Where does the Bible say...

  • 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!

WaterSong

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2020
2,245
2,277
113
Kansas City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 14:26

If we even only one time read a scripture verse, the Holy Spirit WILL "bring ALL to our remembrance".
There were those who, immediately came into the Church at it's inception, who skewed and twisted scriptures so, so much for the "early fathers". I believe the Apostolic succession stopped with the death of the last apostle of Christ. We now have the Comforter to teach us and guide us in ALL things.
Their oh so very many false teachings out there and I prefer to filter all things through the living and active Word of God :)
YES! *does a little dance around the room*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

WaterSong

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2020
2,245
2,277
113
Kansas City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Who makes the final decision on Catholic dogma?
Edited to answer that specific question.

The Pope.

  1. The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
  2. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
    Source/more reading: Dogma of the Catholic Church
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brakelite

JunChosen

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2020
1,893
423
83
Los Angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks for proving my point.
Here's a little lesson for you: Don't QUOTE the Bible until you LEARN what it is saying.

No I have not proven your point. This is the kind of mentality you and the CC possess....lacking in knowledge and understanding concerning about the things of God! In the Bible when a verse is repeated it means whatever is in view will surely come to pass.

For instance, if I read Scripture like you and the CC, I could say that the Old Testament believers are not saved because they lived prior to the cross. Yet Scripture is abundant with passages that Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world and that's the reason Old Testament believers were able to be saved just like the New Testament believers!!!

Thirdly - this is the exact SAME case with Rev. 22:18-19.
ONLY
the Book of REVELATION is being discussed . . .

Well, FYI, the Book of Revelation cannot stand on it's own merits. How can you understand Re. 13:8 unless you go to the Old Testament for clarification. Is Jesus an animal? But lo and behold, we find that lambs were used by the Jews for sacrificial atonements for sins and so we see that Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin. And that the Bool of Revelation cannot stand apart from the Bible.

Not only the above is true but Jesus is also is giving an ominous warnings not to add or take away from the prophesies of this book and if they did God will add to him the plagues written herein, whatever is in view!

Brother I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. Be humble! Your church is/never will be the ground and pillar of truth. You're taking the glory off of God.

To God Be The Glory
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,956
3,403
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...
...that Jesus rebuked the Jews for allowing their oral traditions to circumvent in some cases, and completely obliterate in others, the specific commandments of God, a complaint which can also be laid squarely at the feet of the Papal apostasy.
More ignorance . . .

Jesus condemned the traditions of the PHARISEES - not Sacred Tradition. He specifically condemned THEIR traditions because they elevated them above God's Traditions. Jesus and the NT writers ALL relied on ORAL TRADITION as the inerrant Word of God. . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,956
3,403
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No thanks.

As @ReChoired has repeatedly offered and as has been as often rejected, "To the law and to the testimony (the prophets), if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them". Isaiah 8:20. That scripture does not get any clearer, and the Catholic church's rejection of scripture as final and sole authority is born out in their rejection of that scripture and its disobedience to it. The church claims the authority to over-rule, through its own traditions, the very law of God.
"Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. Six days shalt thou work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God..." Exodus 20.
WRONG.

Isaiah 8:20 is NOT simply talking about the WRITTEN WORD.
As I told BOTH of you before- the Jews understood that the mantle of God's Word rested on Scripture and ORAL Tradition.

We see the proof of this in the NT as Jesus and the NT writers relied on this ORAL Tradition as the inerrant Word of God . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.



This was taught by the Prophets.
They didn't WRITE DOWN everything God inspired them to teach - and neither did the Apostles:

2 Thess 2:15

"Stand firm and hold fast to the TRADITIONS you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

LEARN the meaning of God's Word - don't just quote it . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,956
3,403
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No I have not proven your point. This is the kind of mentality you and the CC possess....lacking in knowledge and understanding concerning about the things of God! In the Bible when a verse is repeated it means whatever is in view will surely come to pass.

For instance, if I read Scripture like you and the CC, I could say that the Old Testament believers are not saved because they lived prior to the cross. Yet Scripture is abundant with passages that Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world and that's the reason Old Testament believers were able to be saved just like the New Testament believers!!!
No - I would NEVER make the ignorant statement - because the Church , which is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15) has NEVER taught that.
Well, FYI, the Book of Revelation cannot stand on it's own merits. How can you understand Re. 13:8 unless you go to the Old Testament for clarification. Is Jesus an animal? But lo and behold, we find that lambs were used by the Jews for sacrificial atonements for sins and so we see that Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin. And that the Bool of Revelation cannot stand apart from the Bible.

Not only the above is true but Jesus is also is giving an ominous warnings not to add or take away from the prophesies of this book and if they did God will add to him the plagues written herein, whatever is in view!

Brother I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. Be humble! Your church is/never will be the ground and pillar of truth. You're taking the glory off of God.

To God Be The Glory
And ALL of your blathering aside - you failed to understand that Rev. 22:18-19 ONLY refers to the Book of REVELATION - NOT the entire Bible.

I implore you to LEARN what the Bible is talking about - BEFORE you go around quoting it.
It's not only embarrassing - it's DANGEROUS . . .
 

JunChosen

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2020
1,893
423
83
Los Angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where does the Bible say the Bible is the final authority?

In Revelation 22:18-19

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book (Bible), If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book (Bible) of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

God in the above passages is declaring that the Bible is the final authority, for the Book of Revelation cannot stand apart from the Bible!

To God Be The Glory
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Edited to answer that specific question.

The Pope.

  1. The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.

maybe one more edit to do..... the Pope may have full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole ..... "ROMAN" Catholic Church, but not the "Catholic/Universal" church where the Lord Jesus have full control, who is the "ONLY" supreme power.

Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,568
6,415
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
More ignorance . . .

Jesus condemned the traditions of the PHARISEES - not Sacred Tradition. He specifically condemned THEIR traditions because they elevated them above God's Traditions. Jesus and the NT writers ALL relied on ORAL TRADITION as the inerrant Word of God. . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Why did Jesus condemn the traditions of the Pharisees?
 

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,827
25,496
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
YES! *does a little dance around the room*
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaterSong

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,568
6,415
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I suggest you READ post #64 again because I already addressed that in detail.

Read s*l*o*w*l*y . . .
Jesus condemned the traditions of the PHARISEES - not Sacred Tradition. He specifically condemned THEIR traditions because they elevated them above God's Traditions. Jesus and the NT writers ALL relied on ORAL TRADITION as the inerrant Word of God. . .

Why did Jesus condemn the traditions of the Pharisees?

I gave you the opportunity to correct your explanation but in your pride and arrogance you doubled down on your Catholic deceit. Jesus criticised the traditions of the Pharisees , not because they weren't sacred, an interpolation of your own making, but because they contradicted God's explicit commandments. His written law on the tables of stone. This is what Catholicism had done, and what Protestants in their numb obedience to Rome, practices.
Now you're going to try and convince everyone that God appeared to the early Roman church saying, "thus sayeth the Lord to the early church..."hi guys, hey. Tell yuh what. You know that pesky Sabbath Commandment everyone has issues with, well, I've been thinking. I know I wrote it on stone, and sure, it was meant to be permanent but seeing as how you fellas are having so much trouble with it, I've changed my mind and decided if you just spend half an hour or an hour or so in a building singing a few songs and having a good time, that'll be enough. Oh, and yeah, change it to whatever day you think is appropriate and that'll be good enough for me. Okay? All good. Later!". ..And so began a "sacred" tradition that cast side a Commandment and replaced that horrid legalistic miserable Jewish tradition with a happy tradition.

Well, this Sabbath keeping Christian ain't buying it.
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WRONG again.
Isaiah 8:20 says absolutely NOTHING about the written Word of God. ....
Wait? Wha'???

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?​
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaterSong

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Sisters and brothers in Christ please also be aware in this discussion that the Catholic Tradition also denies Salvation by grace alone. One of the Five Solas the Council of Trent decreed Anathema! Faith alone is another that is decreed anathema!

Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
(Maybe consider this when reading the bold part of my reply below and the church account of the authority of the Bible. If the Bible is what they say it is, how can they say faith alone, grace alone, are accursed? Add them together and they are not? Grace through faith, faith through grace?)

The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians.

“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).



I don't believe it can be said you know of what you speak.


Catholic.org
Encyclopedia
Anathema

(Greek anathema -- literally, placed on high, suspended, set aside).
"..."To understand the word anathema", says Vigouroux, "we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of." " (Continues)

DECLARATIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."


PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

Excerpted:
"....13. At the commencement of a course of Holy Scripture let the Professor strive earnestly to form the judgment of the young beginners so as to train them equally to defend the sacred writings and to penetrate their meaning. This is the object of the treatise which is called "Introduction." Here the student is taught how to prove the integrity and authority of the Bible, how to investigate and ascertain its true sense, and how to meet and refute objections. It is needless to insist upon the importance of making these preliminary studies in an orderly and thorough fashion, with the accompaniment and assistance of Theology; for the whole subsequent course must rest on the foundation thus laid and make use of the light thus acquired. Next, the teacher will turn his earnest attention to that more fruitful division of Scripture science which has to do with Interpretation; wherein is imparted the method of using the word of God for the advantage of religion and piety. We recognize without hesitation that neither the extent of the matter nor the time at disposal allows each single Book of the Bible to be separately gone through. But the teaching should result in a definite and ascertained method of interpretation-and therefore the Professor should equally avoid the mistake of giving a mere taste of every Book, and of dwelling at too great length on a part of one Book. If most schools cannot do what is done in the large institutions-that is, take the students through the whole of one or two Books continuously and with a certain development-yet at least those parts which are selected should be treated with suitable fulness; in such a way that the students may learn from the sample that is thus put before them to love and use the remainder of the sacred Book during the whole of their lives. The Professor, following the tradition of antiquity, will make use of the Vulgate as his text; for the Council of Trent decreed that "in public lectures, disputations, preaching, and exposition,"(29) the Vulgate is the "authentic" version; and this is the existing custom of the Church. At the same time, the other versions which Christian antiquity has approved, should not be neglected, more especially the more ancient MSS. For although the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek is substantially rendered by the Vulgate, nevertheless wherever there may be ambiguity or want of clearness, the "examination of older tongues,"(30) to quote St. Augustine, will be useful and advantageous. But in this matter we need hardly say that the greatest prudence is required, for the "office of a commentator," as St. Jerome says, "is to set forth not what he himself would prefer, but what his author says."(31) The question of "readings" having been, when necessary, carefully discussed, the next thing is to investigate and expound the meaning. And the first counsel to be given is this: That the more our adversaries contend to the contrary, so much the more solicitously should we adhere to the received and approved canons of interpretation. Hence, whilst weighing the meanings of words, the connection of ideas, the parallelism of passages, and the like, we should by all means make use of such illustrations as can be drawn from apposite erudition of an external sort; but this should be done with caution, so as not to bestow on questions of this kind more labour and time than are spent on the Sacred Books themselves, and not to overload the minds of the students with a mass of information that will be rather a hindrance than a help." (Continues at link)
You don't want to discuss anything, you are just looking for a fight. I love that ignore button.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaterSong

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"... The Bible had been committed to the care of the living magisterium. ...", and thus as it is "committed to the care of the living magisterium", the 'dead-letter' of the "Bible" is subject to it.

"It is the Church, the holder of Tradition, that gives life to the dead letter of Scripture. Experience shows that it is only in the life of the Church, the Bride of Christ, that Scripture, divinely inspired as it is, becomes 'living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword' (Heb 4:12 )" - A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1951 (pg 2) with imprimatur and acknowledgment of Pope Pius XII - A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture : Orchard, Dom Bernard Ed And Others : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Or here: A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture


"... The Scripture indeed is a divine book but it is a dead letter, which has to be explained, and cannot exercise the action which the preacher can obtain. ..." [Our Priesthood, page 142] - Our priesthood : Bruneau, Joseph, 1866-1933 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"... A dead and speechless book. ..." [Question Box, 1913 edition, page 67]

"... The simple fact is that the Bible, like all dead letters, calls for a living interpreter."-The Faith of Millions, p. 147 - The Faith of Millions

"... it was for her [Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church] to supply the key by explaining why and how it had been inspired, how it contained Revelation ..."​

"... It was for the Church in consequence to determine the authentic canon, to specify the special rules and conditions for interpretation, to pronounce in case of doubt as to the exact sense of a given book or text, and even when necessary to safeguard the historical, prophetical, or apologetic value of a given text or passage, to pronounce in certain questions of authenticity, chronology, exegesis, or translation, either to reject an opinion compromising the authority of the book or the veracity of its doctrine or to maintain a given body of revealed truth contained in a given text. It was above all for the Church to circulate the Divine Book by minting its doctrine, adapting and explaining it, by offering it and drawing from it nourishment wherewith to nourish souls, briefly by supplementing the book, making use of it, and assisting others to make use of it. This is the debt of Scripture to the living magisterium. ... (and then produces a circular argument right following) ...

... There is a formula current in Christian teaching (and the formula is borrowed from St. Paul himself) that traditional truth was confided to the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away. This formula expresses very well one of the aspects of tradition and one of the principal rôles of the living magisterium. ...

... There is between written documents and the living magisterium of the Church a relation similar, proportionately speaking, to that already outlined between Scripture and the living magisterium. ..." - Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, "T", Tradition and Living Magisterium - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaterSong

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I gave you the opportunity to correct your explanation but in your pride and arrogance you doubled down on your Catholic deceit. Jesus criticised the traditions of the Pharisees , not because they weren't sacred, an interpolation of your own making, but because they contradicted God's explicit commandments. His written law on the tables of stone. This is what Catholicism had done, and what Protestants in their numb obedience to Rome, practices.
Now you're going to try and convince everyone that God appeared to the early Roman church saying, "thus sayeth the Lord to the early church..."hi guys, hey. Tell yuh what. You know that pesky Sabbath Commandment everyone has issues with, well, I've been thinking. I know I wrote it on stone, and sure, it was meant to be permanent but seeing as how you fellas are having so much trouble with it, I've changed my mind and decided if you just spend half an hour or an hour or so in a building singing a few songs and having a good time, that'll be enough. Oh, and yeah, change it to whatever day you think is appropriate and that'll be good enough for me. Okay? All good. Later!". ..And so began a "sacred" tradition that cast side a Commandment and replaced that horrid legalistic miserable Jewish tradition with a happy tradition.

Well, this Sabbath keeping Christian ain't buying it.
Caught this also:

"... Such was the first field of controversy between Catholic theologians and the Reformers. The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Where is it indicated in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of faith? Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible. ..." - Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, "T", Tradition and Living Magisterium - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,568
6,415
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Caught this also:

"... Such was the first field of controversy between Catholic theologians and the Reformers. The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Where is it indicated in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of faith? Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible. ..." - Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, "T", Tradition and Living Magisterium - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium
Interesting. I noticed this phrase...without an authority other than that of the Bible... Wouldn't it be more accurate, and honest, to say over the Bible as opposed to other than the Bible? After all, is the church not claiming to be sole arbiter as to how the Bible ought to be interpreted? Does that not mean the church has the final say on what is or is not, Truth?
You might understand this better than I, but is not the USSC the final authority on matters of interpretation of law in the land? Would that not make the magisterium an apt parallel? And the Pope equivalent to the President as having power of veto...I think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaterSong

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,732
2,136
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Would you say a rebuttal question one might put to theefaith per their question, where does the Bible say the Bible is the final authority, would be, where in the Bible is it written God is not the final authority?
When the Bible is God breathed, what theefaith is affirming is actually blasphemy. Insisting God's words hold no authority, when they question whether God's word is final authority, and when insisting sovereign God's words and will need the help of fallen man to be understood and fulfilled.

The RCC believes and teaches the Catholic Bible is the only authority for Sacred Scripture. I think we're being played by someone who hates Protestants so much they'll corrupt the RCC way of belief in order to bait us into debate.Theefaith et al, are then able to unleash their animus and vitriol on respondents. As we see.
I see the move you made there. I agree, it's a question of final authority. Good point.

I don't mind being baited into a debate but I would like some honest answers from the other side. And in these dark times, the more important question than authority is trust. Who do I trust and what do I really want?

Why do I trust the Bible? Because it speaks truthfully about me specifically and the human race in general. When I arrive at an accurate and honest assessment of myself, and I compare that with what the Bible says about me, I find complete correspondence. I am a sinner in need of salvation. And since I have come to trust the Bible, I have come to trust the one known as the Savior, Jesus Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

theefaith

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2020
20,070
1,354
113
63
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
At this point I think what may help my sisters and brothers in encountering posts by BoL and theefaith is that they adhere to the declaration, the finding, by the Council of Trent. Which decreed anyone who holds to any or all of the five Solas, including Sola Scriptura, are cursed (anathema)! ~The Council of Trent - Session 6~

It is fear of the curse that causes Catholics to hold to the CoT's finding in all matters.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.

God's command in Deuteronomy does not have an expiration date. What Does the Bible Say About Dont Change Gods Word?
Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 4 - New American Standard Bible

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

does peter the apostles and their successors have authority to bind on earth and it be bound in heaven?