Bible alone?

[Candidus]

No, many ex-Catholics become anti-Catholics due to fundamentalist brainwashing.

So, if a Non-Catholic becomes a Roman Catholic, and has a change of mind... isn't that a case of Roman Catholic Brain-Washing? Surely, being convinced that "Biblically speaking" Popes exist, nuns exist, that Mary was always a virgin or the assumption of Mary, and bowing to idols is "Christian," that tells me that a much more radical form of Brain-Washing is going on!

 

[Candidus]

Ignorant anti-Catholic bigotry is fear based, and trained. Nobody is born an anti-Catholic

The utter arrogance to think that if someone knows that the Bible does not agree with Roman Catholicism, that they are somehow a "bigot!" And even more absurd is the suggest that by birth, one is born believing or favoring Roman Catholicism!

Surely, someone has to be completely ignorant and bigoted, and trained to the point of completely brain-washed to believe that someone is born rationally favorable to Roman Catholicism!

 

[Illuminator]

Circular reasoning

notice she never even touched the scripture I gave that proves scripture is completely capable of making us complete.

Good day maam. Another wasted time discussing anything with uou

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

 

[Candidus]

If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Since you think that someone has to defeat an article (appeal to authority, tossing the elephant, fallacy of overwhelming), I would like to toss an elephant back in your direction: Have fun!
http://www.reformedonline.com/uploa...futation_of_roman_catholic_view_authority.pdf

 

[Marymog]

tell me, did paul get it wrong here?

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I mean if Paul said scripture can

reproof (rebuke for wrong doing)
Correct (correct wrong thinking)
Instruct in righteousness (tell,us what we should do and instruct us in the right way of doing)
Make a man complete (perfect)
And thoroughly equip,the man of god for all things

hen is not paul preaching scripture alone?

No, Paul did not get it wrong. Scripture is useful for reproof, correction, instructing etc. etc.

Scripture does not name the magicians in Egypt who tried to discredit Moses, but Paul calls them Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8). Did Paul violate his own teaching by not using sola Scriptura?

In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does. Did Paul violate sola Scriptura?

Jude expects his readers to be aware that Michael the Archangel disputed with Satan over the body of Moses (verse 9) and that Enoch prophesied Christ (verse 14), but these stories are found nowhere else in Scripture. A violation of sola Scriptura?

The writer of the book of Hebrews 11:37 talks about Old Testament saints being sawn in half for their faith—but he didn’t get this from the Old Testament. Another violation of sola Scriptura?

In 2 Timothy 1:13-14 Paul says “what you have heard from me, keep as a pattern of teaching”! Did Paul violate Sola Scriptura by telling Timothy to teach what was heard?

I noticed you failed to tell me what books belong in your Bible by using sola Scriptura so that in of itself refutes sola Scriptura!

 

[Marymog]

Since you think that someone has to defeat an article (appeal to authority, tossing the elephant, fallacy of overwhelming), I would like to toss an elephant back in your direction: Have fun!
http://www.reformedonline.com/uploa...futation_of_roman_catholic_view_authority.pdf

Brian Schwertley is the author of that article. Is he an authoritative person you follow?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The authority given to the church would be bound by scripture
it’s funny you use scripture to try to prove your point then deny scripture is the source

if a calvinist and baptisT (who both believe in the same gospel by the way) argue about who is right. Then they go to the word. The Catholic Church is just another church, all churches would need to use the word as the final authority, one who does not should be condemned as followers of men not God

The Scriptures NEVER make the claim that the Scriptures are our "Final" Authority. The Scriptures are certainly Authoritative - but not the FINAL earthly Authority. The Scriptures themselves tell us that Christ's CHURCH is our final earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Your statement above in RED explains the tragedy of the perpetual splintering of Protestantism. One group goes to the Word to misinterpret the Scriptures when they disagree, then break off and form their OWN sect. This pattern has continued for 500 years so that we now have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines - yet ALL believe they THEY have the "correct" interpretation.

What a mess . . .

 

[Marymog]

The Roman Catholic Church includes many books that I do not accept as being in the Bible, and the vast majority of printed Bibles don't have those books either!

Very few people accept the books that the Church of Rome adds as "Scripture" except those of the Roman Cult.

Historically, what books were considered Scripture?

BTW....Numerically there are more Catholics and Orthodox that accept the 7 books you reject so your “very few people” statement is backwards. Actually very few people accept your stance.

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[Illuminator]

Oh it does, tell me how does it do this?

So you use scripture alone To determine which books, but you reject scripture alone
tell me, did paul get it wrong
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I mean if Paul said scripture can

reproof (rebuke for wrong doing)
Correct (correct wrong thinking)
Instruct in righteousness (tell,us what we should do and instruct us in the right way of doing)
Make a man complete (perfect)
And thoroughly equip,the man of god for all things
hen is not paul preaching scripture alone?

2 Timothy 3
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1. Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2. Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3. Know you have the Scriptures

Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times:
2 Timothy 1:13–14
2 Timothy 2:2
2 Timothy 3:14

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Revolt Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. Still taught today. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

• Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
• Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
• Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
• Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!

Catholics usually reply to 2 Tim 3:16 and ignore the next verse. Which they must because it destroys their catechism.

2 Timothy 3:17 The "man of God" refers to an ordained clergyman, or Moses, or an angel, and others not any believer reading the Bible, so verse 17 does not apply to most of us. BibleGateway - Keyword Search: "man of god"

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
The Catechism affirms and clarifies 2 Timothy 3, whereas sola scripturists distort it.

Catholics usually reply to 2 Tim 3:16 and ignore the next verse. Which they must because it destroys their catechism.

Another one of your infallible opinions? 2 Timothy 3:17 The "man of God" refers to an ordained clergyman, or Moses, or an angel, not any believer reading the Bible, so verse 17 does not apply to most of us. BibleGateway - Keyword Search: "man of god" The catechism destroys your man made traditions.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The utter arrogance to think that if someone knows that the Bible does not agree with Roman Catholicism, that they are somehow a "bigot!" And even more absurd is the suggest that by birth, one is born believing or favoring Roman Catholicism!

Surely, someone has to be completely ignorant and bigoted, and trained to the point of completely brain-washed to believe that someone is born rationally favorable to Roman Catholicism!

No - a non-Catholic can be just a non-Catholic. He doesn't HAVE to be an anti-Catholic.
You can "disagree" all you want. However - when you resort to LYING - then you become an anti-Catholic bigot.

Anti-Catholicism is based on ignorance and fear - just like every OTHER kind of bigotry. For example, in post #242 - YOU gave a list of things you condemned, stating that Catholics believe that: "bowing to idols is "'Christian'".
Catholics don't bow to idols. An "idol" is is an image or anything else that is worshipped as a god. We ONLY worship God.

YOUR statement was based on either 100% ignorance - or 100% dishonesty.
Take your pick . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Historically, what books were considered Scripture?

BTW....Numerically there are more Catholics and Orthodox that accept the 7 books you reject so your “very few people” statement is backwards. Actually very few people accept your stance.

Keeping it real....Mary

Good point. There is no historical evidence if a 66 book canon used as a Bible by Christians of any type before the 14th century. Clearly, it is a man made tradition.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Roman Catholic Church includes many books that I do not accept as being in the Bible, and the vast majority of printed Bibles don't have those books either!

Very few people accept the books that the Church of Rome adds as "Scripture" except those of the Roman Cult.

WHY don't you accept those 7 Books as inspired Scripture?
WHO told you that they weren't inspired?

I've never met the Protestant who was able to give an historically-accurate answer to this question.

 

[Illuminator]

No - a non-Catholic can be just a non-Catholic. He doesn't HAVE to be an anti-Catholic.
You can "disagree" all you want. However - when you resort to LYING - then you become an anti-Catholic bigot.

Anti-Catholicism is based on ignorance and fear - just like every OTHER kind of bigotry. For example, in post #242 - YOU gave a list of things you condemned, stating that Catholics believe that: "bowing to idols is "'Christian'".
Catholics don't bow to idols. An "idol" is is an image or anything else that is worshipped as a god. We ONLY worship God.

YOUR statement was based on either 100% ignorance - or 100% dishonesty.
Take your pick . . .

"Statue worship" is a stupid canard made by biblical illiterates.
Do Catholics Worship Statues?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Church is infallible

And here is why no one can communicate anything with you and why you can never hear a word anyone says, and why we KNOW you do not even bother testing them

if you think the church is infallible and that church is your church you will NEVER even question anything they say, you will blindly follow anything they tell you, including how to argue with me, which you do perfectly I may ad (as all Catholics do)

yet when it comes to scripture (like the passage I. Timothy I gave you) crickets

Lol

I will pray for you

 

[Eternally Grateful]

"Statue worship" is a stupid canard made by biblical illiterates.
Do Catholics Worship Statues?

Yet

1. they are made, to honor people
2. People bow to them
3 people generate them
4, I have even seen people kiss them

the problem is, much like other catholic issues, they take the defenition of a word and make it fit their theology.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

1. How much did tradition help the jews?
2. Again I am not a Protestant, please stop with the name calling
3. Paul told Timothy the word can make the man of God complete fully furnished thus all questions will be answered by the word, if there is not an agreement, then they both can not be right, god will settle it in heaven

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, Paul did not get it wrong. Scripture is useful for reproof, correction, instructing etc. etc.

Scripture does not name the magicians in Egypt who tried to discredit Moses, but Paul calls them Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8). Did Paul violate his own teaching by not using sola Scriptura?

In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does. Did Paul violate sola Scriptura?

Jude expects his readers to be aware that Michael the Archangel disputed with Satan over the body of Moses (verse 9) and that Enoch prophesied Christ (verse 14), but these stories are found nowhere else in Scripture. A violation of sola Scriptura?

The writer of the book of Hebrews 11:37 talks about Old Testament saints being sawn in half for their faith—but he didn’t get this from the Old Testament. Another violation of sola Scriptura?

In 2 Timothy 1:13-14 Paul says “what you have heard from me, keep as a pattern of teaching”! Did Paul violate Sola Scriptura by telling Timothy to teach what was heard?

I noticed you failed to tell me what books belong in your Bible by using sola Scriptura so that in of itself refutes sola Scriptura!

Usefull is not the word maam

prophitable is the more adequate word, it means it can do what it says it can do

Paul made scripture. So how could paul violate when the word was still being created.

You excuse everything

Paul said The word can make a man complete.l I believe him, it is dad you do not

What books are in the bible? Any book that was inspired

how can we know they are inspired

they have no contradictions,

it’s ok, Jesus said to search for the food which gives eternal life, not the food which perishes. And you think he means to eat the Eucharist,,lolololol

and you want me to listen to you or those who teach you?

lol thanks, but no thanks, I want the true bread fro heaven which whoever eats will NEVER DIE

I am still waiting to hear why Mary had to fail to consummate her marriage, and how it effected her and Jesus if she did consummate it

silence

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Good point. There is no historical evidence if a 66 book canon used as a Bible by Christians of any type before the 14th century. Clearly, it is a man made tradition.

How would you know?
The Roman Empire destroyed anything that went against their belief system, there would be no form of document available which would co trading them

 

[Marymog]

And here is why no one can communicate anything with you and why you can never hear a word anyone says, and why we KNOW you do not even bother testing them

if you think the church is infallible and that church is your church you will NEVER even question anything they say, you will blindly follow anything they tell you, including how to argue with me, which you do perfectly I may ad (as all Catholics do)

yet when it comes to scripture (like the passage I. Timothy I gave you) crickets

Lol

I will pray for you

Thank you EG.

I just want to be clear on this. It seems to me that you are saying that no man and no Church (Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist etc etc) is infallible?

Also, I did address the passage from Timothy you gave me soooo I am a bit confused.

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Usefull is not the word maam

prophitable is the more adequate word, it means it can do what it says it can do

Hi EG,

You are correct. Useful was not in the translation you chose. The word profitable in 2 Timothy 3:16 is translated to useful in other translations sooooo they mean the same thing kiddo.

Keeping it real...Mary