Posted on 03/08/2014 10:06:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
The question of the (physical) origins of Scripture is an interesting one. It’s one of the points that led me back to the Church actually.
When I first started to believe in God again (and Jesus his Son) I found myself wondering the best way to interpret Scripture (since there were/are many different interpretations out there). So I thought, “Well, where did the Bible come from?” (Because I had no idea at the time). I thought, “if I can find out where it came from, or really who had the Bible from the beginning, then that’s where I want to go for my Bible questions. Because if I can find such a church, then they obviously must know the Bible!”
This is essentially what you said above, I think, just in different words.
So what’s wrong with that line of reasoning? I mean, who wouldn’t want to go to the same group of people who had the Bible since Jesus’ time?
On the religious forum, we are required to cite sources when posting something not our own. I was trying to clarify where it was from.
“Why are you quoting a statement than can not be validated?”
Apparently, you can’t invalidate a single statement...
Still waiting for you to post that list of “Catholic Hating Freepers” with links to examples of their “hate of catholics”. Are you working on that?
“In the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, St. Paul is just as explicit: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2:15).”
Long ago on another thread, you posted that same verse.
I asked you for a list of the traditions Paul referenced so we could see them. You never provided it.
You either have such a list, or it is irrelevant, if one does not exist.
Where is the list please?
“I mean, who wouldn’t want to go to the same group of people who had the Bible since Jesus’ time?”
Christians had it. Christians have it.
Better question, why aren’t you converting to Judaism, since they had 2/3 of the Bible first, according to your thought process??? Hmmmmmm?
“If your own church declares Christians ARE existing outside of being Roman Catholics, then why don’t y’all? Do you believe they were in error when they wrote that? Are you now being your OWN pope”
Never said that protestants were not Christians. I have said that Catholicism is the one true faith started by Christ himself and holds the fullness of the Faith. I have also said that protestantism teaches heresy, which it does.
” I have also said that protestantism teaches heresy, which it does.”
Please list those heresies, which you cannot...
Have you noticed the pattern:
Your posts contain blustering, non-factual opinions. Someone asks you for anything at all to back up your post’s bluster and truth claims. You cannot. Why?
“Please provide the sources for verification purposes”
It’s called the Holy Bible. Paul said it. Divinely inspired scripture from the Holy Bible. Apparently you don’t believe the words of Paul.
Strangely ... and sadly ... the answer to that question in practice is ... yes.
I've asked you to provide evidence on three separate issues:
1. You claimed FRepublic is filled with "catholic haters" who have small minds. I asked you to call them out by posting a list of your known "catholic haters" and examples with links to the "hate" that proves what you said??Where's the Beef NKP_Vet???!!!2. You claimed the Bible teaches tradition is crucial by quoting Paul. I specifically asked you for a list of the exact traditions Paul is referring to in the passage you quoted. Where is the list of those traditions???
3. You claimed Protestantism is filled with "heresies". Please share a list of the top 10 heresies and demonstrate that they are in fact non-Biblical.
Sola Scriptura.
“Sola Scriptura.”
I realize you have more to post, since you used the plural form, but let’s deal with your first overreach.
I do not believe you have ever demonstrated in a post that you understand what sola scriptura means.
Now you have claimed it is a heresie.
OK, PROVE IT IS A HERESY! Yes, I am challenging you to post ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUBSTANTIATES YOUR LUDICROUS CLAIMS. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
Where’s the Beef, NKP_Vet???
Better question, why aren’t you converting to Judaism, since they had 2/3 of the Bible first, according to your thought process??? Hmmmmmm?
Because I believe Jesus is the promised Messiah so I can't be Jewish.
It's easy to say "Christians had [the Bible from the beginning of Christianity]" but that's not very helpful to me. Not then (when I first believed) or now, because a lot of people call themselves Christian today but believe a lot of different things.
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2012/06/heresy-of-protestantism.html
Sola Scriptura is Latin for “Scripture Alone,” and what that means has been interpreted a little differently by different Protestants throughout the ages. After all is said and done though, the final definition is what many Protestants today think it means. That is simply this. If a Christian teaching cannot be found written plainly in the black and white pages of the Bible, then it need not be believed or accepted by Christians. Furthermore, Christians themselves have the authority to interpret the Scriptures for themselves without need of any authority outside of Scripture. Now some Protestants take this principle more seriously than others. Some take it more literally than others, but at the end of the day, all of them embrace this principle in some form. Therein lies the problem.
Now I could waste a lot of space here disproving the principle doctrine of Protestantism — Sola Scriptura — but alas I’ve done it before, and many others have done it too. So it will just have to suffice to say that Sola Scriptura is both un-Biblical and illogical. The doctrine can nowhere be found in the Bible, therefore based on its own premise, it disproves itself. Furthermore, plenty of Biblical texts can be referenced that call upon Christians to believe in oral Tradition as well as written Scripture (1st Corinthians 11:2; 2nd Thessalonians 2:25; 2nd Thessalonians 3:6; John 21:25). The Scriptures plainly condemn personal and private interpretation of the Bible apart from the established Tradition of the Church (2nd Peter 1:20; 2nd Peter 3:15-16). Finally, it is the Bible itself that calls the Church, not the Scriptures, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1st Timothy 3:15). This should be enough for any level-headed Protestant, not emotionally attached to Martin Luther or his teachings, to see that something is wrong with Sola Scriptura. However, it is rare to find such a Protestant, for most will become highly defensive before getting this far into this article. We have to remember that Protestantism is also at its core a very emotional religion. It is founded on the highly emotional and prideful state of “who are you to tell me what to believe!” and “no man but Christ Himself has spiritual authority over me!” This is the emotional state it takes to embrace Sola Scriptura. In the end, Protestantism is a highly individualist religion, and it is this very thing that gave it birth, that will ultimately be it’s end. For I do not believe Protestantism will survive the 21st century.
Not survive the 21st century!?! How could Protestantism be dead within 88 years? Yes, that is what I am saying. Within 88 years, by January 1st, 2100, there will be nothing left of the Protestantism we know today. It will essentially be extinct. What will have killed it? The answer is simple — moral relativism. You see, in a religion where there is no real authority other than an inanimate object (a book) that can no more interpret itself than it can read itself, the final authority on any religious matter is none other than the individual practitioner himself. In previous centuries, Protestants primarily fought over doctrinal issues, related to such things as: salvation, predestination, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc. But as Michael Voris pointed out in the second video above, something happened in 1930 that shaped the rapid decline of Protestantism, and in my opinion, ultimately sealed its fate. That something was artificial birth control. In 1930, the Anglican Communion led the way toward accepting what had previously been condemned by all Protestant denominations as a moral evil — contraception. Within just 30 years, every single Protestant denomination had followed suit, and artificial birth control became accepted within the Protestant world.
Prove it’s a heresy? Where in the Bible are the words, sola scriptura??
There you go!
So what’s wrong with that line of reasoning? I mean, who wouldn’t want to go to the same group of people who had the Bible since Jesus’ time?
The answer to what's wrong with that line of reasoning is simple, which is why RCs keep refusing to answer the question asked in response to their we-gave-you-the-Bible polemical assertion, which is,
are you saying that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God?
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it effectively nukes the church, since it began in dissent from those who had historical descent, and sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors 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).
Unto whom “were committed the oracles of God.” “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 9:4-5)
But whom, like Rome, they likewise presumed of themselves a veracity above Scripture,* and thus rejected Christ and His apostles, asking, like Rome, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28)
But the church began in dissent, following a holy man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and who established His truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As did the apostles and early church (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.) - not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.
And which led to both division and basic unity.
In addition, formal historical decent does not establish in the New Covenant, (Rm. 2:28,29) but Scriptural faith does, Scripture being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced.
An d in the light of which it is manifest that the church of Rome, despite its problematic "unbroken succession," and even because of it, is critically different than the NT church, and cannot lay claim to her popes being apostles.
See my prior post on this and more .
Therefore your decision to submit to Rome was based upon a fallacious line of reasoning , and which logically would require you to submit to those who were the instruments and stewards of Scripture when Christ came, rather than following an itinerant Preacher whom they rejected.
However, if your basis for assurance of Truth is that of scriptural substantiation, then you not only would follow the Lord Jesus in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, but you also would dissent from Rome in order to follow the Lord Jesus, as she also presumed of herself a level of veracity above that which is written, teaching traditions of men as doctrines of God. (Mk. 7:2-16)
As a RC, you are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, but submit to Rome, as your assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
And for whom Scripture is simply a servant to be used (and abused) to support her, as she presumes to be the supreme authority, and Scripture, Tradition and history can only authoritatively mean what she says they mean.
And which is cultic, and fosters faith to a strong degree in herself and her powers and one's own merit for salvation, while to believe on the Lord Jesus is to cast all your faith and confident in the Lord Jesus to save you as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, really believing that He can and will by His sinless shed blood and righteousness, and so be baptized and follow Him. Thanks be to God.
*For the decision of their Scribes,...they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error...By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a), they put the entire calendric system upon a new basis, independent of the priesthood. They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows...-http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees
“Prove it’s a heresy? Where in the Bible are the words, sola scriptura??”
Salvation, you’ve posted a new low here!
Bible - not in the Bible. Inspiration of Scripture is there.
Trinity - not in the Bible. Teaching of a triune God is there.
You’ve simply got to post something that is a valid argument with supporting evidence.
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.