[NYer]

Saturday night ‘food for thought’ ping!

[swmobuffalo]

This what the second or third such epistle in the last couple of days?

[vpintheak]

Say what you want. No where in the Bible, whatever version you have, does it say obey the Pope. No, my salvation rests solely on Jesus Christ no matter what any human may say.

[gusopol3]

St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptur

by what right "ought" Augustine have the last word? Now, no "circular arguments pointing to himself (NYer or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so."

[workerbee]

[Huber]

I thought that the other thread today http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2010419/posts was much more interesting because of the way the reformation protestant author painted himself into a corner by emphasizing the sola scriptura tradition of the reformation.

[Amendment10]

Consider that Jesus' disciples studied from the same scroll version of the OT Scriptures that Jesus did. However, also consider that regardless that the disciples "knew" the Scriptures, the disciples, including the Apostles, still failed to correlate events in Jesus' life and ministry that they had been eyewitnesses to with scriptural prophecies concerning the first coming of the Messiah. This is evidenced by the fact that Luke 24:44-45 tells us that the risen Jesus had to open his disciple's minds to scriptural prophesies that he had fulfilled after the fact.

Also note that John 16:12-15 tells us that Jesus' Holy Spirit opens our minds to scriptural truths today, just as Jesus had done with his disciples.

The bottom line is that Protestants, Catholics and anybody else can memorize the Holy Bible. But if you resist the power of Jesus' Holy Spirit to open your mind to who Jesus is and to understand scriptural truths, then you are no better off than 1 Corinthians 1:18-19.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

[Question_Assumptions]

I think that absolute inerrancy is not only unsupportable (given the variances in the early manuscripts that we have, no matter how minor) but a fundamentally dangerous idea. If you want to understand why I call it dangerous, read Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. Regardless of whether you accept his arguments (I think he often makes a mountain out of a mole hill, myself), the problem is that Ehrman built his faith upon a belief in absolute inerrancy and had his faith, not only in inerrancy but in Christianity itself, shattered when he realized that there were variations in the manuscripts from which modern Bibles are produced. A faith based upon absolute inerrancy is a faith build on a flawed foundation, and unnecessarily so, in my opinion.

[ROTB]

BTTT

[Tao Yin]

The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

That's false. The apostles said to stick to what they said and wrote. Since we can not hear them speak anymore, we have to stick with what they wrote. QED

I know the Catholic Church tries to say that we need to listen to their words, but I follow an apostolic church not the Catholic Church.

No where in the Bible does the idea of apostolic succession appear. The apostles said there weren't any secret teachings and they specifically said to teach what they taught in public.

The Bible says that we will not be orphans because of the Holy Spirit. Easy to understand. Listen to the apostles and we're not alone because of the Holy Spirit.

Besides, the Catholic Church's authority does not go back to Peter, but back to Clement, the fourth Pope. He wrote a letter and no one complained. Later Popes used Clement as case law. That's when this whole mess started. Interestingly enough, Clement's letter talks about salvation through faith alone. Even more interesting, Clement's letter talks about the phoenix as if it were real.

[the invisib1e hand]

logic is not the strong suit of the evengelical. well, I take that back. It actually takes a herculean torture of logic to remove the Church from the Faith.

[Alex Murphy]

But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had.

Goota love those Catholic make-it-up-as-we-go-along apologetics!

[Wings-n-Wind]

The tone of this article is more than a little abrasive--
Not leaving much room for civil exchange or discussion--

Furthermore the author obviously does NOT understand the Biblical foundations of evangelical soteriology/ecclesiology...

IMHO...
The large measure of good will generated durung the recent US visit by the leader of the RCC is easily dispersed by shallow articles such as these...

Again, just my humble...
I'm done...

Pass the popcorn!

[horse_doc]

Of course, the kicker is, that if you follow this article to its logical conclusion, then Catholics should look to the Greek Orthodox Church for guidance.

It IS the older organization, after all. Much closer to where the Gospels were actually written, etc.

I love you guys, but the Reformation happened, because the Catholic Church was a mess. That, and the fact that God wanted it to. Deal with it.

[TheDon]

Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?

Of course, one could ask the Catholic the same question, and receive the same answer. :-)

[old-ager]

Show me a tradition that adds to Scripture without contradicting it.

[LiteKeeper]

You Roman Catholics are so full of yourselves. You have encrusted the Gospel, and the Word of God, with your traditions.

There will be a Day of Reckoning!

[Beloved Levinite]

When I read about the “makeup” of the New Testament Church, I find that it bears *absolutely no resemblance whatsoever* to the Roman Catholic Church, with all it pomp, pageantry & *incredible riches!* (eg: 20 RCC Vatican museums are loaded with priceless art, the value of which is unable to be estimated - not to mention the real property worldwide.) The net worth of the Catholic Church is absolutely staggering. Christ warned against the accumulation of riches in this life.

Christ rode into Jerusalem on a lowly donkey and receives his “crown of thorns,” yet the pope of Rome gets carted around on a throne by his servants, with his triple tiara upon his head.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

[Paridel]

But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had.

I don't think this is the case at all. It depends completely on the individual and the specific denomination. Yes, many protestants believe that at some point in time the church fell into apostasy. But they might place this anywhere within the past 2000 years. I think most Anabaptists teach that this occurred immediately... that the majority of the church was in apostasy from the beginning, with only a small group of true followers?

Anyway, I'm Anglican so I don't really believe this per see, although I do believe our split was justified at the time. I spend a lot of time defending the Catholic church, or sometimes just explaining it, to Baptists, etc. They often have a lot of crazy ideas at to what Catholics believe.

But, so do Catholics about "Protestants!". Most Catholics I know have a greatly simplified view of Protestant beliefs.

-paridel

[quadrant]

The fact that no canonical list exists of books that should be in the Bible does not preclude Protestants from examining the literature that does exist and compiling a statement of God's revelation to humankind. Nothing I've seen or read indicates that the leaders of the Church in antiquity possessed insight into God's will superior to those who compiled the Protestant Bible. Simply because an early Church council decided that certain books should be included and certain books excluded in no way settles the issue.