Posted on 09/14/2020 1:07:34 PM PDT by Cronos
Ah, I see another doubter in Christ - is back posting more provocative propaganda.
you have a problem with scripture, Daniel?
really, being a troll?
They aren't the Christian "Protestants" --
That also simply another assertion, for indeed sola scriptura - that Scripture alone is the supreme standard as the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive word of God, and sufficient in its formal and material senses to provide what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace - is indeed Scriptural. Especially according to the Catholic standard for that status, seeing Catholics contend that such distinctive Catholic teachings as praying to created beings in Heaven as well as the hyper-exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism, etc., are Scriptural.
2) No where in scripture does anyone - including Almighty God Himself - claim that all teachings are found ONLY in scripture. Therefore, your argument’s premise makes no sense.
Which simply displays ignorance of SS, since that does not mean that all teachings are found ONLY in scripture, but that "things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" are provided, explicitly or "by good and necessary consequence may [not necessarily will be by all] be deduced from Scripture" including with "a due use of the ordinary means," while also providing for "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..." and some circumstances concerning the worship of God "which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word." (Westminster Confession of Faith) There are even SS Pentecostals who do not see SS as opposing private revelation.
Some think that sola scriptura (SS) means we must dispense with the teaching office of the church, and conclusions of synods and commentaries, etc. but which opinion means that such are misled as to what SS reasonable means. But if instead they mean how can Scripture alone be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and materiel senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, then it is because,
1. Scripture was the standard by which even the veracity of the preaching of apostles was subject to:
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)
2. Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do in declaring what the word of God is.
3. Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.
4. We can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is the supreme infallible source of Truth over that of Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillars”) and which the church does, and is grounded in it. For Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church (such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27).
3) You will utterly fail to refute points 1 or 2 above.
Rather, it is your false conception of SS that fails, as does your necessary alternative to SS, and thus you have my following questions:
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
That response is either one of insolence or ignorance. For if you actually read what I extensively said you should have seen that that it is not I who showed a problem with Scripture, but that of Catholicism in abusing it, which the devil himself does in quoting it.
That might get pulled but indeed it is.
And when the Catholics dugged up the bones of John Wycliffe so that they could burned them what did that mean?
As far as Servetus and the Calvinists, let’s remember that he fled to Geneva simply because the Catholics wanted to execute him.
“And when the Catholics dugged up the bones of John Wycliffe so that they could burned them what did that mean?”
It meant carrying out the judgment of a legitimate court.
“As far as Servetus and the Calvinists, let’s remember that he fled to Geneva simply because the Catholics wanted to execute him.”
And how did that work out for him? Aren’t you really saying Protestants and Catholics were the same then?
“That also simply another assertion, for indeed sola scriptura - that Scripture alone is the supreme standard as the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive word of God, and sufficient in its formal and material senses to provide what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace - is indeed Scriptural.”
Sola scriptura appears no where in scripture. You’re about to prove that no matter what you do.
Not Found
The requested URL /~mudndirt/Scripture in mass.htm was not found on this server.
What is your source?
Protestants would say the same thing.
And how did that work out for him? Aren’t you really saying Protestants and Catholics were the same then?
Right or wrong, at one time Catholics and Protestants had a similar set of values.
“Protestants would say the same thing.”
No, actually no Protestant says that about burning down a monastery in Utrecht. Try again.
“Right or wrong, at one time Catholics and Protestants had a similar set of values.”
False. Right or wrong, Catholics and Protestants committed similar actions. Their values were different.
"Appears?" Which means you ignore what I wrote, while insisting all distinctive Catholics teaching are Scriptural, which means that you have no valid argument.
“”Appears?” Which means you ignore what I wrote,”
Did you post a single verse that showed sola scriptura?
No.
If you think I am wrong, post the verse that shows it.
Which again reveals your reliance upon a miscontruance of SS as if it requires an explicit statement or verse, and your double standard as to what is required for a belief to be Scriptural. What I showed you was that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And as is abundantly evidenced as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And thus it was Scripture that provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the church, therefore the Lord Himself invoked Scripture, from defeating the devil (Mt. 4) to correcting Jewish leaders (Mt. 22) to substantiating His messiahship and ministry ("in all the Scriptures") and opened the minds of the disciples to them, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.).
And thus since Scripture alone was the supreme standard then even the veracity of the oral preaching of apostles was subject to testing by it. (Acts 17:11)
Thus you have no case as to the supremacy of Scripture, and can only attack the sufficiency aspect as not providing all "things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation." However, God has always provided that, from the garden of Eden onward, yet He gives more grace. And here you could argue that Scripture does not provide all that God wants souls to know. However, the sufficiency of Scripture is not to be restricted to what it formally or explicitly provides, but it must include that which is materially provides, from reasoning and the illumination of the Spirit by which truths may be "by good and necessary consequence may [not necessarily will be by all] be deduced from Scripture" including with "a due use of the ordinary means," to "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..."
In addition to which are the abundant commentaries that SS believers have provided, which refutes the "Bible alone is to be read" strawman.
It is here that you could attempt to assert that this would include what the RC (if not all the EO magisterium) provides in declaring something from the (amorphous insubstantive) oral word of God. However, this is countered by the fact that men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do in declaring what the word of God is.
Thus while inspired preachers and writers did provide more revelation as part of the greater grace of God, yet Rome does not speak or write as wholly God-inspired preachers, and what she does provide must be subject to testing by the established word of God, that being Scripture, as is the case with preaching one hears from SS ministers.
Meanwhile it is not enough for your to deny that SS is Scriptural, for you must substantiate your alternative. But which you cannot do by invoking Scripture, for non-Catholics are not supposed to be able to discerns which writings as of God apart from faith in her.
And as to your double standard as to what is required for a belief to be Scriptural, there are many things that Catholics believe that not one single verse shows, yet by egregious eisegetical extrapolation Catholics argue they are Scriptural.
Time now to sleep.
The Catholics had already condemd Seretus to death as a heretic. He just escaped their paws. The Geneva “Calvinists” prosecuted Seretus under a court of law. Calvin sent a letter because of his failing health, agreeing.
The Catholics massacure the peaceful Huguenots and hundreds more through the Jesuits’ Spanish Inquisition. There is far more. Don’t try to white wash Catholic history.
“The Catholics had already condemd Seretus to death as a heretic. He just escaped their paws.”
wikipedia: “On 4 April 1553 Servetus was arrested by Roman Catholic authorities, and imprisoned in Vienne. He escaped from prison three days later. On 17 June, he was convicted of heresy, “thanks to the 17 letters sent by John Calvin, preacher in Geneva”[27] and sentenced to be burned with his books. In his absence, he and his books were burned in effigy (blank paper for the books).”
Interesting.
“The Catholics massacure the peaceful Huguenots and hundreds more through the Jesuits’ Spanish Inquisition. There is far more. Don’t try to white wash Catholic history.”
The Huguenots were hardly peaceful. You seem to have forgotten about the Wars of Religion there, buddy. You might want to look up the Amboise conspiracy.
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.