Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Catholic Fidelity.Com ^ | Dave Armstrong

Posted on 12/30/2010 12:11:03 PM PST by GonzoII

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

By Dave Armstrong

1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible


Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also


"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word


Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions


Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem


In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition


Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura


To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"


"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding


If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).

"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position


When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

 


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic; freformed; scripture; solascriptura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 561-568 next last
To: Cronos
you don't believe in the limbo of the fathers?

I don't minister to the insane. When someone is so completely hopeless and willingly blind, I just shake their digital dust from my sandals and walk away laughing.

(chuckle)


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

401 posted on 01/01/2011 2:54:27 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

**But Christ is God and died on the cross, so God died on the cross. This is non-negotiable.**

Man’s logic. Also unscriptural (I notice you don’t use scripture very much to present your views).

In nearly every epistle’s greeting, to the churches he helped to found, Paul mentions ‘God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’. Two things stand out in those greetings: They don’t say ‘and God the Lord Jesus Christ’; and not only is there no ‘and God the Holy Ghost’ phrase, the Holy Ghost is mostly left out of those greeting verses (kinda dissing the ‘third person’ donchathink).

The ‘trinity’ teaching is just full of inconsistensies, as I have pointed out a few in this thread. My emphasis on God the Father dwelling in Christ, complete with scriptural references, should be enough.

But, I understand. I was trinitarian until I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost over 27 yrs ago. Previously, I was told I had received the Spirit when I believed, but, there had been no supernatural experience in receiving it, which is contrary to the Word.

I said “Here’s a riddle for you: Why is the term ‘God the Father’ found in scripture, but the term ‘God the Holy Ghost’(Spirit) not; and why is Jesus Christ never referred to as ‘God the Son’, but ‘the Son of God’?”

You said **If you deny that the Son is God, then you aren’t a Christian. Something else for sure, but not a Christian.**

That’s not an answer to the ‘riddle’, but a judgement against me personally. But I’ll move on here.

During my afore mentioned conversion, I was immersed in water, in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (as per Peter’s instructions in Acts 2:38). We that obey that command believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (not a ‘chip off the old block’, but made by God), and that the Father, the fulness of God, dwells in that man, and has ordained him to be the Judge.


402 posted on 01/01/2011 3:05:51 PM PST by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Actually, no, Jesus is the source of all truth. Just as the Supreme Court does not create the constitution but defend it, so too the Magisterium only defends the Truth , the Good News of Jesus Christ. 

The Supreme Court has the Constitution as a rule book for it's rulings. A Christian has only the Bible as their source for truth. The Magisterium uses the Bible and the writings and traditions of the church fathers as it's source of truth.

That puts the church fathers writings and traditions on par with the Bible and the words of Jesus.

The good news of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with whether Mary was a perpetual virgin and/or sinless. It only concerns Him dying for my sins and His Father extending that sacrifice to me.

Popes are elected by the Cardinals -- it is believed that they are directed by the Holy Spirit, just as the authors of the Gospel were directed by the Holy SPirit who was the real author. No one else can explain how in 1978 a Polish pope was elected who brought down communism. This was the hand of God behind the Cardinals.

There is no bases in scripture for any of this. I can show you verse after verse, chapter after chapter, book after book how God the Father created the Old Testament earthly priesthood and it's duties. You can only show me a couple of passage taken out of context to support the Church of the Magisterium.

The biggest falsehood is that the 12 were given special gifts or commissions that are not incumbent on every believer. Forgiving sins and binding and loosing pertain to you and I today. If we don't forgive/loose, sins against us by others when they ask, our sins against God cannot be forgiven/unbound against us when we ask Him.

The New Testament Church has no need for an earthly sanctuary now that the perfect sacrifice placed His priestly blood on the alter in heaven. Read Hebrews a couple times through. It explains this well.

BVB

 

403 posted on 01/01/2011 3:41:37 PM PST by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
"If you deny that the Son is God, then you aren’t a Christian. Something else for sure, but not a Christian."

This is the teaching of your church, the church of the Magisterium. It only came into being to make Mary the mother of God to support all that came with that title.

Your first Pope, Peter, would not be a Christian by your standards. Peter called Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, not God the Son when he was asked by Jesus who Peter thought He is.
 

Matthew 16:15-17 (New King James Version)

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

If Jesus was God, why didn't He correct him? If He is God and didn't correct Peter, it would be a lie and He would no longer be sinless.

He reinforced Peter's answer by telling Peter His Father in Heaven had given Peter that knowledge.

We have both the Father and Son saying He is the Son of God.

Only flesh and blood years after the fact say Jesus is God.

BVB

 


404 posted on 01/01/2011 3:49:28 PM PST by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings
"There is no bases in scripture for any of this."

You guys are like a one string banjo. You make demands that Catholics first accept your premise of the validity of Sola Scriptura and restrict our answers to Scripture. Why don't you provide answers to the following questions to validate your premise before asking that it be accepted a priori.

1) Define scripture and differentiate it from the hundreds of competing contemporary works rejected by Canon. 2) Provide a Scriptural table of contents or listing of the works that comprise Scripture. 3) Provide a Scriptural proof that establishes that 100% of the revealed Word of God is found in Scripture. 4) Explain how the Scriptural imperative functioned in the 400 years before canon was established.

5) Explain how the Scriptural imperative functioned in the 1200 or so years between the establishment of canon and a level of literacy and availability of Bibles in the common language.

405 posted on 01/01/2011 5:11:12 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

My prediction for 2011? The protestants will NEVER answer those questions.


406 posted on 01/01/2011 5:13:41 PM PST by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings

“This is the teaching of your church, the church of the Magisterium”

Yes, you’re right that the Catholics do teach this, but so do all the other Christians.

Maybe we should poll them, and see what they say.


407 posted on 01/01/2011 6:14:06 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rush speaks! I hear, I obey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Zuriel

“So you deny that oxygen depletion affects the mind.”

What, you can’t argue your position without resort to falsehood?


408 posted on 01/01/2011 9:27:17 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: dsc

I’ve never ‘huffed’ CO2, but the results people get from it make them do it again, inspite of the danger of seizures, coma, etc. Why do they do it? I guess it just ‘blows their mind’.

Maybe you want to build your religion around ‘near/after death experiences’, and dreams. Knock yourself out (well,..no, don’t do that).

Cheers


409 posted on 01/01/2011 9:40:24 PM PST by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee
Do we have ALL the Word of God available to us?

Yes -- Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

Note that the term Sola Scriptura as used by many on this forum is defined as expecting Scripture to contain bases for all theological truths and religious practices. To mean that we must be able to derive from Scripture alone all of the theological truths that God wished to reveal to mankind—and even all of the religious practices in which Christians should engage (i.e., that Scripture is "sufficient for faith and practice").

Note: you share with us all of the Church beliefs necessary for salvation: God exists; God is a Trinity; Jesus is God the Son; Jesus died on a cross for our sins; and we need to repent, believe, and be baptized to be saved—in other words, truths connected directly with the gospel.

Remember that the beliefs you and others may rail against are not truths necessary for salvation. Similarly in the Sola scriptura world we have places where the Bible clearly teaches many things that are not directly required for salvation. For example, it teaches the existence of angels. The reality of angels is not itself something that you need to know to get into heaven.

Let me ask you dying man knows that the Bible teaches the existence of angels but refuses to believe it. HE believes in the trinity, that Jesus Christ is Lord, God and Our Savior who died for Our sins on the cross and we need to repent, believe. Suppose he also knows that God is the author of the Bible and that God teaches the existence of angels, yet he still refuses to believe it. Does that man have faith in God? He may acknowledge God’s existence, he may want to be saved by God, but classical Protestant theologians would not say that a man who acknowledges God’s existence but refuses to accept what he knows to be God’s word has faith in God—certainly not saving faith
410 posted on 01/01/2011 11:43:12 PM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee; Jvette
I dont know anyone who says that

Actually you do -- there are a few on this forum who repeat that statement -- doctors, cool or not, with no screen names or otherwise. These are the foaming at the mouth posters who will keep repeating that false statement.
411 posted on 01/01/2011 11:46:56 PM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Zuriel; BenKenobi; bkaycee; boatbums; aMorePerfectUnion; sr4402; Bobsvainbabblings
God is Christ, only if you’re referring to the Father dwelling in him.

So, let's understand this -- you say that Jesus was a human who got God's spirit in Him? That Jesus Christ is not God?

Is this standard belief for your Protestant group?
412 posted on 01/01/2011 11:49:36 PM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
1. Man under God's direction wrote (Past tense) scriptures

2. No beliefs / practises in Holy Tradition contradict scripture. They cannot

3. Limiting the Word of God (Jesus Christ) to just the Written Word is trying to put boundaries on a boundaryless God

4. The interpretation of scripture on it's own is difficult for one person (hence the profusion of sects), hence we study the Bible as a community, a community globally and through time
413 posted on 01/01/2011 11:53:13 PM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
you don't minister to the insane? But isn't that your entire congregation?

You supposedly think that limbo is non-biblical, yet I told you
(Luke 16:22). Jesus told the Good Thief that the two of them would be together "this day" in "Paradise" (Luke 23:43; see also Matthew 27:38); but between on the Sunday of his resurrection he said that he had "not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17).
Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell. Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him

For Limbo of the infants, note that the very term is not and has never been, defined doctrine. All the Church says is
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
Now take those two points and compare it with what you were taught The Church believes -- and you'll see that whoever fed you the falsehoods was lying.
If you can refute that, refute it. If not, go back to your insane community and keep believing that J Smith is a deity.
414 posted on 01/01/2011 11:55:37 PM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
Here's another thing where whoever told you what the Church teaches, lied to you
Purgatory is the process by which those who die in God's grace and friendship, who have been saved by the blood of the lamb are given their final scrubbing clean of sin by God before they enter the presence of the Lord (because in God's presence sin is non-existent, destroyed). Church doctrine clearly states that this is a process, NOT a place -- it's silent on the nature of this as we do not know, but we know that all who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation. Christ's blood washing them clean.
Now go, realise that all those who tell you to hate The Church lie about it's teachings
415 posted on 01/01/2011 11:57:06 PM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
And, I call my Catholic priests Ksiądz which translates as Priest. Why do you put the English world as being the only one?

Now go, realise that all those who tell you to hate The Church lie about it's teachings. Quote to this liar, 1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat [him] as a father, [and] the younger men as brethren.

Quote to him, Matthew 23: 8-10 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your teacher; and all you are brethren. [9] And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. [10] Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.

So, if you are not supposed to call any man teacher then why do you address your teachers as such? Why do you call a Doctor,'doctor' (it's just the Latin word for teacher)? Why in Matthew 28:19-20 does Christ say "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Why does Paul say For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). ?

Why does Paul tell us that that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11).?

Why do you call men "Master" Why call them "Mister" and "Mistress (Mrs)" which are forms of the word "master"?

If you stopped calling people teacher, doctor, Mr., Mrs, because of this, that is a misunderstanding of Christ’s words due to solo scriptura
416 posted on 01/02/2011 12:07:06 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
And, finally, if you think one cannot believe 2 beliefs, that is a perfect description of someone contrary to the ordinary man described by Chesterton. To quote from Chesterton's Orthodoxy:
Ordinary man has always been sane (because) he has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. his spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet he sees all the bette for that. thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. IT is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious and everything else becomes lucid.

417 posted on 01/02/2011 12:08:57 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Zuriel; BenKenobi; bkaycee; The Comedian; boatbums; aMorePerfectUnion; sr4402
As ben said If you deny that the Son is God, then you aren’t a Christian. Something else for sure, but not a Christian.**

That's not a judgement against you personally but a statement of fact.

Let me ask our worthy non-Catholic FRiends here -- bk, tc, bb, ampu, sr -- if a person denies the divnity of Christ, would any of your groups call them Christian?
418 posted on 01/02/2011 12:12:04 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Zuriel; BenKenobi; bkaycee; The Comedian; boatbums; aMorePerfectUnion; sr4402; Jvette
until I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost over 27 yrs ago. Previously, I was told I had received the Spirit when I believed, but, there had been no supernatural experience in receiving it, which is contrary to the Word.

Then why exactly does Jesus sayd in Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Seriously -- that has clearly specified that there is ONE name for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Why in the Shema (Deut 6:4) do we have Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai elohanu, Adonai echod? Echod describes a unity of beings, is the one used to speak of God, who is not by essence a solitude, but a unity.

in Gen 1:26, God says "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." -- since God is ONE, this expression of plurality must refer to God Himself. At the tower of babel, God says "let US go down", yet no one else comes down with Him.

Who created the world, forgives sins, gives eternal life, answers prayers, and is worthy of worship? Few would argue that anyone but God is capable of these things. But the Bible teaches that Jesus does them all (Heb. 1:10; Matt: 9:6; John 10:28; John 14:13; Rev. 5:13–14, respectively).

In John 8:58, Jesus takes this sacred name of God (cf. Ex. 3:14), and applies it to himself: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." Only God may use this title of himself without b.aspheming (Ex. 20:7, Deut. 5:11), and the punishment for misusing his name is death by stoning (Lev. 24:16). Thus Jesus’ good Jewish audience immediately recognized the sacred name, and as a result they picked up stones to kill him when he applied that name to himself (John 8:59).


John 1:1 reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" --> There is adequate proof in the Bible for the Trinity and for the divinity of Christ. What you have just demonstrated by your denial of Christ's divinity is the flaws of sola scriptura
419 posted on 01/02/2011 12:23:30 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings
The Magisterium uses the Bible as the gold standard of truth -- no tradition or practise or belief can contradict that. Holy Tradition cannot contradict that which it had birthed, namely Holy Scripture. Scripture is infallible and infallibly the written Word of God

Church fathers writings are not on par with the Bible and the Word of God. The good news of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with whether Mary was a perpetual virgin and/or sinless.

you share with us all of the Church beliefs necessary for salvation: God exists; God is a Trinity; Jesus is God the Son; Jesus died on a cross for our sins; and we need to repent, believe, and be baptized to be saved—in other words, truths connected directly with the gospel.
420 posted on 01/02/2011 12:25:59 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 561-568 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson