Posted on 02/02/2015 3:08:42 PM PST by Morgana
1 Tim 3 says a church leader should be “The husband of one wife”.
Oh you said 2 Tim 3. My bad.
The written word is reliable because it can be verified with the oldest manuscripts available.
Oral anything is inherently unreliable as it is too subject to change and cannot be verified, unless it is recorded somewhere.
In which case, it’s the WRITTEN word.
(Acts 17:11)Or Jesus's words regarding the scripture and Himself?
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
(John 5:39-47)Thus we see Jesus plainly stating that the scriptures testify of Jesus! and Jesus says that he comes in the name of the Father.
“You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept glory from human beings. But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
And the papists eschew the Bible for the words of some old man. And then use the Bible to prove the old man is right. But the old man in the funny hat is infallible from God (sometimes) so why does he need a Bible that he says his people assembled in the first place? its all about the same level of brightness as what protestants are being criticized for here.
This article is about the same logical trail as the witch scene in Monte Python and the Holy Grail.
Good fun.
Ping for later
Shouldn’t you be working on getting Catholics to switch to voting pro-life?
And to stop supporting the Mexican invasion?
It comes down to a simple test.
Suppose the Pope says that (Divorce, incest, polygamy, or some other sin) is now acceptable to the Catholic Church. Does one follow the teachings of Christ and the recorded word of the Apostles as found in the New Testament (27 books which almost all of Christendom agree upon)
or
Does one follow the teachings of the Pope?
When the Catholic church teaches something different from what is in the scriptures (even Jesus referenced the Old Testament scripture) do you follow Jesus, or man?
Also, “solo” or “sola” scriptura is not what most Protestants believe. “Prima” or primary is a more accurate term. Just as the Catholics are portrayed as “sola ecclesia” which is also incorrect. Most Catholics hold views that are prima ecclesia.
True.
Change the names in the article from church of Rome to LDS church, and both make the same argument.
But then you have the issue of Rome saying their Big Daddy is the last word, and the LDS prophet having the last word, and the two of them disagreeing.
Then you have the guy who’s the last word on stuff changing what previous dead last word guys said about stuff.
If the Pope came out in favor of a list of sins, a Catholic would know that the “Pope” was not the Pope.
To reach this conclusion, the Catholic would cite both Scripture and all the preceding Popes and bishops of the Church.
--by Dr. Greg Bahnsen
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/bahnsen.html
There is far more scriptural support for sola scriptura than there is for any of the Marian doctrine which is mostly based in ‘tradition’.
Morgana
Are you a messianic Jew?
Just curious.
The author first states that the questions are left "virtually unanswered" and then states what he says are Protestant responses. Does anyone see a problem here?
As far as what makes the scriptures "inspired" writing goes, this goes back to the early church or Church whichever you prefer. They knew what writings were inspired and sealed them into the Bible. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has decided to elevate other writings to the same level as God's writing much like Joseph Smith.
Actually God told me this is not a problem with Pentecostals.
My experience has been that the argument that everything not found explicitly in Scripture is fraudulent is made again and again and again, yet the moment sola Scriptura is questioned, on the basis that it is not found in Scripture, I am told: “That’s not what sola Scriptura means.”
In Catholic apologetics, the claim of infallibility is never used as the basis for believing in the authority of the Church, because that would be a circular argument.
Once it is established, by other evidence, that Jesus promised his Church infallibility, then obviously, all those Christian bodies that do NOT claim infallibility must be excluded.
The non-circular evidence for the authenticity of the Catholic Church is primarily historical, both as to its hierarchical continuity with the early Church, its doctrinal continuity with the New Testament and the early Church, the miracles of healing and other gifts with which it has been accompanied through the centuries, and the extraordinary holiness of many saints.
Those who propagandize against the Catholic Church therefore concoct accusations of forgeries and frauds, attempt to demonstrate that various Catholic beliefs are absent from the New Testament and/or incompatible with it, and studiously ignore the miracles of healing, and miracles of holiness that have accompanied the Church through history.
Anti-Catholic propagandists also make much of the presence of sinners in the Catholic Church, although what that is supposed to prove is impossible to determine. They never identify the Protestant church that has no sinners in it.
Even the most well-documented, aggressively-investigated miracles, such as those at Lourdes, are dismissed with a wave of the hand. Those who have been propagandized NEVER actually look into such incidents. Never mind that the medical examiners are all atheists or agnostics. The propagandized Protestant assumes that they are all priests and nuns.
There’s another characteristic I’m noted among propagandized Protestants: a refusal to answer yes-or-no questions, even when the question is exceedingly simple and totally transparent.
For example, I had about six different Protestants respond to the following question with rants. But not one of them responded with a “yes” or a “no.”
+++++++++++++++++++
Is the following a formally valid syllogism or a formally invalid syllogism?
Emily is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Emily is the mother of a fireman.
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.