Are you saying the Catholic Chuch can say something contrary to the Bible and it is to be accepted as the word of God based on the Catholic Church’s authority?
Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place.
//////////////////////////////////////////
So does that mean that the Koran is basically equal to the bible as the pope said last week?
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.”
That has worked for 2000 years. Even the priest FATHER Marin Luther believed that. But then Luther wasn't around until 1500 years AFTER Christ and the founding of the Catholic Church, was he?
Reason states that beliefs or practices that clearly are not consistent with Scripture are therefore of Man and not of God.
I don't think it is to play the part that Catholics try to give it; which is something like precedent in the legal-world applied against constitutionality:
Mark 7:1-13 (NRSV)
The Tradition of the Elders
Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.’
You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”
Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God)— then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”
“If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” isn’t that a misconception of sola scriptura ? My understanding is every doctrine needed for Salvation is contained in the Scriptures.
What about Rev 22:18-19?:
Revelation 22:18-19
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
18 Here is my warning for everyone who hears the prophecies in this book:
If you add anything to them, God will make you suffer all the terrible troubles written in this book. 19 If you take anything away from these prophecies, God will not let you have part in the life-giving tree and in the holy city described in this book.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That passage seems to indicate that nothing else is on a par with the Bible.
How do Catholics reconcile that? Not trying to be snarky - just want to hear the Catholic viewpoint on that.
And so we learn that Tim Staples is an idiot who can't articulate what sola scriptura means. No wonder he became a Catholic!
**I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it. **
That’s because it is a false doctrine of protestants and other non-Catholics.
If it’s good enough for this guy, it’s good enough for me!
Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:
Not even his own teachings, he teaches, if it cannot be shown out of the holy scriptures, should be accepted:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
Tradition is the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testament, not that which is invented by man, transmitted by word of mouth to the illiterate:
“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. Galatians 1:8-9 So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.” (Ibid, Lecture 5, Ch. 12)
Does it occur to any Catholics that the reason your religion rejects scripture alone is because that statement or idea can not be found anywhere in the scriptures???
Ah the fourth “Sola Scriptura” thread this week from a “sola Roma”.
I guess the burning pile of assertions in the other threads caused this one to combust.
True.. some christians worship the bible.. basically don’t really NEED God..
AND some worship their church ... and therefore do not need God...
others worship talismans, amulets and artifacts.. or even so-called saints.. or ceremonies..
but there is no need to be christian(but can be) for that, same deal, they really have need of an actual God either..
With some/maybe most, God, is just an excuse to feign religion..
but what they really “NEED” is something else..
With them.... telling them ,thats worship, will get them sucking their teeth... as they deny it..
BUT alas, IT IS...........................
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say,....?
Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place.
His Church gave us the New Testament with the authority of Christ. Reason rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle".
So as per this logic, having historical descent, and being the instruments and stewards of Scripture requires or renders them the infallible authority on it, so they that which they reject must be rejected?
And that Rome's claim to historical descent via "unbroken" (despite what even Catholic scholarship attests to, and breaks of up to 3 years and rival popes, and the use of carnal force to secure the seat, etc.) uniquely makes her the One True Church?
And asking you like as i did to others,
And do you deny that in Scripture it is manifest as being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced ? .
Do disagree that the church did not begin under the premise of a perpetual assuredly (if conditional) infallible magisterium of men, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power? (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.)
Do you hold that all die not in submission to the pope, in the bosom of the RCC,as per ancient Roman teaching, are lost?
I am asking these important questions more for the benefit of others, but this time try to clearly answer them as being reason-able rather than resorting to your usual screeds and rants.
Jesus gave His church the authority to preach and teach the word of God (as “rightly divided). He did not give anyone, nor any particular body, organization, or institution the authority to overule His word, corrupt His word, rule via the traditions of man, nor add extra-biblical revelation to the revelation already reavealed in His word. Catholicism has twisted, marred, maligned, perverted, and adulterated the word of God. She is thus guilty of spiritual adultery, and the spreading of heretical teachings. Swift judgment will bring her destruction when the King returns to reveal His true bride, made up of those who have truly been “born-again,” and made spotless by His blood.
I was the chairman of a Christian school for five years, and before I took the job I never knew that "Bible Christians" disagreed among themselves about so many things.
If a few words can be found here, here and over there, with a little bit of speculation then tossed into the mix; we can come up with Biblical doctrine that somehow didn't make it into the bible.
Your opening assertion was borne out by the series of comments on this thread as the thousands of schismatic, protesting and re-forming sects neither present a credible and consistent interpretation of the Scriptures, nor a claim to legitimacy independent of the Catholic Church (Jews and Catholics gave us the Bible; churches trace their origin to the Catholic Church from whom they rebelled; churches are newly formed sects/denominations) . I allow the exception are those fundamental Baptist churches that claim a church to church historical succession in authority and doctrine dating to the Apostles. They assert they were there in the beginning and were always legitimate. That claim was not addressed in this thread and they tend to be pre-millenial or futurist.
I find it interesting that the antiCatholic preterist/post-millenial position believes the Virgin Mary was assumed/raptured/taken into heaven, albeit at a date that differs by several weeks from the Catholic tradition.