Here is a post I put on a catholic forum which I thought might benefit the users here.
================================
As a protestant nobody more ardently supported sola scripture than did I. On a protestant forum you will find me ardently supporting the KJV against the modern "critical text" translations.
However I came to realise that sola scriptura is illogical. The canon did not come written on a giant marble pyramid coming down from heaven. It came from the long generations of traditions of the church. Even when we go back to the earliest lists of books they are all expressing the general tradition of the church. So then it occurred to me to ask why we as protestants are forced to admit the tradition of the church with respect to the selection of the books of the canon, whereas we feel compelled to abandon the traditions of the church on every other matter?
In fact I became aware that those same people who so boldly proclaimed sola scriptura were the first in line to trash scripture.
One of luthers first acts was to strip books out of the canon which did not suit his new theology. Now how is that exercising sola scriptura?
The other problem I noticed was that all of those distinctive doctrines which the reformers claimed were learned entirely from tradition and thereby were scrapped do in many cases have very strong scriptural evidence. I found that we were not upholding scripture but were in fact explaining away scripture.
Even the Marian doctrines which I struggled with most have as their backing very strong scriptural typology in support of them. Denying these doctrines also requires us to deny the strong leads of scripture.
As it turns out sola scriptura is NEVER used in protestantism except for one thing and that is to argue distinctives with catholicism. In any other area of biblical study sola scriptura is ignored as protestants hack about the scriptures to their own purposes. The most wild of patterns and typology are construed. Any personal interpretation is permitted no matter how aberrant. I even found one guy using the scriptures to "prove" that there is no hell.
An example where the reformers ignored sola scriptura is found in
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Every protestant should wash one anothers feet according to the precepts of sola scriptura. Of course they do not, they appeal to the tradition of the church in not washing feet. So we see that sola scriptura is used when it suits and tradition used when it suits. However there is no absolute or authoritative application for either sola scriptura or tradition in protestantism.
The Westminster confession used to have some amount of authority however today very few protestants understand what that is as the choose for themselves which variation of biblical interpretation they will adopt. As a result today, amazingly, large proportions of protestants even deny the ancient creeds and the doctrine of the trinity is woefully compromised.
Here are some of my favourite scriptures on the subject.
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Full Version: Illogical Sola Scriptura
How about Sola Christus? I stand on the New Covenant of Jer 31- the one where God writes His laws on our heart.
That's where I stand.
I also stand on 2 Cor chapter 3 and Jeremiah 31 where God writes His covenant on our heart and we are led by His Spirit.
1 Are we beginning again to commend ourselves? or need we, as do some, epistles of commendation to you or from you? 2 Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men; 3 being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables [that are] hearts of flesh. 4 And such confidence have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God;
6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Some Catholics are brethren - some protestants are not. There is only one Jesus and one body of Christ on the earth.
Is Christ divided?
That's where I stand.
I also stand on 2 Cor chapter 3 and Jeremiah 31 where God writes His covenant on our heart and we are led by His Spirit.
1 Are we beginning again to commend ourselves? or need we, as do some, epistles of commendation to you or from you? 2 Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men; 3 being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables [that are] hearts of flesh. 4 And such confidence have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God;
6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Some Catholics are brethren - some protestants are not. There is only one Jesus and one body of Christ on the earth.
Is Christ divided?
Excubitor,
Martin Luther is the perfect example on how the body of Christ can become hurt when the Church is lead by humans who want total control. Martin Luther also called the book of James a "straw book," and wished that the book of James could be removed. Ex, what is your goal in writing this thread? Were you attempting to disqualify the Protestant Church from the status of "real Christians"? Or were you promoting a One World Catholic Church? It's okay whatever the reason that you attempted to promote the Catholic Church...after all you are who you are (Catholic) and I am who I am (Protestant.) Both of us can claim our victory at the cross; isn't that great news?
What your thread spoke to me is this: As Martin Luther made mistakes with his leadership in the Protestant churches, mistakes have been made in the Catholic Church by Pastoral leadership. Following a minister, pope, priest, cardinal, bishop. any human leadership...instead of following God can become deadly. Following doctrine instead of following scriptures will surely point us in the direction of our demise.
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: IF anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
Galatians 1: 6-9
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed (it) unto thee, but my father which is in heaven."
Matthew 16: 17
"For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man: nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Gal 1: 11-12
Have a good night Bro.
Your Sister In Christ,
Al
PS- Isn't God able to look beyond all of our doctrines and see beyond...into a heart. Now it hurts me to see Kansas Dad who is a Christian (Who happens to be Catholic) hurt by some of the doctrinal debates going on. Catholic vs Protestant...Protestant vs Catholic...Guess what? I think some day we are all going to be in for a surprise. Christianity is all about the divinity of Jesus, and it's all about a man that loved us so much that he was willing to die for us. I wander that if everytime I say something unkind about the Catholics if I am hammering that nail into his wrist again...over and over again. I am sorry and will try to see people behind my internet screen who have authentic feelings. And Kansas Dad? I am proud to call you my brother. It just seems that all these doctrines overwhelm me and so I just figure on letting God sort out the mess that we humans made out of doctrines. IT's all about a man...it's all about a cross.
Gods Blessings,
Al
Martin Luther is the perfect example on how the body of Christ can become hurt when the Church is lead by humans who want total control. Martin Luther also called the book of James a "straw book," and wished that the book of James could be removed. Ex, what is your goal in writing this thread? Were you attempting to disqualify the Protestant Church from the status of "real Christians"? Or were you promoting a One World Catholic Church? It's okay whatever the reason that you attempted to promote the Catholic Church...after all you are who you are (Catholic) and I am who I am (Protestant.) Both of us can claim our victory at the cross; isn't that great news?
What your thread spoke to me is this: As Martin Luther made mistakes with his leadership in the Protestant churches, mistakes have been made in the Catholic Church by Pastoral leadership. Following a minister, pope, priest, cardinal, bishop. any human leadership...instead of following God can become deadly. Following doctrine instead of following scriptures will surely point us in the direction of our demise."I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: IF anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
Galatians 1: 6-9
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed (it) unto thee, but my father which is in heaven."
Matthew 16: 17
"For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man: nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Gal 1: 11-12
Have a good night Bro.
Your Sister In Christ,
Al
PS- Isn't God able to look beyond all of our doctrines and see beyond...into a heart. Now it hurts me to see Kansas Dad who is a Christian (Who happens to be Catholic) hurt by some of the doctrinal debates going on. Catholic vs Protestant...Protestant vs Catholic...Guess what? I think some day we are all going to be in for a surprise. Christianity is all about the divinity of Jesus, and it's all about a man that loved us so much that he was willing to die for us. I wander that if everytime I say something unkind about the Catholics if I am hammering that nail into his wrist again...over and over again. I am sorry and will try to see people behind my internet screen who have authentic feelings. And Kansas Dad? I am proud to call you my brother. It just seems that all these doctrines overwhelm me and so I just figure on letting God sort out the mess that we humans made out of doctrines. IT's all about a man...it's all about a cross.
Gods Blessings,
Al
the pope claims to believe in evolution,,,,,,,,,,,,which dis-qualifies him as christian bible-believer
QUOTE (dennis mann @ Jun 21 2008, 02:00 AM) 
the pope claims to believe in evolution,,,,,,,,,,,,which dis-qualifies him as christian bible-believer
Dennis,
And this is what confuses the heck out of me: How can a person Catholic/Protestant support abortion while proclaiming the Gospel? Doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up. Jesus believed in the culture of life and not a culture of death. In which doctrine can we find supporting life with their whole hearts? People who belong to congregations and follow doctirnes might support life vocally but Scriptures teaches us how to be effective witnesses for life.
Gods Blessings,
Al
QUOTE (excubitor @ Jun 21 2008, 04:45 AM)
Here is a post I put on a catholic forum which I thought might benefit the users here.
================================
As a protestant nobody more ardently supported sola scripture than did I. On a protestant forum you will find me ardently supporting the KJV against the modern "critical text" translations.
However I came to realise that sola scriptura is illogical. The canon did not come written on a giant marble pyramid coming down from heaven. It came from the long generations of traditions of the church. Even when we go back to the earliest lists of books they are all expressing the general tradition of the church. So then it occurred to me to ask why we as protestants are forced to admit the tradition of the church with respect to the selection of the books of the canon, whereas we feel compelled to abandon the traditions of the church on every other matter?
In fact I became aware that those same people who so boldly proclaimed sola scriptura were the first in line to trash scripture.
One of luthers first acts was to strip books out of the canon which did not suit his new theology. Now how is that exercising sola scriptura?
The other problem I noticed was that all of those distinctive doctrines which the reformers claimed were learned entirely from tradition and thereby were scrapped do in many cases have very strong scriptural evidence. I found that we were not upholding scripture but were in fact explaining away scripture.
Even the Marian doctrines which I struggled with most have as their backing very strong scriptural typology in support of them. Denying these doctrines also requires us to deny the strong leads of scripture.
As it turns out sola scriptura is NEVER used in protestantism except for one thing and that is to argue distinctives with catholicism. In any other area of biblical study sola scriptura is ignored as protestants hack about the scriptures to their own purposes. The most wild of patterns and typology are construed. Any personal interpretation is permitted no matter how aberrant. I even found one guy using the scriptures to "prove" that there is no hell.
An example where the reformers ignored sola scriptura is found in
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Every protestant should wash one anothers feet according to the precepts of sola scriptura. Of course they do not, they appeal to the tradition of the church in not washing feet. So we see that sola scriptura is used when it suits and tradition used when it suits. However there is no absolute or authoritative application for either sola scriptura or tradition in protestantism.
The Westminster confession used to have some amount of authority however today very few protestants understand what that is as the choose for themselves which variation of biblical interpretation they will adopt. As a result today, amazingly, large proportions of protestants even deny the ancient creeds and the doctrine of the trinity is woefully compromised.
Here are some of my favourite scriptures on the subject.
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
================================
As a protestant nobody more ardently supported sola scripture than did I. On a protestant forum you will find me ardently supporting the KJV against the modern "critical text" translations.
However I came to realise that sola scriptura is illogical. The canon did not come written on a giant marble pyramid coming down from heaven. It came from the long generations of traditions of the church. Even when we go back to the earliest lists of books they are all expressing the general tradition of the church. So then it occurred to me to ask why we as protestants are forced to admit the tradition of the church with respect to the selection of the books of the canon, whereas we feel compelled to abandon the traditions of the church on every other matter?
In fact I became aware that those same people who so boldly proclaimed sola scriptura were the first in line to trash scripture.
One of luthers first acts was to strip books out of the canon which did not suit his new theology. Now how is that exercising sola scriptura?
The other problem I noticed was that all of those distinctive doctrines which the reformers claimed were learned entirely from tradition and thereby were scrapped do in many cases have very strong scriptural evidence. I found that we were not upholding scripture but were in fact explaining away scripture.
Even the Marian doctrines which I struggled with most have as their backing very strong scriptural typology in support of them. Denying these doctrines also requires us to deny the strong leads of scripture.
As it turns out sola scriptura is NEVER used in protestantism except for one thing and that is to argue distinctives with catholicism. In any other area of biblical study sola scriptura is ignored as protestants hack about the scriptures to their own purposes. The most wild of patterns and typology are construed. Any personal interpretation is permitted no matter how aberrant. I even found one guy using the scriptures to "prove" that there is no hell.
An example where the reformers ignored sola scriptura is found in
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Every protestant should wash one anothers feet according to the precepts of sola scriptura. Of course they do not, they appeal to the tradition of the church in not washing feet. So we see that sola scriptura is used when it suits and tradition used when it suits. However there is no absolute or authoritative application for either sola scriptura or tradition in protestantism.
The Westminster confession used to have some amount of authority however today very few protestants understand what that is as the choose for themselves which variation of biblical interpretation they will adopt. As a result today, amazingly, large proportions of protestants even deny the ancient creeds and the doctrine of the trinity is woefully compromised.
Here are some of my favourite scriptures on the subject.
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
The human traditions of the RCC and of the Protestant group are all flawed. We cannot salvage them at all. They are being judged and will die.
We must be the ekklēsia .................... a calling out, , ............
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:
Rev 18:5 for her sins have reached even unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Notice that "my people" must come out, the rest must stay.
C
QUOTE (Adeline @ Jun 21 2008, 02:56 PM)
Excubitor,
Martin Luther is the perfect example on how the body of Christ can become hurt when the Church is lead by humans who want total control. Martin Luther also called the book of James a "straw book," and wished that the book of James could be removed. Ex, what is your goal in writing this thread? Were you attempting to disqualify the Protestant Church from the status of "real Christians"? Or were you promoting a One World Catholic Church? It's okay whatever the reason that you attempted to promote the Catholic Church...after all you are who you are (Catholic) and I am who I am (Protestant.) Both of us can claim our victory at the cross; isn't that great news? What your thread spoke to me is this: As Martin Luther made mistakes with his leadership in the Protestant churches, mistakes have been made in the Catholic Church by Pastoral leadership. Following a minister, pope, priest, cardinal, bishop. any human leadership...instead of following God can become deadly. Following doctrine instead of following scriptures will surely point us in the direction of our demise.
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: IF anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
Galatians 1: 6-9
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed (it) unto thee, but my father which is in heaven."
Matthew 16: 17
"For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man: nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Gal 1: 11-12
Have a good night Bro.
Your Sister In Christ,
Al
PS- Isn't God able to look beyond all of our doctrines and see beyond...into a heart. Now it hurts me to see Kansas Dad who is a Christian (Who happens to be Catholic) hurt by some of the doctrinal debates going on. Catholic vs Protestant...Protestant vs Catholic...Guess what? I think some day we are all going to be in for a surprise. Christianity is all about the divinity of Jesus, and it's all about a man that loved us so much that he was willing to die for us. I wander that if everytime I say something unkind about the Catholics if I am hammering that nail into his wrist again...over and over again. I am sorry and will try to see people behind my internet screen who have authentic feelings. And Kansas Dad? I am proud to call you my brother. It just seems that all these doctrines overwhelm me and so I just figure on letting God sort out the mess that we humans made out of doctrines. IT's all about a man...it's all about a cross.
Gods Blessings,
Al
Martin Luther is the perfect example on how the body of Christ can become hurt when the Church is lead by humans who want total control. Martin Luther also called the book of James a "straw book," and wished that the book of James could be removed. Ex, what is your goal in writing this thread? Were you attempting to disqualify the Protestant Church from the status of "real Christians"? Or were you promoting a One World Catholic Church? It's okay whatever the reason that you attempted to promote the Catholic Church...after all you are who you are (Catholic) and I am who I am (Protestant.) Both of us can claim our victory at the cross; isn't that great news?
What your thread spoke to me is this: As Martin Luther made mistakes with his leadership in the Protestant churches, mistakes have been made in the Catholic Church by Pastoral leadership. Following a minister, pope, priest, cardinal, bishop. any human leadership...instead of following God can become deadly. Following doctrine instead of following scriptures will surely point us in the direction of our demise."I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: IF anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
Galatians 1: 6-9
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed (it) unto thee, but my father which is in heaven."
Matthew 16: 17
"For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man: nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Gal 1: 11-12
Have a good night Bro.
Your Sister In Christ,
Al
PS- Isn't God able to look beyond all of our doctrines and see beyond...into a heart. Now it hurts me to see Kansas Dad who is a Christian (Who happens to be Catholic) hurt by some of the doctrinal debates going on. Catholic vs Protestant...Protestant vs Catholic...Guess what? I think some day we are all going to be in for a surprise. Christianity is all about the divinity of Jesus, and it's all about a man that loved us so much that he was willing to die for us. I wander that if everytime I say something unkind about the Catholics if I am hammering that nail into his wrist again...over and over again. I am sorry and will try to see people behind my internet screen who have authentic feelings. And Kansas Dad? I am proud to call you my brother. It just seems that all these doctrines overwhelm me and so I just figure on letting God sort out the mess that we humans made out of doctrines. IT's all about a man...it's all about a cross.
Gods Blessings,
Al
My agenda is to build unity amongst the body of Christ. If we believe the doctrines of the church as I described in the OP then we will all be in unity. As I showed in the OP Sola Scriptura is the primary reason why we have division in the body of Christ.
Son't you think that unity is a worthy agenda to work towards Adeline. Why don't you support me then?
Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in [4] the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
So as I often point out, the clergy and teachers are given to us so that we may have unity. Notice that God DID NOT give us the scripture to bring about unity.
Many people have lamented the discord and fighting on the forum with the constant protestant/catholic to and fro. The reason is because we have all ditched the clergy, the teachers and the teachings of the church and relied entirely upon our own private interpretations of the scripture.
So here I am giving the solution and all I get is "what is your agenda" and "why are you departing from the faith".
Religion is nothing more than one fallen head instructing another fallen head.
1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1 second after John paul 2 died, he became a bible-believer, and a Creationist
excubitor,
The "KJV-only" crowd is in error, as well.
No. What happened is that as the books of the Bible were written, the Holy Spirit confirmed to believers which were part of Scripture, and which weren't. In particular, regarding New Testament books, all and only those books which were acknowledged as having been written by the Apostles (including the Apostle Paul), or close associates of the Apostles (either those who took dictation from an Apostle or who were direct "disciples" of an Apostle [Mark, of Peter], or those who were first-hand witnesses of Jesus' life [Luke]), and which did not contradict the four known Gospels were acknowledged as Scripture. A very logical and reasoned and reliable means of determining Scripture. These were acknowledged as Scripture by the Church within one generation - it was not a matter of "tradition". Decades later, a group of men gathered together and put their official "stamp" on what books should be considered "canonical", but this was an after the fact act.
We Protestants "feel compelled to abandon the traditions of the church on every other matter"? That's a lie. We Protestants only "abandon" those "traditions of the Church" when those traditions are unsupported by, or even contrary to, Scripture.
I take it self-awareness was a bit painful for you, then.
I don't know, but then again I don't admire Luther. Luther was an anti-Semitic hypocrite who sought his own power, at least towards the end. He also continued many of the RCC's unBiblical practices, including infant baptism.
Name some, and point out where in Scripture they are supported.
Pardon me if I am infinitely suspicious of this claim. For the sake of possible "unity", why don't you provide that "Scriptural typology", and point out how it supports all those Marian doctrines with which you "struggled".
I deny those "strong leads" exist. Prove me wrong.
You obviously don't understand "Sola Scriptura".
Misuse of Scripture is no argument against "Sola Scriptura".
Like I said, you don't understand "Sola Scriptura". However, Jesus' teachings and examples fall into different categories, as is clear to anyone who has studied Scripture for themselves. Eating bread and drinking wine, as is done in "The Lord's Supper", is not "cultural", and does not depend on a particular culture or time. The symbolism involved remains. On the other hand, "washing one another's feet" most definitely was something that was "cultural", in that in the Jewish culture of Jesus' time, people (Jews, particularly) walked about on dusty roads wearing sandals - washing the feet of a guest was a convenience, something that was beneficial to the guest. The key point Jesus was making was that His disciples should be willing to serve others, to humble themselves in order to benefit others. "To wash one another's feet" WOULDN'T, today (for centuries, actually) be a benefit to most Christians - in fact, it would be an inconvenience, since they'd have to take off their shoes and socks, then put them back on. Shoes and socks nowadays protect people's feet (in most cultures) from getting dirty. You are grasping at foolish straws here in your hatred for Protestants, excubitor
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, yes, though most often the RCC appeals to tradition rather than Scripture. But we haven't seen that in the case of Protestants as a group.
Protestantism doesn't admit to the authority of "tradition". The authority of Scripture, for the majority of Protestants, derives from what I mentioned earlier in this post - the Apostolic authorship (or direct derivation) of the books of the New Testament.
QUOTE
As a protestant nobody more ardently supported sola scripture than did I. On a protestant forum you will find me ardently supporting the KJV against the modern "critical text" translations.
The "KJV-only" crowd is in error, as well.
QUOTE
However I came to realise that sola scriptura is illogical. The canon did not come written on a giant marble pyramid coming down from heaven. It came from the long generations of traditions of the church.
No. What happened is that as the books of the Bible were written, the Holy Spirit confirmed to believers which were part of Scripture, and which weren't. In particular, regarding New Testament books, all and only those books which were acknowledged as having been written by the Apostles (including the Apostle Paul), or close associates of the Apostles (either those who took dictation from an Apostle or who were direct "disciples" of an Apostle [Mark, of Peter], or those who were first-hand witnesses of Jesus' life [Luke]), and which did not contradict the four known Gospels were acknowledged as Scripture. A very logical and reasoned and reliable means of determining Scripture. These were acknowledged as Scripture by the Church within one generation - it was not a matter of "tradition". Decades later, a group of men gathered together and put their official "stamp" on what books should be considered "canonical", but this was an after the fact act.
QUOTE
Even when we go back to the earliest lists of books they are all expressing the general tradition of the church. So then it occurred to me to ask why we as protestants are forced to admit the tradition of the church with respect to the selection of the books of the canon, whereas we feel compelled to abandon the traditions of the church on every other matter?
We Protestants "feel compelled to abandon the traditions of the church on every other matter"? That's a lie. We Protestants only "abandon" those "traditions of the Church" when those traditions are unsupported by, or even contrary to, Scripture.
QUOTE
In fact I became aware that those same people who so boldly proclaimed sola scriptura were the first in line to trash scripture.
I take it self-awareness was a bit painful for you, then.
QUOTE
One of luther's first acts was to strip books out of the canon which did not suit his new theology. Now how is that exercising sola scriptura?
I don't know, but then again I don't admire Luther. Luther was an anti-Semitic hypocrite who sought his own power, at least towards the end. He also continued many of the RCC's unBiblical practices, including infant baptism.
QUOTE
The other problem I noticed was that all of those distinctive doctrines which the reformers claimed were learned entirely from tradition and thereby were scrapped do in many cases have very strong scriptural evidence. I found that we were not upholding scripture but were in fact explaining away scripture.
Name some, and point out where in Scripture they are supported.
QUOTE
Even the Marian doctrines which I struggled with most have as their backing very strong scriptural typology in support of them.
Pardon me if I am infinitely suspicious of this claim. For the sake of possible "unity", why don't you provide that "Scriptural typology", and point out how it supports all those Marian doctrines with which you "struggled".
QUOTE
Denying these doctrines also requires us to deny the strong leads of scripture.
I deny those "strong leads" exist. Prove me wrong.
QUOTE
As it turns out sola scriptura is NEVER used in protestantism except for one thing and that is to argue distinctives with catholicism. In any other area of biblical study sola scriptura is ignored as protestants hack about the scriptures to their own purposes. The most wild of patterns and typology are construed.
You obviously don't understand "Sola Scriptura".
QUOTE
Any personal interpretation is permitted no matter how aberrant. I even found one guy using the scriptures to "prove" that there is no hell.
Misuse of Scripture is no argument against "Sola Scriptura".
QUOTE
An example where the reformers ignored sola scriptura is found in
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Every protestant should wash one anothers feet according to the precepts of sola scriptura. Of course they do not, they appeal to the tradition of the church in not washing feet.
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Every protestant should wash one anothers feet according to the precepts of sola scriptura. Of course they do not, they appeal to the tradition of the church in not washing feet.
Like I said, you don't understand "Sola Scriptura". However, Jesus' teachings and examples fall into different categories, as is clear to anyone who has studied Scripture for themselves. Eating bread and drinking wine, as is done in "The Lord's Supper", is not "cultural", and does not depend on a particular culture or time. The symbolism involved remains. On the other hand, "washing one another's feet" most definitely was something that was "cultural", in that in the Jewish culture of Jesus' time, people (Jews, particularly) walked about on dusty roads wearing sandals - washing the feet of a guest was a convenience, something that was beneficial to the guest. The key point Jesus was making was that His disciples should be willing to serve others, to humble themselves in order to benefit others. "To wash one another's feet" WOULDN'T, today (for centuries, actually) be a benefit to most Christians - in fact, it would be an inconvenience, since they'd have to take off their shoes and socks, then put them back on. Shoes and socks nowadays protect people's feet (in most cultures) from getting dirty. You are grasping at foolish straws here in your hatred for Protestants, excubitor
QUOTE
So we see that sola scriptura is used when it suits and tradition used when it suits.
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, yes, though most often the RCC appeals to tradition rather than Scripture. But we haven't seen that in the case of Protestants as a group.
QUOTE
However there is no absolute or authoritative application for either sola scriptura or tradition in protestantism.
Protestantism doesn't admit to the authority of "tradition". The authority of Scripture, for the majority of Protestants, derives from what I mentioned earlier in this post - the Apostolic authorship (or direct derivation) of the books of the New Testament.
QUOTE (Godsword @ Jun 21 2008, 11:04 PM)
excubitor,
The "KJV-only" crowd is in error, as well.
No. What happened is that as the books of the Bible were written, the Holy Spirit confirmed to believers which were part of Scripture, and which weren't. In particular, regarding New Testament books, all and only those books which were acknowledged as having been written by the Apostles (including the Apostle Paul), or close associates of the Apostles (either those who took dictation from an Apostle or who were direct "disciples" of an Apostle [Mark, of Peter], or those who were first-hand witnesses of Jesus' life [Luke]), and which did not contradict the four known Gospels were acknowledged as Scripture. A very logical and reasoned and reliable means of determining Scripture. These were acknowledged as Scripture by the Church within one generation - it was not a matter of "tradition". Decades later, a group of men gathered together and put their official "stamp" on what books should be considered "canonical", but this was an after the fact act.
QUOTE
As a protestant nobody more ardently supported sola scripture than did I. On a protestant forum you will find me ardently supporting the KJV against the modern "critical text" translations.
The "KJV-only" crowd is in error, as well.
QUOTE
However I came to realise that sola scriptura is illogical. The canon did not come written on a giant marble pyramid coming down from heaven. It came from the long generations of traditions of the church.
No. What happened is that as the books of the Bible were written, the Holy Spirit confirmed to believers which were part of Scripture, and which weren't. In particular, regarding New Testament books, all and only those books which were acknowledged as having been written by the Apostles (including the Apostle Paul), or close associates of the Apostles (either those who took dictation from an Apostle or who were direct "disciples" of an Apostle [Mark, of Peter], or those who were first-hand witnesses of Jesus' life [Luke]), and which did not contradict the four known Gospels were acknowledged as Scripture. A very logical and reasoned and reliable means of determining Scripture. These were acknowledged as Scripture by the Church within one generation - it was not a matter of "tradition". Decades later, a group of men gathered together and put their official "stamp" on what books should be considered "canonical", but this was an after the fact act.
What you call confirmations of the Holy Spirit and general acceptance by the Church is EXACTLY what I and the RCC consider to be Sacred Tradition. Your so-called confirmations of the HS and general acceptance of the church has ABSOLUTELY NO place in Sola Scriptura.
QUOTE (Godsword @ Jun 21 2008, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE
The other problem I noticed was that all of those distinctive doctrines which the reformers claimed were learned entirely from tradition and thereby were scrapped do in many cases have very strong scriptural evidence. I found that we were not upholding scripture but were in fact explaining away scripture.
Name some, and point out where in Scripture they are supported.
QUOTE
Even the Marian doctrines which I struggled with most have as their backing very strong scriptural typology in support of them.
Pardon me if I am infinitely suspicious of this claim. For the sake of possible "unity", why don't you provide that "Scriptural typology", and point out how it supports all those Marian doctrines with which you "struggled".
QUOTE
Denying these doctrines also requires us to deny the strong leads of scripture.
I deny those "strong leads" exist. Prove me wrong.
p
How do you know? You've never even looked into it.
QUOTE (Godsword @ Jun 21 2008, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE
As it turns out sola scriptura is NEVER used in protestantism except for one thing and that is to argue distinctives with catholicism. In any other area of biblical study sola scriptura is ignored as protestants hack about the scriptures to their own purposes. The most wild of patterns and typology are construed.
You obviously don't understand "Sola Scriptura".
QUOTE
Any personal interpretation is permitted no matter how aberrant. I even found one guy using the scriptures to "prove" that there is no hell.
Misuse of Scripture is no argument against "Sola Scriptura".
Every Catholic would argue that the scripture is misused when it is used to come up with a teaching or doctrine which is contrary to the churches traditional interpretations of the scripture.
QUOTE (Godsword @ Jun 21 2008, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE
An example where the reformers ignored sola scriptura is found in
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Every protestant should wash one anothers feet according to the precepts of sola scriptura. Of course they do not, they appeal to the tradition of the church in not washing feet.
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Every protestant should wash one anothers feet according to the precepts of sola scriptura. Of course they do not, they appeal to the tradition of the church in not washing feet.
Like I said, you don't understand "Sola Scriptura". However, Jesus' teachings and examples fall into different categories, as is clear to anyone who has studied Scripture for themselves. Eating bread and drinking wine, as is done in "The Lord's Supper", is not "cultural", and does not depend on a particular culture or time. The symbolism involved remains. On the other hand, "washing one another's feet" most definitely was something that was "cultural", in that in the Jewish culture of Jesus' time, people (Jews, particularly) walked about on dusty roads wearing sandals - washing the feet of a guest was a convenience, something that was beneficial to the guest. The key point Jesus was making was that His disciples should be willing to serve others, to humble themselves in order to benefit others. "To wash one another's feet" WOULDN'T, today (for centuries, actually) be a benefit to most Christians - in fact, it would be an inconvenience, since they'd have to take off their shoes and socks, then put them back on. Shoes and socks nowadays protect people's feet (in most cultures) from getting dirty. You are grasping at foolish straws here in your hatred for Protestants, excubitor
Yes thats right. That pretty well sums up the churches traditional interpretation of that passage.
QUOTE (Godsword @ Jun 21 2008, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE
So we see that sola scriptura is used when it suits and tradition used when it suits.
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, yes, though most often the RCC appeals to tradition rather than Scripture. But we haven't seen that in the case of Protestants as a group.
QUOTE
However there is no absolute or authoritative application for either sola scriptura or tradition in protestantism.
Protestantism doesn't admit to the authority of "tradition". The authority of Scripture, for the majority of Protestants, derives from what I mentioned earlier in this post - the Apostolic authorship (or direct derivation) of the books of the New Testament.
Why is it then that protestants come up with bizarre varieties of what the scripture says? If it is so clear cut what scripture teaches? Who decides which interpretation of the scripture is valid so that we may have unity?
Sometimes I am glad that I do not consider myself a Protestant in any formal way. Then again, I am most serious about being a Christian, though not against denominations myself.
"Let Christ be arbiter in your heart" comes to mind.
Apostasy comes easy to those who do not take Scripture seriously.
I used to be sympathetic with Creationist's as I am one such. I just happen to know the 6 day creation is not true as "Creationists" claim.
Here is a statement that brought my ire to the fore.
"the pope claims to believe in evolution,,,,,,,,,,,,which dis-qualifies him as christian bible-believer"
What an idiotic statement. Moronic assertions based on arrogance of that level impeded my walk for a long while. The benefit was that I was sure of what I was sure of and relied on the Holy Spirit as my Tutor and Comforter. However, breaking people's hearts by such statements as above breaks people sometimes.
"Let Christ be arbiter in your heart" comes to mind.
Apostasy comes easy to those who do not take Scripture seriously.
I used to be sympathetic with Creationist's as I am one such. I just happen to know the 6 day creation is not true as "Creationists" claim.
Here is a statement that brought my ire to the fore.
"the pope claims to believe in evolution,,,,,,,,,,,,which dis-qualifies him as christian bible-believer"
What an idiotic statement. Moronic assertions based on arrogance of that level impeded my walk for a long while. The benefit was that I was sure of what I was sure of and relied on the Holy Spirit as my Tutor and Comforter. However, breaking people's hearts by such statements as above breaks people sometimes.
Sola Scriptura?
What is that?
Show me a bible where man has not put his thumb prints and used entire books to kindle fires and I too will become an
adherent.
Somehow we believe in the fairy tale that the "church fathers" so called and of course the KJV translators were themselves divinely inspiried. Thus we echo what men have said in the past and thats the truth no matter what. Were repeat broadcasters.
Where is the book of Gad?
Where is the book of Enoch?
Where is the book of wars?
These are just three books that are missing that were not even in the Catholic Bible.
Now in the 1611 it contained the Apocrypha, it was removed by the British and American Bible societies in 1829. Were they also led by the Holy Spirit? Why then do they still call it the "authorized version"? James had been dead for some 200 years! Even the Catholics, who no doubt did their share of book burning preserved the Apocrypha in their bible.
I could go on for hours citing the various errors in the English Bible, from the contradictory lineages and names of the wives of Esau to who it was that prompted David to Number Israel to the insertion of the word Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12.
I will not even address all of the added Italics to the scripture which often genders confusion at best and changes the entire meaning at worst and leads one down a path of doctrine which otherwise would not have been concieved.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
there is only 1 interpretation of scripture
Jesus christ is the GREAT COMMUNICATOR.........he wrote the bible so that we can read it and understand it
there are many different claims about what the bible says...........rcc, SPONG, BENEDICT, TRENT, VATICAN 2, protestant, calvin, luther, baptist, methodist, eastern orthodox, osas, pentecostal, charismatic, etc
but, there's only 1 that is true
all others are lies.............they are not mis-interpretations,,,,,,,,,,they are lies
all of us can read and understand the bible...........if not, then Jesus failed as the GREAT COMMUNICATOR
and Jesus Christ did not fail!
HALLELUJAH!
there is only 1 interpretation of scripture
Jesus christ is the GREAT COMMUNICATOR.........he wrote the bible so that we can read it and understand it
there are many different claims about what the bible says...........rcc, SPONG, BENEDICT, TRENT, VATICAN 2, protestant, calvin, luther, baptist, methodist, eastern orthodox, osas, pentecostal, charismatic, etc
but, there's only 1 that is true
all others are lies.............they are not mis-interpretations,,,,,,,,,,they are lies
all of us can read and understand the bible...........if not, then Jesus failed as the GREAT COMMUNICATOR
and Jesus Christ did not fail!
HALLELUJAH!
QUOTE (raysondawn @ Jun 22 2008, 07:07 AM)
Sola Scriptura?
What is that?
Show me a bible where man has not put his thumb prints and used entire books to kindle fires and I too will become an
adherent.
Somehow we believe in the fairy tale that the "church fathers" so called and of course the KJV translators were themselves divinely inspiried. Thus we echo what men have said in the past and thats the truth no matter what. Were repeat broadcasters.
Where is the book of Gad?
Where is the book of Enoch?
Where is the book of wars?
These are just three books that are missing that were not even in the Catholic Bible.
Now in the 1611 it contained the Apocrypha, it was removed by the British and American Bible societies in 1829. Were they also led by the Holy Spirit? Why then do they still call it the "authorized version"? James had been dead for some 200 years! Even the Catholics, who no doubt did their share of book burning preserved the Apocrypha in their bible.
I could go on for hours citing the various errors in the English Bible, from the contradictory lineages and names of the wives of Esau to who it was that prompted David to Number Israel to the insertion of the word Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12.
I will not even address all of the added Italics to the scripture which often genders confusion at best and changes the entire meaning at worst and leads one down a path of doctrine which otherwise would not have been concieved.
What is that?
Show me a bible where man has not put his thumb prints and used entire books to kindle fires and I too will become an
adherent.
Somehow we believe in the fairy tale that the "church fathers" so called and of course the KJV translators were themselves divinely inspiried. Thus we echo what men have said in the past and thats the truth no matter what. Were repeat broadcasters.
Where is the book of Gad?
Where is the book of Enoch?
Where is the book of wars?
These are just three books that are missing that were not even in the Catholic Bible.
Now in the 1611 it contained the Apocrypha, it was removed by the British and American Bible societies in 1829. Were they also led by the Holy Spirit? Why then do they still call it the "authorized version"? James had been dead for some 200 years! Even the Catholics, who no doubt did their share of book burning preserved the Apocrypha in their bible.
I could go on for hours citing the various errors in the English Bible, from the contradictory lineages and names of the wives of Esau to who it was that prompted David to Number Israel to the insertion of the word Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12.
I will not even address all of the added Italics to the scripture which often genders confusion at best and changes the entire meaning at worst and leads one down a path of doctrine which otherwise would not have been concieved.
THE 12 apostles and the early church elders and lay-persons had miracle GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.............
they spoke in tongues,
did divine healings,
miracles,
pronounced death upon ananias and saphira before god killed them,
wrote scripture,
recognized scripture,,,,,,,(and fake scripture),
pronounced doom and curses upon the false teachers...........(read abouth the Judaizers in Galatians),
ex-communicated the sexual pervert,
etc
my point is:
the early church wrote the scripture,
and could recognize true (and fake) scripture,
and they established the Canaon of the Bible, as we know it today............they did it by super-natural power from god!
Peter knew that Paul's writings were scripture.
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
here, peter establishes paul's writings as scripture, just like the OT!
QUOTE
they spoke in tongues,
Notice that every person got to hear the Word in thier own language!! We don't speak the old English that the KJV was written in and it's very hard to follow. By the time we figure out what those words mean, after trying to read each passage five times, we have lost our train of thought. God provided us with the written word in our own American English so that we could read them and understand.
QUOTE (sharon @ Jun 22 2008, 10:24 AM)
QUOTE
they spoke in tongues,
Notice that every person got to hear the Word in thier own language!! We don't speak the old English that the KJV was written in and it's very hard to follow. By the time we figure out what those words mean, after trying to read each passage five times, we have lost our train of thought. God provided us with the written word in our own American English so that we could read them and understand.
we agree!
the new translations are much better.........i like the AMPLIFIED BIBLE
i need an interpreter for the KJV
i have heard people speak in tongues, but they never spoke in KJV!
Just because a denomination does not follow "sola scriptura" does not invalidate the claim that through Jesus, it is adequete, sufficient and effective.
Why is there only one way to salvation? Because, it's good enough.
Why is there only one way to salvation? Because, it's good enough.
QUOTE (Patmos @ Jun 23 2008, 03:08 AM)
Just because a denomination does not follow "sola scriptura" does not invalidate the claim that through Jesus, it is adequete, sufficient and effective.
Why is there only one way to salvation? Because, it's good enough.
Why is there only one way to salvation? Because, it's good enough.
Clearly sola scriptura has proved to be a farce. It is not sufficient. The proof of this is that we have 30,000 denominations and sects all sprung out of protestantism. Some of them are quite heretical eg. JW's and yet they all believe that their teachings are an accurate interpretation of scripture.
You ask any JW whether he believes the scripture and he will boldly affirm that he does.
Therefore in addition to scripture we need the magisterium of the church to authorise teachings so that the simple and foolish do not get swept along into cults. Additional proof of the failure of sola scriptura is given in the teachings of virtually all protestants which is that the bread and wine are not actually the body and blood of Christ but are simply hypostatically linked to the body and blood of Christ.
This is certainly a damnable heresy which the vast majority of protestants today believe.
I am letting it be known that this is NOT a Catholic forum, and posting Catholic apologetic topics here are not allowed. I have edited the original post to remove offensive and derisive comments about protestant churches and denominations. Feel free to inform me of such postings from this point forward. Doctrines are fine to debate, but not the promotion of clearly Catholic doctrines without scriptural basis. We moderators greatly prefer not to have to edit or delete posts or sanction members, but it is part of our responsibility at times.
the pope contradicts the Scripture.
the pope is NOT the HOLY FATHER
Mary is not the MOST HOLY
the local RCC Priest is not FATHER...........the bible tells me so
Excubitor is a ROMAN, and his Kingdom will be destroyed when Christ Returns (Daniel 2)
the pope is a ROMAN, and his kingdom will fall, and will never be seen again
Hallelujah!
the pope is NOT the HOLY FATHER
Mary is not the MOST HOLY
the local RCC Priest is not FATHER...........the bible tells me so
Excubitor is a ROMAN, and his Kingdom will be destroyed when Christ Returns (Daniel 2)
the pope is a ROMAN, and his kingdom will fall, and will never be seen again
Hallelujah!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.