Posted on 09/14/2020 1:07:34 PM PDT by Cronos
Did you post a verse that shows sola scriptura or not?
It is from a CA forum https://forums.catholic.com/t/scripture-in-the-mass/358929 to a now dead link. As it should be.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension, or is it simply a desperate recourse to strawmen that is the problem?
My guess is both.
As far as the Huguenot goes here is another perspective Huguenot History. The Amboise Conspiracy was a poor attempt by the Protestants to fight against Catholic persecution. Amboise Conspiracy Although Queen Elizabeth joined their cause, Calvin and other Reformers did not.
The bottom line in all of this is the murderous history sanctioned by the Catholic Church that you seem hesitant to admit. I suspect this flies in the face with how the Church tries to portray itself. As a Protestant, I have no problem in admiting the misbehavior of past Protestants because we are all sinners by nature and will run to sin at the first chance we get if not for the withholding power of God.
“The bottom line in all of this is the murderous history sanctioned by the Catholic Church that you seem hesitant to admit.”
Amboise Conspiracy. Did you even know about it?
Did you post a verse that shows sola scriptura or not? It’s a simple question.
Such sophistry is indicative of insolence or guile, if not ignorance, in lieu of an actual argument. For I explained that SS itself does not mean a Truth is established upon one explicit verse (which includes the Trinity), and SS is established upon the clear testimony of a multitude verses showing the only substantive body of Divine revelation that is affirmed as wholly inspired word of God is Scripture, (2 Tim. 3:16)
And which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the gospel and thus the church. (Romans 1:1,2; 16:26) Therefore it was Scripture that the Lord Himself invoked, from defeating the devil (Mt. 4) to correcting Jewish leaders (Mt. 22) to substantiating His messiahship and ministry ("in all the Scriptures") and which He opened the minds of the disciples to them, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.). And to which even the veracity of the oral preaching of apostles was subject to testing by. (Acts 17:11)
For as is abundantly evidenced by a multitude of Scripture texts, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and established Word of God.
And while as said, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, to which Catholics vainly appeal to in attempting to support their oral tradition, yet popes and ecumenical councils do not speak or write as wholly inspired of God in declaring what the word of God is.
Therefore it is not just one verse but many that establishes Scripture as alone being supreme,
Which as said, means that you can only object to the sufficiency aspect of SS 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... (Westminster Confession of Faith)
Thus rather than one verse substantiating the whole of SS, it is based upon the collective weight of many, despite your vain attempt to create a strawman of SS in demanding one verse that establishes it all, while not restricting Catholic attempts to one verse when they are arguing for something being Scriptural. If we look at what Catholics resort to when trying to argue that that such things as praying to created beings in Heaven are Scriptural the we see that they do not expect all doctrines to be established upon one verse, unless they are being duplicitous.
“but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
***
QED.
Using the non-strawman version of sola scriptura.
Not that I expect any FRomans to stop using strawmen; they might have to stop being Catholic if they stopped believing falsehoods about non-Catholics.
The party line is it's a "three-legged stool". They know that the Divinely-inspired word of God holds first place in authority then, according to them, and it's followed by Tradition and the Magisterium. If you ask which is the ultimate authority should there be a conflict, the answer is that there can not BE a conflict. ;o)
I can attest that I have not ever persecuted, tortured nor murdered anyone in my life for any reason - not just because my beliefs are different than theirs! Not my parents, grandparents nor great grandparents did so either. People sometimes do bad things for what they think are good reasons. Looking back we easily notice the Catholic church was at the persecuting/torturing/killing business for religious reasons a lot longer than the Protestants but neither were justified or pleasing to God by those acts. Yes, it happened. No, nobody was sanctioned by God to act as inquisitor/executioner in His name. Trying to play the blame game is pointless.
I can attest that I have not ever persecuted, tortured nor murdered anyone in my life for any reason - not just because my beliefs are different than theirs! Not my parents, grandparents nor great grandparents did so either. People sometimes do bad things for what they think are good reasons. Looking back we easily notice the Catholic church was at the persecuting/torturing/killing business for religious reasons a lot longer than the Protestants but neither were justified or pleasing to God by those acts. Yes, it happened. No, nobody was sanctioned by God to act as inquisitor/executioner in His name. Trying to play the blame game is pointless.
Well; your own, very first pope wrote:
2 Peter 1:3
His divine power has given us everything we need
for a godly life through our knowledge of him
who called us by his own glory and goodness.
This doesn't leave much room for
the other stuff that Rome has added.
It started early:
...that woman you gave me...
Because in reality it is the Magisterium that is the supreme authority, which determines what Scripture and Tradition consist of and mean, which she says means she is the supreme authority, and Scripture in particular becomes a servant which can be abused in order to support "The Church," or denied its refutation of her.
While demanding one verse that establishes SS, a multitude of verses are denied as showing its singular supremacy, while an understanding of its material sufficiency is simply ignored as is the fact that her Magisterium does not speak as wholly inspired of God as men such as the apostles could in orally speaking the formal word of God (and yet could be subject to testing by Scripture when they did).
But then Catholics will insist that something like Mary being sinless and a perpetual virgin is Scriptural, even though there is not one verse that actually teaches this very significant exception to the norm, and the Holy Spirit characteristically notes even lesser notable exceptions to the norm among individuals, and affirms the sinlessness of Christ at least thrice.
Meanwhile they deny that the verse "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" (Matthew 1:25) denotes a consummation of marriage, which is how Scripture describes it, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6) for they claim another (very very rare) exception to the norm, that the word for "till" does not denote a terminus indicating a change.
To which are added many other distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
And why do they do this? Because Scripture, Tradition and History only means what Rome says they do. Thus the recourse of no less a prelate as Manning:
“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. ” "I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
There are many things I don’t know about. And as I get older I find there are just as many, if not more, things I forget.
But none of that matters as long as my theology is correct and remains in tack.
It is dangerous to judge others in history and we are told not to judge-that belongs to Christ alone. How many would judge David for murdering Uriah? How about Gideon who made a ephod that snared his family? How about Jepheth who sacrificed his daughter over a vow? How about Samuel hacking up Agag the king of Amalek or Elijah with the priests of Baal?
One can go on and on, down the roll call of faith in Hebrews and everyone had flaws. Some were doing God’s work. Others thought they were. Some were not. The bottom line is that we do what we think is best as God would want us to do. It is only by God’s grace that any of us are saved and by His mercy that He revealed Himself to those of us who are being saved.
That’s not a verse which proves sola scriptura. Not even remotely.
Oh, but it does! It proves that Scripture is sufficient for knowledge of salvation. Which is the actual definition of sola scriptura, as opposed to the Catholic lies that your sources keep telling about us.
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.