Be at peace..

[OLD REGGIE]

I don’t have a lot to time to do research that you could easily do but you can start here:

Have you forgotten your post?

"since 3/4 of the Old Testament quotes attributed to Jesus in the New Testament come from the “Apocrypha”.”

Perhaps you mistakenly typed "Apocrypha" rather than "Septuagint"?

From your first link:

I don’t have a lot to time to do research that you could easily do but you can start here:

from: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/bible_catholics_apocrypha.htm : Jesus quotes the Septuagint in 80% of his Old Testament references.

Of course. For the most part the Septuagint was a faithful copy of the Hebrew Scripture.

Have you read and studied your links?

A few links you may wish to read (or not):

Are the Apocrypha Quoted in the New Testament?

The Apocrypha Exposed!

[phatus maximus]

Respectfully asked -

Which tradition not located in scripture is essential for salvation?

Blessings in Christ to you and yours -

PM

[Petronski]

I’m not aware of any.

[phatus maximus]

Thank you for your reply.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[TradicalRC]

Catholicism and Orthodoxy condemn the observance of the Torah, insisting that J*sus put an end to all that.

I'm not sure that is accurate. Many of the things condemned in the Torah are also condemned in the New Testament. Some Christians subscribe to the idea that the new abolishes the old completely but I think that's a Protestant perspective. Some might subscribe to the idea that what is Not Explicitly changed or condemned in the NT still holds, others might say that whatever the NT reconfirms from the OT still holds. I honestly could not tell you the official RC or Orthodox position on the OT is.

[NYer]

Excellent presentation! Thank you for posting this thread. Bookmarked!

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's apparently not so. From "The Phrase Finder":

CLEANLINESS IS NEXT TO GODLINESS - "This ancient proverb is said by some to have come from ancient Hebrew writings. However, its first appearance in English - though in slightly altered form - seems to be in the writings of Francis Bacon. In his 'Advancement of Learning' (1605) he wrote: 'Cleanness of body was ever deemed to proceed from a due reverence to God.' Near two centuries later John Wesley in one of his sermons (1791) indicated that the proverb was already well known in the form we use today. Wrote Wesley: 'Slovenliness is no part of religion.'Cleanliness is indeed next to Godliness.'"

From "Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins" by William and Mary Morris (HarperCollins, New York, 1977, 1988). There are a couple more details in "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996): ".According to the fourteenth edition of 'Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable,' it is an old Hebrew proverb used in the late 2nd century by Rabbi Phinehas ben-Yair. First attested in the United States in the 'Monthly Anthology and Boston Review' (1806). The proverb is found in varying forms."