It better have been the Douay Rheims!!!
Posted on 12/30/2010 12:11:03 PM PST by GonzoII
Trinity, rapture, and monotheism are also not in the Bible: but the concepts leading to their doctrine certainly are.
If Catholics cannot grasp that God alone through working of Holy Spirit put the Bible together, it’s all up for grabs: and has been up for grabs during the entire existance of the Roman Catholic Church.
Which would explain their allergorical hermaneutics that led to (drum roll please):
Aberrant non-biblical doctrines of atonement for sin, Mary, saints, celibacy, monastacism, purgatory, indulgences, papal secession, papel infallibility, the Inquisition, the crusades, infant baptism, eschatology, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that captures the tenor of Scripture in order to systematize orthodox Christian theology. Absent that, it cannot be systematized because of constant changes by subjectivity (private interpretations); depending on who is the Pope is at the time.
The Apocraphal books were never considered inspired; Jerome made that clear (but even he isn’t the final arbitrator: the Spirit didn’t allow it).
I could go on about the misinterpretations of the examples you cite: but it wouldn’t make a difference because of your unsound understanding of hermaneutics.
I would highly recommend reading “Basic Bible Interpretation” by Roy Zuck. It is the text used by many orthodox Christian seminaries. And it’s an easy read.
But churches that don’t believe in Sola Scriptura have the same diversity of opinions. Heck, the Catholic Church has all sorts of deviant positions within it’s ranks, that apparently cannot be controlled or stopped by tradition or any other appeals to extra-biblical authority.
It better have been the Douay Rheims!!!
Or adding them, or weeding out other books and passages. Someone has to figure out what is scripture, and what isn’t.
"what "oral" traditions Paul was talking about in 2 Thes 2:15 is the Catechism???"No, contained therein along with the expostion of the written Traditions as well.
Or you could have said, that you don't know and I would have said, yes, i know.
But Scripture is not "God"
Have you not read - "And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD." Douay-Rhiems Revelation 19:13.
Again, the Scirptures testify that the Lord Jesus Christ and Word (Scriptures) are one the same.
What will you say to the Lord Jesus Christ if he asks you why you said His Scriptures was "Just a book"?
“and His efforts, no matter how independent of man are insufficient for salvation without the help of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)”
God cannot save anybody until Luther put together his books and gave the bible to everybody in German. If you don’t read German, sucks to be you.
“Without tradition, God is impotent to provide salvation. He is dependent upon the attitudes and customary habits of man in order for Him to provide salvation.”
God has chosen to appoint Apostles to preach his word, but you don’t have to listen to anything they say, so long as you have a book which contains most of the words that Christ said.
“Since His Word references historical events, they must be embellished with man made RCC tradition.”
Words that contradict what I believe are embellishments. Words that affirm what I believe are historical.
“As in Acts 15, God the Father required nothing more than faith in Christ of the Gentiles to receive salvation and God the Holy Spirit in them.”
That and the Holy Book in German minus a few books nobody cares about written by Luther.
“The tradition of the RCC mandates other burdens including the ordinances of the RCC be followed in order to receive salvation just to help God out so His salvation mechanism might be more perfect.”
Yes, and whatever you do, don’t pray the rosary or you will be damned to hell. Extrabiblical tradition is wrong.
“Even though the priests taught from Scripture, their teaching is now used as a substitute for His Word and considered independent of His Word by the RCC, so they also can add whatever they want and it has as much authority in the RCC as His Word.”
If you see a person claiming to be a prophet of God, who did not have the holy book of Luther, they are devils sent by Satan to deceive.
“The only conclusion the RCC can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth.”
Better to have a one legged stool and rest by faith, not works.
Another refutation of Sola Scriptura is the ending of the Eleventh Resurrection Gospel read during matins, written by St. John the Theologian:
24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
St John 21: 24-25
Verse 24 mentions oral testimony of the Apostle John, his written record, (both of which are witnesses to what Christ did and said) and then more witnesses to St. John’s testimony - the knowledge and Tradition of the Church. 2/3 of the confirmation has nothing to do with written records, although written records are ok - obviously or we wouldn’t have this Gospel record. : )
Verse 25 is not some weird justification for Mormon tales. It too is testimony - besides the Resurrection - to the fact that Jesus is indeed eternal God. His Being and power and actions are far beyond the confines of our puny, fallen, human understanding, and books.
Seriously? Any secular history? What about the Inquisition, the Berserker Bible, the deliberate mistranslation of "Judeans" as "Jews" in the crucifixion story, or the Donative of Constantine? What about the reign of the Borgias? How does the word of God justify castratti? Of course it doesn't, but the Popes at the time said it did.
This discussion is a waste of time. Jesus depended on people to pass on his word. Jesus didn’t believe in writing. Jesus did not give written instructions to those he selected. Jesus could have come to earth is any number of ways. God chose people for the birth and raising of his Son. No where was Scriptura to be found for many years.
Sola Scriptura is just an excuse to justify separation from the Catholic Church. That we ‘all be one’ is possible only within the reach of those with power to bind and loose and who function with Jesus to be with them until the end. Come home to the Catholic Church. Stop kicking against the goad.
True.
The main question for everyone is do you believe the 16th century compilation is more accurate than the 5th century compilation.
Luke 9:46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. 47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. 49 And John answered and said , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
No it doesn’t. It assumes the ability of the living Christ to shepherd his fallible sheep infallibly through Scripture and the Holy Spirit working in tandem in the lives of genuine believers. Institutional superstructures are nice if you can have them, but what does God need that any man can supply? Nothing. Run whatever arguments you like against Sola Scriptura, but any argument that presumes a weakness in God’s ability to accomplish the building of his own church on his own terms using his own instrumentalities will find no quarter with me.
Inquisition was what? 16th century? What has that got to do with the ecumenical councils that were readily accepted by even Luther.
The donative is what, 8th, 9th century? Where the Pope was given secular, not ecclesiastical authority over the Western Empire?
It’s like coming late to the party and missing all the stuff from before and then claiming that the only thing that happened is the stuff you were around to see.
Why don't we call this Thread: A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Scripture"
No kidding. They have the catechism, the scripture is just redundant, confusing and must be explained by the magesterium via the catechism any way.
“Institutional superstructures are nice if you can have them, but what does God need that any man can supply? Nothing.”
God chose to build his Church. How anyone can argue that God choosing to build his own Church equates to God needing to build his Church is beyond me.
You might as well argue that the Great Commission means that God is unable to spread his Word, except through the words of the Apostles.
Have you even bothered to look up my reference?
“John 1:1 states “And the Word was God”. So the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word are one and the same. You cannot split the Lord Jesus Christ and the Scriptures (His inspired Word). To do so is an attempt to destroy His authority and His word. “
Huge assumption here. You think the Word is something written. That doesn’t necessarily follow.
In the beginning was the Word. (God spoke and created the world) And the Word was with God. (The Son, the second person of the Trinity) And the Word was God. (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
For Catholics, it is by Mary ("ALL SALVATION" - UBI PRIMAM 1849 Pope Pius IX).
For us Reformed Protestants - It is BY GOD (our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ) Alone.
See post 88.
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.