Name a really bad doctrine that needs retiring

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kepha31 said:
The truths expressed in God's written word are absolute truth, but you refuse to acknowledge that the Bible is written in limited human language, as if King James's translators were dictated to word for word by God. If you insist on approaching the Bible the same way as a Muslim approaches the Qu'ran, that's your problem, not mine.


I didn't know the COE existed in the 4th century. Got any proof? The facts of history show us where the Bible came from. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around, and NONE of the early Christians were sola scripturists. You haven't a shred of evidence to prove otherwise.

Empty assertion, no documentation. BIG rabbit hole.

Lack of charity on any Catholic forum I've ever been on gets your post deleted. Have you got a link showing such "vehemence" or are you just pouting because you are so easily refuted? Forum link, please.

I can SHOW you where the Trinity is encapsulated but it is not articulated until 325 AD. Most Protestant confessions of faith accept the Council of Nicae on the Trinity but they ignore the rest.

You admit doctrinal development. How refreshing.

John 14:24 doesn't say anything about scripture alone. If you change "word" or "words" to "written words", or whatever way you want to read into it, you render the verse completely senseless.
The KJV, is NOT the Bible, it is a translation, and not a very good one at that. The Bible is in Greek and Hebrew. NOT Latin. You obviously don't know much about the Bible or how it came to be, despite the links I provided for you. The Qur'an has NOTHING to do with this thread or topic.

You obviously have a problem with comprehension. The COE was responsible for the KJV translation, from which you quoted. I corrected your assertion. I keep giving you evidence and you keep ignoring it. That happens a lot with inculcated people.

Now you're just being provocative and rude. If you really desired truth, you would study for it. Seems you are brain washed by the RCC, and have NO desire to learn.

All this shows is ignorance and condescension. I don't go on RCC forums, it is tantamount to casting pearls before swine. If you were actually able to refute anything you would have done so by now. Maybe we should take a poll? Most early Christians never questioned sola scriptura, because it was commonly accepted and not voiced UNTIL the reformers. I can't really tell you when the RCC denied it, but it probably was around the same time...a full millennia after Augustine died at least. You have much to learn.

No need to show me, I know it...the problem is you don't know or refuse to do the same thing for SS, which is also encapsulated in the scriptures and HAS been articulated. The reality of it, is NOT negated by denial of the RCC. The RCC denies it to save their so-called authority, which is diminishing all the time because they are NOT willing to honour God and His word in this regard.

Again, you avoid fact with condescension and facetiousness. Would those same RCC forums ban you for this type of response? Deflection doesn't work here. It just show you have been refuted and don't have the charity to admit it.

Again, you refuse to acknowledge the encapsulation (your word) of the SS truth in all the Bible. The following wording comes from the NAB (RCC Bible);
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A24&version=NABRE
 

SimpleFaith

New Member
Sep 7, 2015
23
5
0
rockytopva said:
1. The bad doctrine (one at a time please)
2. Your analysis on why it is bad

"Touch not My anointed." Chances are you’ve heard this weird doctrine based on 1 Chronicles 16:22. In an attempt to discourage any form of disagreement in the church, insecure leaders tell their members that if they ever question church authority, they are “touching the Lord’s anointed” and in danger of God’s judgment. Let’s call this what it is: spiritual manipulation. It creates worse problems by ruling out healthy discussion and mutual respect. Church members end up being abused or controlled—or even blacklisted because they dare to ask a question.

Brother James said:
Here is one that I find to be harmful.

"With every head bowed and every eye closed, if you want to invite Jesus into your heart right now just raise you hand. Yes, I see you. Yes. Yes. Anymore? Yes, yes. Okay, now, right there in your seat just repeat this prayer: Dear Jesus, I know I'm a sinner and the you died for me. I invite you into my heart right now to be my savior and I trust in you to guide me from here on out. I know that my home is in heaven because you've saved me. Amen. If you just prayed that prayer then God has saved you and heaven is your eternal home."

Even the whole altar call I grew up with does not strike me as being in any way biblical. And I certainly don't see any example of "repeate after me" salvation in the Bible.
I would have to agree with this, in part. The part where it says, "every head bowed, every eye closed." What is the reason for that when moments later the call is given for everyone who 'asked Jesus into their hearts' to come forward where everyone can see them, as a testimonial and witness for which all acknowledge the wonderful work of salvation of sinners.

When new citizens are processed into America, they are led to make a confession of allegience. In that light, I see nothing wrong with the pastor leading the sinner in a prayer of salvation to be assured that they've made heaven their home.

There are a number of prayers that have been written in the Bible from which many Christians use to pray. That then is a 'repeat after me' example. The LORD's prayer is another where he said in Mat.6:9, "Pray then in this way.."
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
The KJV, is NOT the Bible, it is a translation, and not a very good one at that. The Bible is in Greek and Hebrew. NOT Latin. You obviously don't know much about the Bible or how it came to be, despite the links I provided for you.
St. Jerome translated the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts into Latin, the universal language of the time for people who were literate.
The links you have provided are to single verses you abuse, that give no support for SS. Or to Steve Rudd's web page. Most objections listed there are misrepresentations of actual Catholic doctrine. Rudd really has some strange notions about the Catholic faith that rate right up there with those of Lorraine Bottener, Dave Hunt, and Jack Chick. It would take a book to refute his nonsense, and all of his silly objections have been answered. Steve Rudd is an ignorant anti-Catholic funnymentalist bigot that you push. (contrary to the rules) so I have no interest in wasting time refuting him point by point.

You obviously have a problem with comprehension. The COE was responsible for the KJV translation, from which you quoted. I corrected your assertion. I keep giving you evidence and you keep ignoring it. That happens a lot with inculcated people.

I asserted that the KJV was a product of the COE, it's not me with a problem with comprehension.

Now you're just being provocative and rude. If you really desired truth, you would study for it. Seems you are brain washed by the RCC, and have NO desire to learn.

The RCC encourages learning, forbids brainwashing, and uneducated anti-Catholic "ministers" have nothing to teach me.

All this shows is ignorance and condescension. I don't go on RCC forums, it is tantamount to casting pearls before swine. If you were actually able to refute anything you would have done so by now.

I have, you just don't like it. Maybe that's why Rudd doesn't allow comments or discussion on his ridiculous web page.

Maybe we should take a poll? Most early Christians never questioned sola scriptura, because it was commonly accepted and not voiced UNTIL the reformers.

Empty assertion. No evidence. The fact is, the opposite is true.

I can't really tell you when the RCC denied it, but it probably was around the same time...a full millennia after Augustine died at least. You have much to learn.

Augustine was a sola scripturist? That's a stretch. If you understood the difference between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency, you wouldn't be making silly claims about the early church. You cannot defend SS by lumping the two together.

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

No need to show me, I know it...the problem is you don't know or refuse to do the same thing for SS, which is also encapsulated in the scriptures and HAS been articulated. The reality of it, is NOT negated by denial of the RCC. The RCC denies it to save their so-called authority, which is diminishing all the time because they are NOT willing to honour God and His word in this regard.

Again, you avoid fact with condescension and facetiousness.

You can dish it out but you can't take it. I asked you before and you ignored me. Who finalized the canon of scripture? The RCC cannot separate her authority from the authority of scripture or she would never have survived.

Would those same RCC forums ban you for this type of response?

I've had my share of warnings. I don't claim to be an apologist, I just think the false claims of anti-Catholics need to be challenged.

Again, you refuse to acknowledge the encapsulation (your word) of the SS truth in all the Bible.

No, I was referring to the Trinity which is encapsulated (my word) (in Matthew 28:19), not SS. What were you saying about comprehension?

The following wording comes from the NAB (RCC Bible);
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A24&version=NABRE

Yes, this is what it says:
24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.

This is how you read it:
24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my Bible; yet the words you write down later is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.

55864306.jpg
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kepha31 said:
St. Jerome translated the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts into Latin, the universal language of the time for people who were literate.
The links you have provided are to single verses you abuse, that give no support for SS. Or to Steve Rudd's web page. Most objections listed there are misrepresentations of actual Catholic doctrine. Rudd really has some strange notions about the Catholic faith that rate right up there with those of Lorraine Bottener, Dave Hunt, and Jack Chick. It would take a book to refute his nonsense, and all of his silly objections have been answered. Steve Rudd is an ignorant anti-Catholic funnymentalist bigot that you push. (contrary to the rules) so I have no interest in wasting time refuting him point by point.
Not quite, but then again you seem to like to skim over real facts. I suggest you actually RAED the facts about Jerome and what he did. The point is, he still used the original codices to correct what he though were errors in the Latin NT, and issue a Latin OT Vulgate from the original Hebrew. He and Augustine did NOT agree on this, as Augustine preferred the Septuagint which was translated by Hebrew scholars into Greek way back in 350 BCE. Latin was the language of Rome and as such was spread though their expansionist endeavours. Greek was still the main language outside of Rome and it's influence.
Easy to deny, but much more problematic to refute. This seems to be your MO with everything you read.
Again you demonstrate ad hominem responses that you claim are uncharitable. This makes you nothing more than hypocritical. You either want to lear or tyou don't....it's pretty simple.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kepha31 said:
I asserted that the KJV was a product of the COE, it's not me with a problem with comprehension.

The RCC encourages learning, forbids brainwashing, and uneducated anti-Catholic "ministers" have nothing to teach me.

I have, you just don't like it. Maybe that's why Rudd doesn't allow comments or discussion on his ridiculous web page.

Empty assertion. No evidence. The fact is, the opposite is true.
What you said was; "I didn't know the COE existed in the 4th century. Got any proof?", to which is responded. Now you're denying you said what you said?
Seems you forget ALL posts are recorded? You asserted the RCC Bible said something it did NOT. I corrected you false assertion. Please pay attention.

It does today with SOME clergy. It didn't years ago, and I know because I grew up in parochial schools. Of course your ad hominem responses just prove my point of your inculcation.

As is well evidenced here with you, it is very unproductive to debate with some, and our will end very soon given how you continue to descend into ad hominem and vitriolic responses.

You denying what you have been shown, simply depicts inculcation on your part, not the lack of evidence.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kepha31 said:
Augustine was a sola scripturist? That's a stretch. If you understood the difference between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency, you wouldn't be making silly claims about the early church. You cannot defend SS by lumping the two together.

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).
You can't be labelled as something that didn't exist at the time, but his view of scripture was VERY clear.

In his famous Letter to Jerome (no. 82 ca. 405) Augustine says;
I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.

Sadly this was NOT always the way Augustine handled the scriptures. Like yourself, he demonstrated a growing lack of faith in them and more faith in his own reasoning. He ended up not believing the literal account of creation. That of course does not mean it wasn't.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kepha31 said:
You can dish it out but you can't take it. I asked you before and you ignored me. Who finalized the canon of scripture? The RCC cannot separate her authority from the authority of scripture or she would never have survived.

I've had my share of warnings. I don't claim to be an apologist, I just think the false claims of anti-Catholics need to be challenged.

No, I was referring to the Trinity which is encapsulated (my word) (in Matthew 28:19), not SS. What were you saying about comprehension?

24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.
You're right, I can dish out TRUTH but I can't take fallacious assertions. I gave you all the info you fully need to see how the Bible came about. If you refuse to learn or be taught, I cannot do more.

You can ONLY challenge if you can refute them, which obviously you cannot, so it's not surprising you were warned given how you respond here.

and this is called avoidance, as I said. The truth of SS is also encapsulated in the written word, just as the trinity is, but it's not the written word you cite, it's RCC doctrine in which you are inculcated. Not quite the same thing.

Yes, and as Jesus said, IT IS WRITTEN. Unlike you, I have no problem seeing the "encapsulated" truth of SS in His words and those in ALL of the scriptures.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
Not quite, but then again you seem to like to skim over real facts. I suggest you actually RAED the facts about Jerome and what he did. The point is, he still used the original codices to correct what he though were errors in the Latin NT, and issue a Latin OT Vulgate from the original Hebrew.

I said: "St. Jerome translated the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts into Latin, the universal language of the time for people who were literate." Which is much the same thing as you are saying. I made a simplified statement for the sake of brevity to avoid useless hair splitting. Some regions may have had Latin manuscripts, so what. They were in a sorry state and he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to clean up the mess.

He and Augustine did NOT agree on this, as Augustine preferred the Septuagint which was translated by Hebrew scholars into Greek way back in 350 BCE.

That's amazing seeing as Augustine was born in 354. And Jerome and Augustine did not finalize the canon of scripture, the Catholic Church did. Augustine may have preferred the Greek Septuagint, so what.

Augustine taught that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition.

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
On Christian Doctrine, 3, 2:2


Augustine taught against the private interpretation of Scripture, which he saw as the source of heresy.

"For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and in trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith which we are imbued."
On the Gospel of John, Homily XVlll:1

Augustine recognized the Three Pillars of the Catholic faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. He was aware that it was the Magisterium which determined the canon of Scripture in the first place.

"The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you."
Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5


For Augustine the deposit of faith consists of both Scripture and Tradition. I'm sure Augustine would have felt the same way about Luther and Calvin as he did Manichaeus.

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in the Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning with the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent?"
Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6


Scripture must not be divorced from the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

"No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the Church."
Trinitas 4, 6, 10


I had to check to see what pope Steve Rudd had to say about Augustine, who has the audacity to preach the Apostolic Fathers were sola scripturists.
"Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not "be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;" but be wise, as himself saith, "unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, 2)

He sees For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, and thinks this is proof of sola scriptura. Scripture has always been a rule in Catholic teaching, just not the sole rule. He is an anti-everybody. He rejects the Nicene Creed, which is accepted in the statement of faith of this forum.
Then he says "We don't question that Augustine, like Chrysostom and Jerome, believed in "unwritten customs and laws" passed down orally by the apostles. But as we have seen, these customs involve trivial matters like "drinking milk and honey after baptism".

What a fabrication. Pope Steve has no credibility whatsoever. You would be wise to refrain from such psychotic web sites.

Latin was the language of Rome and as such was spread though their expansionist endeavours.

Jesus commissioned the Apostles to "preach the Gospel to all nations" and you call it expansionist endeavors.

Greek was still the main language outside of Rome and it's influence.

So what. St. Jerome did not produce a Greek Vulgate. It's not me that fails to get the perspective and historical context of the languages. The dominating dictator image of the Church you have been brainwashed with did not force Latin onto Greek speaking people.

Easy to deny, but much more problematic to refute. This seems to be your MO with everything you read.

I am not denying the existence of Greek, I am simply naming a really bad doctrine that needs retiring. You are all over the map because sola scriptura has no defense.

Again you demonstrate ad hominem responses that you claim are uncharitable. This makes you nothing more than hypocritical. You either want to lear or tyou don't....it's pretty simple.

What I would like to hear is a verse that supports SS but there aren't any...it's pretty simple.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
Yes, and as Jesus said, IT IS WRITTEN. Unlike you, I have no problem seeing the "encapsulated" truth of SS in His words and those in ALL of the scriptures.
IT IS WRITTEN (Matthew 4:4) is not the smoking gun you think it is. IT IS WRITTEN is a direct citation of Deuteronomy 8:3, not the whole Bible and certainly not the NT that did not exist when Jesus quoted it. "...not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." You seem to think that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God has to be in writing. Jesus does not say that and neither does Moses. "Word" does not absolutely mean a written word. Bibles do not fall out of the mouth of God so you need to grow up. Nowhere in the whole bible is "Word of God" confined to the written word alone. I gave you a bible gateway search link way back, and you gave no answer. So "word" does not and cannot mean "written alone". Try real hard to comprehend this: The Bible is the written word of God, but not the sole means of transmitting revelation. Somebody had to discern which books belong in the Bible. I asked you twice who they were and you did not answer me before I had to tell you. The Bible is a fruit of the Catholic Church that you despise. So she is right about the NT but wrong on everything else???

Guess what, Stan. The authority of Scripture is a Catholic Tradition. If that were not the case, you would have no Bible.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kepha31 said:
Not quite, but then again you seem to like to skim over real facts. I suggest you actually RAED the facts about Jerome and what he did. The point is, he still used the original codices to correct what he though were errors in the Latin NT, and issue a Latin OT Vulgate from the original Hebrew.

I said: "St. Jerome translated the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts into Latin, the universal language of the time for people who were literate." Which is much the same thing as you are saying. I made a simplified statement for the sake of brevity to avoid useless hair splitting. Some regions may have had Latin manuscripts, so what. They were in a sorry state and he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to clean up the mess.

He and Augustine did NOT agree on this, as Augustine preferred the Septuagint which was translated by Hebrew scholars into Greek way back in 350 BCE.

That's amazing seeing as Augustine was born in 354. And Jerome and Augustine did not finalize the canon of scripture, the Catholic Church did. Augustine may have preferred the Greek Septuagint, so what.

Augustine taught that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition.

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
On Christian Doctrine, 3, 2:2


Augustine taught against the private interpretation of Scripture, which he saw as the source of heresy.

"For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and in trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith which we are imbued."
On the Gospel of John, Homily XVlll:1

Augustine recognized the Three Pillars of the Catholic faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. He was aware that it was the Magisterium which determined the canon of Scripture in the first place.

"The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you."
Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5


For Augustine the deposit of faith consists of both Scripture and Tradition. I'm sure Augustine would have felt the same way about Luther and Calvin as he did Manichaeus.

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in the Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning with the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent?"
Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6


Scripture must not be divorced from the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

"No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the Church."
Trinitas 4, 6, 10


I had to check to see what pope Steve Rudd had to say about Augustine, who has the audacity to preach the Apostolic Fathers were sola scripturists.
"Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not "be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;" but be wise, as himself saith, "unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, 2)

He sees For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, and thinks this is proof of sola scriptura. Scripture has always been a rule in Catholic teaching, just not the sole rule. He is an anti-everybody. He rejects the Nicene Creed, which is accepted in the statement of faith of this forum.
Then he says "We don't question that Augustine, like Chrysostom and Jerome, believed in "unwritten customs and laws" passed down orally by the apostles. But as we have seen, these customs involve trivial matters like "drinking milk and honey after baptism".

What a fabrication. Pope Steve has no credibility whatsoever. You would be wise to refrain from such psychotic web sites.

Latin was the language of Rome and as such was spread though their expansionist endeavours.

Jesus commissioned the Apostles to "preach the Gospel to all nations" and you call it expansionist endeavors.

Greek was still the main language outside of Rome and it's influence.

So what. St. Jerome did not produce a Greek Vulgate. It's not me that fails to get the perspective and historical context of the languages. The dominating dictator image of the Church you have been brainwashed with did not force Latin onto Greek speaking people.

Easy to deny, but much more problematic to refute. This seems to be your MO with everything you read.

I am not denying the existence of Greek, I am simply naming a really bad doctrine that needs retiring. You are all over the map because sola scriptura has no defense.

Again you demonstrate ad hominem responses that you claim are uncharitable. This makes you nothing more than hypocritical. You either want to lear or tyou don't....it's pretty simple.

What I would like to hear is a verse that supports SS but there aren't any...it's pretty simple.
All of the above is pretty much solid evidence that you DON'T read my responses with ANY comprehension. Augustine was born in 354 AD, and I said the LXX was written around 350 BCE. The fact that you equivocate about a simple matter as this just shows you have NO willingness at all to actually learn or discuss, so I'm through with this. It's a waste of my time and website space.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
All of the above is pretty much solid evidence that you DON'T read my responses with ANY comprehension. Augustine was born in 354 AD, and I said the LXX was written around 350 BCE. The fact that you equivocate about a simple matter as this just shows you have NO willingness at all to actually learn or discuss, so I'm through with this. It's a waste of my time and website space.
You are the one that brought up Augustine. The claim made by funnymentalists like pope Rudd (and many other anti-Catholic "ministers"): that the Early Church Fathers were sola scripturists is ludicrous. There is no point in flooding the thread with more ECF quotes disproving the false claim, so I'll leave it at that.

I would like to quote Art Sippo, M.D., a friend I encountered on a forum years ago:

The Protestant error of "sola scriptura" is self refuting. The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura". (Latin! horrors! horrors!)

Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith."
This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.

This is an application of Kurt Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem from metamathematical analysis. Self-referential statements (such as the Liar Paradox of Epimenides or using the Bible to prove the Bible to be the sole rule of faith independent of any external referent) are notorious for making statements which are logically unprovable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false.

In the case of "sola scriptura," the necessity of assuming the transcendental position in and of itself refutes the principle under question.

I know it's a lot to chew on as it is written by a doctor. Here is a parallel in my own words:

If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes.” That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

“All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.” This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”

Get it?
 

thirdeyezero

New Member
Aug 27, 2015
32
1
0
rockytopva said:
1. The bad doctrine (one at a time please)
2. Your analysis on why it is bad

"Touch not My anointed." Chances are you’ve heard this weird doctrine based on 1 Chronicles 16:22. In an attempt to discourage any form of disagreement in the church, insecure leaders tell their members that if they ever question church authority, they are “touching the Lord’s anointed” and in danger of God’s judgment. Let’s call this what it is: spiritual manipulation. It creates worse problems by ruling out healthy discussion and mutual respect. Church members end up being abused or controlled—or even blacklisted because they dare to ask a question.
All doctrines of good and evil need retiring, every human system has them and now in this day and age to much of them.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
thirdeyezero said:
All doctrines of good and evil need retiring, every human system has them and now in this day and age to much of them.
God determines what Good and Evil is, IN His written word. Are you advocating we get rid of God?
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31 said:
You are the one that brought up Augustine. The claim made by funnymentalists like pope Rudd (and many other anti-Catholic "ministers"): that the Early Church Fathers were sola scripturists is ludicrous. There is no point in flooding the thread with more ECF quotes disproving the false claim, so I'll leave it at that.

I would like to quote Art Sippo, M.D., a friend I encountered on a forum years ago:

The Protestant error of "sola scriptura" is self refuting. The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura". (Latin! horrors! horrors!
)

Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith."

This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.


This is an application of Kurt Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem from metamathematical analysis. Self-referential statements (such as the Liar Paradox of Epimenides or using the Bible to prove the Bible to be the sole rule of faith independent of any external referent) are notorious for making statements which are logically unprovable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false.


In the case of "sola scriptura," the necessity of assuming the transcendental position in and of itself refutes the principle under question.


I know it's a lot to chew on as it is written by a doctor. Here is a parallel in my own words:


If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes.” That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

“All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.” This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”

Get it?
I am quite certain this frustrates only those who understand.

To some logical fallacies are irrelevant...thier indoctrinated stances will never be challenged.

I will say the use of this doctrine "sola scriptura" is used out of the context Luther intended by a vast majority. Luther loved the Church, yet hated the political regime she polluted herself with. In such he did not speak out against the Church, rather against Roman Catholisism. Keep in perspective the RCC is only a portion of the Church Universal. This is a point Luther understood. Orthodoxy and Coptic traditions were fully flourishing in Luther's time.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kepha31 said:
You are the one that brought up Augustine. The claim made by funnymentalists like pope Rudd (and many other anti-Catholic "ministers"): that the Early Church Fathers were sola scripturists is ludicrous. There is no point in flooding the thread with more ECF quotes disproving the false claim, so I'll leave it at that.
Kepha,

What about this kind of evidence from the early church and these church fathers' views of Scripture?

Irenaeus , in Against Heresies (written ca AD 185), stated, 'if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men' (Kirby 2015, Against Heresies 2.13.2). In addition,

If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries (Kirby 2015, Against Heresies 2.28.2).

Also, 'WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith' (Kirby 2015, Against Heresies 3.1.1).

According to Robert Preus's assessment, in Against Heresies, Irenaeus 'cites Scripture no fewer than 1,200 times' (Preus 1979:360).

Augustine of Hippo wrote to Jerome, ' I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it (Letter to Jerome Jerome 82.1.3).

These 2 church fathers had a very high view of the authority of Scripture, one being from the second and the other from the third centuries.

Oz

Works consulted
Kirby, P 2015. Irenaeus of Lyons. Early Christian Writings, 10 October. Against heresies. Available at: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html (Accessed 10 October 2015).

Preus, R D 1979. The view of the Bible held by the church: The early church through Luther. In N L Geisler (ed), Inerracy, 357-384. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. Part of this article is available online HERE.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Guess what, Stan. The authority of Scripture is a Catholic Tradition. If that were not the case, you would have no Bible.
If the cathloic church still had its way, no one would have the bible, it would be written in latin and mass would still be in latin. Sat through a latin mass once, biggest waste of a childs day ever.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Guess what, Stan. The authority of Scripture is a Catholic Tradition. If that were not the case, you would have no Bible.
Apparently you have never read 2 Tim 3:16 (NIV) or 2 Peter 3:14-16 (NIV)?

Do you know what inculcated means?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
OzSpen said:
Kepha,

What about this kind of evidence from the early church and these church fathers' views of Scripture?

Irenaeus , in Against Heresies (written ca AD 185), stated, 'if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men' (Kirby 2015, Against Heresies 2.13.2).
Irenaeus , in Against Heresies (written ca AD 185), stated, 'if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth,



In addition,
Also, 'WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith' (Kirby 2015, Against Heresies 3.1.1).


According to Robert Preus's assessment, in Against Heresies, Irenaeus 'cites Scripture no fewer than 1,200 times' (Preus 1979:360).

First the Gospel was proclaimed in public, then handed down (in Greek, "paradosis", which means tradition) in the Scriptures. It does not say the Gospel was first proclaimed in the form of Scriptures, but the Scriptures came at a later period. Common sense tells us that Jesus and the Apostles did not read from the New Testament. The Scriptures came from what was handed down after the Gospel was proclaimed. Tradition never contradicts, supplants, or competes with scripture. There is a complementarity and Irenaeus makes similar suggestions in other writings. Nowhere does Irenaeus say "scripture alone".

Finally, Irenaeus wrote around 200 A.D. There was no complete, universally accepted list of inspired New Testament books. How does "sola scriptura" function in the first 3 centuries without a complete New Testament? This citation refutes sola scriptura.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
complementarity

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).
He doesn't say the Church stands over the Scriptures, he says the Church is a servant of the Scriptures. The complementarity is three fold.

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

Hmm...you might want to ignore that one.

Augustine of Hippo wrote to Jerome, ' I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it (Letter to Jerome Jerome 82.1.3).
We know the authors were completely free from error, inerrancy has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Augustine never says "scripture alone". And what happens if there is serious disagreement on what the sacred authors meant? Start a new church?

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).


Works consulted
Kirby, P 2015. Irenaeus of Lyons. Early Christian Writings, 10 October. Against heresies. Available at: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html (Accessed 10 October 2015).

Preus, R D 1979. The view of the Bible held by the church: The early church through Luther. In N L Geisler (ed), Inerracy, 357-384. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. Part of this article is available online HERE.

These 2 church fathers had a very high view of the authority of Scripture, one being from the second and the other from the third centuries.

Oz
Scripture, Tradition and the Church are in harmony. Just because Tradition is a different mode of transmission of the Word of God does not mean it is inferior to the Written Word of God. No Tradition, no Scriptures, it's that simple. No Church, no Tradition...even simpler. No Jesus, no Church...but you already know that.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kepha31 said:
Scripture, Tradition and the Church are in harmony. Just because Tradition is a different mode of transmission of the Word of God does not mean it is inferior to the Written Word of God. No Tradition, no Scriptures, it's that simple. No Church, no Tradition...even simpler. No Jesus, no Church...but you already know that.
Jesus has a question for you in Matt 15:3.... Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?