Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/25/2014 6:51:38 AM PST by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Alex Murphy; Gamecock
"Well, there you have it - shouting makes it right!"

I turned it down for you.

2 posted on 01/25/2014 6:54:20 AM PST by GonzoII ("If the new crime be, to believe in God, let us all be criminals" -Sheen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

This is nonsense. Throughout his ministry Jesus mocked and used as foils the so called learned and Pharisees that quoted the Biblical passages literally. They were vapid then and they are vapid now.


3 posted on 01/25/2014 6:55:07 AM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: knarf
I read almost all of that treatise, and .. though I want to digest it more .. conclude that the same reasoning to denounce sola scriptura can be used to denounce the Catholic Church as an institution ... a catholic church, perhaps, but not a Catholic Church.

intrigued

ping to new thread--Gonzo

4 posted on 01/25/2014 6:58:01 AM PST by GonzoII ("If the new crime be, to believe in God, let us all be criminals" -Sheen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

On what is the claim to authority of the Catholic Church based?


7 posted on 01/25/2014 7:04:23 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: metmom; Alex Murphy
More Protestant haters and bashing. </sarc>

Seriously, notice that the Roman Catholics cry non-Roman Catholics are Catholic bashers/haters whenever we post a critique of the Roman Catholic Church?

8 posted on 01/25/2014 7:07:12 AM PST by Gamecock (If you like your constitution, you can keep your constitution. Period. (M.S.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII
The "logic" of the Catholic Church never ceases to amaze me. Arguing against Sola Scriptura is just another rant against the very foundation of the church. Jerome and other great Christian father purposely set aside the scriptures as "inspired" and "inerrant" writings. Catholics have rejected this view assigning other such writings to the same status.

If only Athanasius could see what's happening now.

Mat_15:6b ... So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

12 posted on 01/25/2014 7:12:07 AM PST by HarleyD (...one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

Completely misses the part about going outside the written word.

Deut. 4:2.....“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 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

Revelation 22:18-19 “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”


14 posted on 01/25/2014 7:21:42 AM PST by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

When I was Catholic. I firmly believed in traditions, ancient Roman civilization accretions and myths of the last 2000 years. Now it’s Sola Scriptura for me. I never ran into anticatholic stuff on FR as I see procatholic antiprotestant stuff now. Maybe jim doesn’t need my$20 per month.


15 posted on 01/25/2014 7:32:44 AM PST by Moonmad27 ("I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." Jessica Rabbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

I. Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”

Gen. to Rev. - 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.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

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 - Luke 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.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

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? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - 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).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (”He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html


36 posted on 01/25/2014 8:31:14 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; metmom; boatbums; daniel1212; Salvation; HarleyD; ...
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

Would Catholics like to show another source that proves what the apostles taught?

63 posted on 01/25/2014 9:49:38 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

For me, sola scripture comes down to the question, “Does God have feathers?”


85 posted on 01/25/2014 10:32:20 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII
Sola Scriptura – An Unbiblical Recipe for Confusion

Confused?

Who??

Ain't NONE of US CONFUSED!!!



Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]

Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

100 posted on 01/25/2014 11:07:05 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII
Confused?

Who??


As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,

 

Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm

Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,

Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71

And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,

“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.

Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.

• Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:

Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42

• Augustine, sermon:

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

Augustine, sermon:

For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

Augustine, sermon:

And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

Augustine, sermon:

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

Augustine, sermon:

...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193

Augustine, Psalm LXI:

Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)

• Augustine, in “Retractions,”

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:

'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.

Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:

You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].

• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:

'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455

Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:

Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)

Cyril of Alexandria:

When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.

Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):

“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'

“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)

Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.

101 posted on 01/25/2014 11:07:57 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

“Once I got past the superficial, I had to try to answer real questions like, what role does tradition play?”

If Mr. Staples really wants to answer some real questions I have a few beyond the well gummed on ones he fleshs out his blog with.


119 posted on 01/25/2014 11:29:47 AM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII; Elsie; redleghunter

Sola Ecclesia vs Scripture – An Unbiblical Recipe for Delusion

You are wrong on multiple levels. What Scripture supports is that it is the only tangible, testable, transcendent comprehensive revelation that is wholly inspired of God.

And that it is Scripture alone that is the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as the assured Word of God, and which is abundantly evidenced </a>.*

And therefore the church DID NOT begin under Rome's alternative, that of sola ecclesia, in which the church alone is the supreme authority for determining Truth, based upon historical descent, etc.

And instead it began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which Rome cannot do, and instead Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

In addition, Scripture formally provides the Truth needed for salvation, so that a normal soul by God's grace can read a passage such as Acts 10:36-43 and be saved.

Furthermore, Scripture also materially provides for the both writings and men being recognized as being of God (without a perpetually infallible magisterium), and thus for a canon. And it also provides for the church and its teaching office, etc. which function classic statements such as the Westminster Confession affirms.

Thus it is Rome under her sola ecclesia presumption which subjugates Scripture to herself, and makes it an instrument to serve her interests, that is an erroneous unScriptural foundation. And it shows by her manifest contrasts with the NT church.

  • Other errors.

The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, emphasis added).

Misinterpretation. Reformers clearly taught that while it is precisely faith that appropriates justification, works justify one as having faith, and that faith without works of faith is dead. And it is RCs that evidence they least believe in works, as Catholics are far less committed that those who hold Scripture as the supreme and basically literal standard for truth.

Scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral Tradition to be just as much the word of God as is Scripture.

And yet is based upon Scripture that we know the apostles did orally preached the word of God, for oral tradition existed nebulous form supremely subject to corruption. And which is tested by it, thus manifesting the Scripture is the assured word of God and supreme standard for testing truth claims. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

Moreover, what Paul is referring to here is not ancient traditions such as Mary being bodily assumed into heaven and made into a doctrine even when there is no early record of it, but known truths which the Thessalonians and Corinthians had heard , and which could have been written. And in fact, there is absolutely zero proof that what Paul was referring to here was not written, as was the norm for any thing called the “word of God/the Lord.” In addition, unlike Rome, the apostles were given special revelation it were authors of holy Scripture, while preaching the truth of Scripture is itself called the word. (Acts 8:4) And thus even today evangelical pastors exhort their congregations to take heed to what they orally preached as being the word of God.

Therefore, using the example of the apostles preaching the word of God, that being known Scriptural truths, to justify Rome channeling doctrines out of its nebulous virtual bottomless pit of oral tradition, and making herself supreme over Scripture by Tradition, is what is not supported by Scripture.

When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening.

To those who have their hands over their ears and eyes.

tell it to the church; (Mt. 18:15-17)..and if he refuses to listen even to the church,.. According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal

Absolutely not. And if it were the church would be invalid itself as began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses. Mt. 18:15-17 has its precedents in the Old Testament (Dt. 17) in which cases were brought to judges whose verdict was final, even being a capital crime to disobey it. Yet just like the Supreme Court today, that did not render them assuredly infallible. And therefore God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it. And therefore the church began following an itinerant preacher, whom the magisterium rejected, but who establishes claims upon scriptural substantiation.

Elitist Rome therefore has a false foundation, contrary to how the church began, but like the Pharisees who reject the Lord Jesus, she arrogantly presumes to think of herself above that which is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) Much like Babylon, “she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day.

For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this?

Unity itself is not the goal the godly and thus Christ actually came to bring division as well as unity among those who love the truth, which requires separation from Rome, and results in the unity that transcends external tribalism. Cults like the Watchtower Society show far more comprehensive unity than Catholicism, while North Korea has the greatest unity on earth, and Rome also much relied upon the sword of man for her unity until she was disarmed. And having lost that, unity within Rome is largely a paper one and very limited, while in reality Catholicism exists in schism and in sects and abounds with disagreements and varied interpretations on what she teaches. Moreover, Catholics know very little of the unity of the spirit by evangelicals realize based upon a shared personal conversion to Christ and Scripture-based relationship , which transcends external divisions.

Therefore, under both Sola ecclesia and Sola Scriptura, we have both unity and division, the difference being a matter of degrees and quality, with the kind of unity Rome has being cultic or apathetic, while unity based upon objective examination of the truth by lovers of it is of superior quality, if not quantity, that which relies upon implicit submission to a self-proclaimed infallible entity of men.

In contrast to Rome, the church's unity was not based upon the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, which suppresses objectively examining the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of her teachings. Instead as said, it was based upon scriptural substantiation in Word and empower. And without the apostles with the manifest power, purity, and performance they had then the unity the early church had would not have been realized, and only insofar as the church is like that can we have organizational unity today. And as far as churches are concerned, Rome is not not even in the running.

Matt. 4:7...Just because someone quotes Scripture as an authority, this does not mean he believes in sola scriptura.

But the Lord Jesus did not simply respond with Scripture, by a defined that as being the word of God, Not some nebulous oral tradition. Moreover, it was not tradition that the Lord Jesus opened the minds of the disciples to, but “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” (Luke 24:45) and which Paul reasoned out of, (Acts 17:2) and the a Apollos convinced the Jews by, (Acts 18:28) not ancient oral traditions. In addition, the the miracles that mainly convinced the Gentiles are part of scriptural substantiation, as Scripture establishes this manner of attestation to truth, as tested by Scripture.

So did Jesus Christ believe in sola scriptura? By no means! Neither should his Church.

So did Jesus Christ believe in sola ecclesia? By no means! Neither should His Church. Instead, as said, the Lord Jesus and the early church established their truth claims upon scriptural substantiation (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And therefore the foundation upon which the church was built is contrary to that of Rome, who presumes of herself and assured veracity which is more akin to the Pharisees and rejected Christ. And that she is to be rejected, as you the church rejected them in the light of Scripture as supreme.


148 posted on 01/25/2014 4:00:42 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself.

No it is not, as faith in Scripture is not based upon it simply saying so, but upon the Divine qualities that attest to its divine inspiration, like as they do to a man of God. And not because a supposedly infallible magisterium said they were.

Thus writings were recognized and established as being of God long before Rome presumed to be the authority necessary for that. And thus souls had assurance that Jesus was the Christ, based upon Scriptural substantiation - not because the stewards of Scripture said so.

But Rome denies you can have real assurance from Scripture, as that is contrary to her presumption, and thus when defending Rome as the one true church (OTC), the Catholic predictably appeal to his sole authority—the Church.

This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. For the Catholic's basis for assurance that Rome is the OTC is because she infallibly defined herself as being so, who alone can provide real assurance of truth. To hold otherwise would be to validate evangelical means of determining truth.

The RC can said some evidences persuaded him to trust Rome, but that is a fallible decision to trust a church as if it were God.

The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so.” The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. However, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact.

Staples is now engaging in the typical RC recourse of argument by assertion. That Rome is established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord Jesus, who said the Church is infallible, and which is a historical fact, is one massive interpretative lie, and which Rome's interpretation is the only one that is held to be authoritatively true.

That is to say, according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be authoritatively correct. Staple's pretensions of establishing Rome based upon evidences are not based upon the premise that one may have assurance of Truth based on such, which is how the church began, but is based upon the premise that these evidences show Rome to be the one true infallible church because she said so.

When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired.

That statement itself is telling. In attempting to prove Rome is the supreme authority on Truth and over Scripture, he must polemically divest it of its Divine inspiration, since only Rome can authoritatively give us assurance that it is!

Yet as said, both men and writings of God, and indeed the bulk of our Bible, were recognized as being so before there ever was a church of Rome that presumed she was necessary to establish such.

And under Her premise of historical descent establishing her as the steward of Scripture, inheritor of the promises, and thus incontestable authority on truth, and who and what was of God, then the church itself would be rendered invalid, for has said, it began in dissent from those who had historical descent and were the stewards of Scripture, and inheritor inheritor of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4).

What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him

Rather, what is very clear is that this and other so-called evidences four. Rome do not teach Roman Catholicism with her perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium and pope reigning supreme overall, with "priests" sprinkling infants infants recognition of proxy faith, formally justifying them by interior holiness, and gaining spiritual light by physically eating human flesh, and finally becoming good enough in purgatory to enter heaven, among multitude other things alien to the New Testament church. .

In reality, the more Staples attempts to make an argument based upon history the more it betrays his premise that this argument is considered true because Rome says she is what it attempts to prove.

And in addition to Scripture teaching contrary to Rome's pretensions and propaganda, even Catholic scholarship, among that of others, provides evidence contrary to Rome's claims of apostolic succession, etc.

153 posted on 01/25/2014 5:06:37 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII; All

I suppose a person could take each point in the article and either refute or confirm but let’s just take one at random:

“The key here is to understand Jesus not only quoted Scripture as authoritative, but he also referred to Tradition as authoritative in texts like Luke 16:22 (ever read anywhere of “Abraham’s Bosom” in the Old Testament? No, this was Jewish Tradition),”.

If it was Jewish tradition it was Jewish tradition from the Scriptures.

What is meant by the term “bosom position”? A position of favor and protection such as a shepherd might give a young lamb by holding it in the loose outer garments of the upper body. It is in this sense that Isa. 40:11 speaks of Jehovah gathering his people to His bosom.

When reclining to take a meal the person in front of another was said to occupy the bosom position, that person being able to lean his head back upon a friend and have an intimate conversation or perhaps even receive bits of food.

At any rate the Pharisees had claimed to be children of Abraham and therefore in the bosom position of God as Abraham represented Him. (John 8:31-41)

Need we note the Scriptures showing favor and promise to Abraham’s children or his seed?

Clearly Jesus’ illustration of “Abraham’s Bosom” is not just some Jewish tradition not found in Scripture but Jesus reference to Scripture already well known to his listeners.


186 posted on 01/26/2014 8:21:58 AM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

Sola Scriptura explained for the Biblically illiterate:

Each and every teaching Yeshua presented was preceded by the phrase “It is written.”

Any teaching that is not written in the ancient scriptures is heresy.


222 posted on 01/26/2014 7:02:46 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII
What a bunch of garbage. Want to really confuse things? Put fallible man in charge of revelation over God's Word.

Worked real well in the dark and middle ages.

381 posted on 01/29/2014 10:48:16 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII; Oldeconomybuyer; RightField; aposiopetic; rbmillerjr; Lowell1775; JPX2011; NKP_Vet; ...
+

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 general interest.

531 posted on 07/10/2014 6:38:02 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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