[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

A classic example of a philosophy that appears simple at first, yet becomes incoherent under close examination and study, is Luther's man-made tradition of "the Bible alone," as the sole rule of faith.

At first glance, Luther's dogma seems clear and simple. But after examining Luther's tradition, one finds that it's self-contradictory, since it isn't biblical.

Moreover, the doctrine presupposes the validity of Luther's canon of Scripture, and his authority to determine the canon of Scripture. Was Luther infallible?

Protestants need to stand back, and try to read Scripture objectively, without presupposing Luther's doctrinal tradition. Reading Scripture objectively is difficult for everyone, since we all approach Scripture with presuppositions. Regardless, doing so will expose the incoherence of Luther's central doctrine.

[annalex]

Reading Scripture objectively is difficult for everyone, since we all approach Scripture with presuppositions. Regardless, doing so will expose the incoherence of Luther's central doctrine

Read the scripture for what is written and soon you will laugh at Protestantism for the silly superstition that it is, and be a very happy Catholic, like St. Tomas, St_Thomas, and me.

[jodyel]

Thomas,

How did people understand God and Jesus before the RCC and Luther ever came upon the scene?

Do you not think that God can use any translation in any language to reach anyone? And indeed did not even use anything written at all before anything was written down.

It is breathtaking how much you limit God with this stuff.

You guys are amazing in your obtuseness.

Like I said, make your case with Scripture alone and just see if it supports what you believe. Approach it from a standpoint of wanting truth and not for defending your RCC beliefs.

Best,
jodyel

[boatbums]

Moreover, the doctrine presupposes the validity of Luther's canon of Scripture, and his authority to determine the canon of Scripture. Was Luther infallible? Protestants need to stand back, and try to read Scripture objectively, without presupposing Luther's doctrinal tradition. Reading Scripture objectively is difficult for everyone, since we all approach Scripture with presuppositions. Regardless, doing so will expose the incoherence of Luther's central doctrine.

You Catholics - those who continue to post falsehoods about "Luther's canon" - need to be the ones to stand back and try to see EVERYTHING objectively for a change. How many times do you have to be corrected about this??? And, once and for all, PLEASE try to understand that sola Scriptura doesn't mean ONLY the Bible can be used to teach the Christian faith. The rule of faith for Christians MUST be warranted by Scripture - placed there BY God specifically so we can know what we need to know for our salvation, edification, exhortation and correction - but NOBODY is saying or has said that ONLY the Bible can be used to do that. That would be SOLO Scriptura.

Additionally, I would like for you Catholics to admit WHY you really object to the idea of sola Scriptura (both the false one and the actual one). I think it is because your church has proclaimed dogmas that are mandatory for all to believe that they KNOW have no Scriptural support and/or contradict Scripture in some way. This is their way to usurp the authority of God's word for their OWN authority over God's word. And that ain't gonna happen - not to sincere Christians and definitely not to God.