1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

It is unbiblical The belief that the Bible is the sole rule of Christian theology

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by PopeADope, Jan 12, 2015.

  1. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,499
    Ratings:
    +11,955
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    Anyone can grab a bunch of verses and post them without actually dealing with what I actually posted.
     
  2. kepha31

    kepha31 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Ratings:
    +99
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It doesn't say every written word of God.

    It doesn't say unto his written words alone.

    It means the book of life. If it meant the Bible, it would mean everyone who has not sinned would be listed in it. Your exegesis is absurd. Furthermore, it refutes the heresy of "once saved, always saved" because in order to be blotted out, one would have to be in it in the first place.

    I'm trying not to be offensive here, but you are really ignorant of early church history. The Bible did not fall out of the sky. Furthermore, the authority of scripture is a Catholic tradition which evidently you know nothing about.

    Wrong. The holy books were compiled and made canon by Catholic bishops early in the forth century. Even Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, acknowledges this. Without the Catholic Church, you would have no Bible.

    Yes, God wrote His Book, but needed human beings to write it and discern false books from authentic ones.

    That's your opinion. I don't recall anywhere in scripture where YHWH-YaH gave Jesus a Bible.
    The "rcc councils" didn't make the books inspired, they already were.

    Yes, the 10 commandments, not the whole Bible.

    It doesn't say the written words alone.

    It doesn't say the written words alone.

    TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
    The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.

    Then explain why sola scripturists have thousands of conflicting doctrines to choose from.

    Yes, they teach that about Catholics at the KKK and the Westborough Baptist Church, both upholding sola scriptura.
     
    #62 kepha31, Jan 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015
  3. kepha31

    kepha31 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Ratings:
    +99
    Religion:
    Catholic
    This is not a response to the quote. Metis did not say the church decided what Jesus would say.

    This is vain repetition and not many are going to take you seriously.
     
  4. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    Everything we need to know concerning God's will is in the Bible. The church grows numbers wise, but it was never meant to change from the original. Some seem to want God's will to change with the times. It doesn't. That thinking is the exact reason for denominationalism. If we follow the two greatest commandments, we don't have to wonder whether something is right or wrong.
    This promise was made to the apostles only. Can you quote every word Jesus spoke in the four gospels? No? Well, neither can the Pope.
    Infallible? You're suggesting the Pope, a man, is infallible? Sorry, only God is infallible.
    The promise was to the apostles. There are no successors nor has there ever been.
    Nor does it say the Roman Catholic Organization is the pillar and ground of truth. The Lord's church was built on the doctrine of Jesus and the apostles, not men. The only divine guidance we have comes from the Holy Spirit. We pray for understanding. I hope you aren't suggesting the Pope is divine?
    Everything that leads to godliness comes from our knowledge of God. That knowledge comes from His word. 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim. 3:15-17. The burden of proof is on you, my friend, to show that we need to go outside of God's word to learn what we must do to be saved, or to learn what leads us to live a godly life, or to find doctrine, or for instruction in righteousness, or to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Show me book, chapter and verse that says we need more than what God has given us in His word because the verses I cited above disagree with you.
    The US is all christians everywhere. That's who Peter is writing to. Everything we need means exactly what it says. Our knowledge of Him gives us everything we need for a godly life.

    Your post was too long. You'll need to shorten them.

    Quite frankly, after reading your post, I see the Roman Catholic Organization having a lot in common with the Jehovah's Witnesses. With the JW's, they think the Governing Body ONLY can interpret the Scriptures. The RC's think the same about the Pope. Both have elevated men to a divine like, infallible status.
     
  5. kjv4me2you

    kjv4me2you Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +20
     
  6. kjv4me2you

    kjv4me2you Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +20
     
  7. kjv4me2you

    kjv4me2you Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +20
     
  8. kjv4me2you

    kjv4me2you Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +20
     
  9. kepha31

    kepha31 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Ratings:
    +99
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Everything that is true in Protestantism came from the Catholic Church. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to "change" any doctrines. I've explained the difference between "change" and "development" but you seem to be ignoring it.

    You can't defend the man-made illogical corrupt tradition of sola scriptura so you attack the Pope and the Church with a list of anti-Catholic misrepresentations and falsehoods?
     
  10. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    I can't speak for protestantism. I'm not one of them. I am a member of the Lord's church, which has been in existence since Pentecost A.D. 33. The Lord added me when I obeyed His gospel. The Roman catholic organization was unheard of until centuries after the NT church was established in A.D. 33.

    Developing doctrine? That is precisely what the JW's have done. They claim they don't change doctrine either. Instead, they say the light gets brighter. Yeah right! I'm not ignoring your explanation of developing doctrine. I'm outright rejecting it. God's word clearly states that we are not to go beyond what is clearly written. The catholic organization had repeatedly done this, creating rules where there aren't any.

    If you are happy following the doctrines of men, that is your choice. I choose to put my faith and trust in God's word alone. I will never EVER trust in the teachings of men..

    Catholic misrepresentations? LOL Now that is funny! Sounds like what other false religions say all the time.

    Interesting how Satan knows our weakest point. He attacks the word of God, and people let him get away with it. He started using that strategy in the garden when he changed just ONE of God's words when God was speaking about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God told Adam & Eve that if they ate of it, "You shalt surely die." Satan said, "You shalt NOT surely die."

    Shall I list some of the ways the RCO has changed God's word?

    Do you really believe that God speaks directly to the Pope? That God gives him new revelations?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. kepha31

    kepha31 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Ratings:
    +99
    Religion:
    Catholic
    "Protestant" has numerous definitions. When used in the collective sense, it refers to those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
    You may be a member of the Lord's church, that's not the issue. But you have no pedigree, no line of succession, and no three fold episcopate (bishop, priest, deacon)
    That's nice. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.

    Jesus didn't found an organization. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, united by the Eucharist.

    The JW's DO change doctrines, and are more hostile to Catholicism than you are.
    God's word clearly states that we are not to go beyond what is clearly written.
     
  12. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,321
    Ratings:
    +3,901
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    No it isn't -- and that's never been the case. God's will was known before there were sacred writings. The Hebrew texts weren't written down until Israel returned from the Babylonian exile. How did they know God's will in the preceding 5000 years? Add to that the fact that only the elite could read or write, so what did the poor masses do, even after the texts were written?
    There was never an "original." The enclaves of Anointed-believers was quite diverse from the beginning.
    No it isn't. Denominationalism had far more to do with politics than it did with "changing God's will with the times."
    BZZZZZZT!!! Thanks for playing.
    Jesus and the apostles were men.
    "His word," in that context, means more than just "what's written in the bible." It also means revelation that comes to appointed groups/individuals. It also means "the sense of the ekklesia," which is the body of Christ.
    Quite frankly, you have an unsubstantiated bone to pick with the RCC. Interpretation isn't limited to the Pope, nor has it ever been. Interpretation is far more "the sense of the ekklesia."
     
  13. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,321
    Ratings:
    +3,901
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    This is special pleading. If you are member of the "Lord's church," then every Christian is a member of the "Lord's church," no matter how they organize themselves. If you're going to label someone as "Catholic," then you must also label yourself in a similar fashion.
    Doctrine is part of "what is clearly written."
    Special pleading again. If the RCC is "false," so is your particular group.
    Who is "changing the word" now? Read Genesis again. Satan patently Does. Not. Appear. in Genesis. There's a serpent who says these things -- but Satan never makes an appearance. "Satan" is a hellenistic concept. Genesis isn't a hellenistic text.

    You're rampant reactionism is coloring your reason here.
     
  14. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    I've already given you verses that tell us Scripture is all we need. It's your choice to accept or reject the Scriptures.

    Of course there was an original. You can read all about it in Acts.

    And catholicism didn't?
    Jesus is God! And those apostles and other men wrote by inspiration.
    There are no new revelations , and have not been since John wrote Revelation.
    I have a bone to pick with ALL false teachers.
     
  15. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    Ever hear of wheat and tares? The only label I have is christian. I am a member of the Lord's ekklesia, aka the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, and a host of other names the ekklesia is called in the New Testament. Notice Roman Catholic isn't one of them.

    And we are not to go beyond the doctrine which is written.

    The RCO is false because they follow the doctrines of men. I follow the doctrines of Jesus and His apostles, and never ever of men. I follow the "church" pattern found in the New Testament, how they became christians, how they worshipped, how they worked and how they organized each congregation with a plurality of elders to lead them and deacons to serve. And yes, there was an original church, established on Pentecost A.D. 33. Read the book of Acts in one sitting. The Lord's ekklesia is described perfectly there.
    Ok, serpent it is. My bad! But it doesn't negate the fact that "the serpent" adding that one little three letter "NOT" word, which wasn't spoken by God, changed the entire course of man , does it? Look at how much the RCO has added and taken away from the word. It's shocking! You don't see Pope, Mary worship or the elevation of Mary to Queen of Heaven, canonization of saints, indulgences, purgatory, priests forbidden to marry, no eating of meat on Fridays, and so on the list goes. Not a word anywhere in the NT about any of it. It's all been added. It's all theachings of men. God hasn't revealed any new teachings to man since the last apostle John died. There are no inspired men today.
    I pray to God I never change, and that I will always contend for the faith.
     
  16. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,321
    Ratings:
    +3,901
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    You've posted verses that say "God's word." I've already pointed out that "God's word" is more than simply the bible.
    Acts 2, I suppose? That was one instance. One. There are instances of other enclaves.
    Denominationalism is an example of (to borrow from Niebuhr) "Christ against culture." Catholicism is an example of "Christ within culture." So, all churches deal with politics, or culture. It's simply a matter of how.
    Jesus was also fully human -- fully a man.
    Uh huh. So, what you really mean isn't what you said.
    Says who?
    Special pleading yet again. If the RCC is false, so is your church.
    So? This is a false premise. The only label my last congregation had was "Christian," too.
    So is the RCC.
    Doesn't matter. It's another false premise, because the earliest churches weren't known as "christian." They were called something else.
    Doctrine is written. There are books and books and books full of doctrine.
    1) It's the RCC, not the RCO.
    2) If they're false, you're false. Jesus was a man. The apostles were men.
    Does your church live in an enclosed enclave? Does your church celebrate the Eucharist in worship in the style of the Roman symposium? And that's just for starters. I don't think you have much of a clue as to what the supposed "model" actually is. The RCC also is organized with a plurality of elders (the Greek word is episkopoi) and deacons, and their worship does follow the ancient, biblical model.
    Been there, done that until I'm sick of doing it. I know aaaall about it. There are several examples of church in Acts.
    That's not the point of the story. At all. In fact, Adam and Eve did not die on the day they ate of the tree. The serpent was correct, because the serpent is Wisdom.
    Look at how much was added to the word when the bible was canonized. 27 whole books! Yet you follow them religiously, as if they were original to the church -- as if those people gathered on Pentecost had those texts to read.
    According to your criterion, the whole NT isn't valid, because it wasn't canonized as scripture for the first 450 years of the church.
    So was the entire NT.
    So is the whole NT.
    Says who?
    Says who?
    Life and change are inextricably connected. You can't have life without change. Stasis = death. It stands to reason that abundant life = abundant change. So, you pray to God for death? And if you're praying for death, you're not "contending for the faith."

    In fact, you're not contending for "the faith." You're contending for "your version" of faith.
     
  17. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    Where is God's word found outside the Bible?
    There was only ONE church in the NT. All the congregations were part of ONE body. They were unified in Christ. They were of one mind, following the doctrinal pattern of Christ and His apostles.

    Denominationalism reared its ugly head very early on. It happened because people moved from the teachings of Jesus and His apostles to the teachings of men. Men thought their ways were better.

    It is possible to have a New Testament church today. The people may be different, but the pattern can be followed. As soon as you step outside the NT, you become the church of men, and not Jesus.

    Amen!

    I meant exactly what I said. The authors of the Bible wrote by inspiration.
    What were they known as?

    Yes, there is much doctrine written by men. Is that what you want to follow?
    Yes, and as you rightly pointed out, Jesus was God.
    No, the christians I worship with don't live in an enclave, and neither did the early church. Neither Jesus or His apostles ever commanded such a thing.

    Yes we share the Lord's Supper.

    Yes we have a plurality of elders, and we have deacons.
    I'm very sorry to hear that. I can't imagine ever tiring of reading God's word. I've been doing it for years, and each time I read it, I discover something I didn't see before. It's a very important part of my life.
    Adam & Eve did die the moment they disobeyed God. They died spiritually.

    Please explain your comment:
    "The serpent was correct, because the serpent is Wisdom."
    The books and letters of the NT were written by men who wrote by inspiration.

    Anything written after the death of John are words of UNINSPIRED men.
    Do you believe we should contend for the faith? What did Jude mean in Jude 3?

    My message is this. Get back to the New Testament doctrine and away from the teaching of men. That, my friend, is contending for the faith.

    "Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus."
    2 Tim. 1:13
     
  18. kepha31

    kepha31 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Ratings:
    +99
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Where in the Bible is the totality of God's word confined to the Bible?

    Tradition, Word of God, and the Gospel are regarded as essentially identical in Scripture. All are conceived as predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received.

    1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

    2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

    1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

    Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

    1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

    Acts 8:14 . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .

    1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

    2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.

    Jude 3 . . . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. [cf. Acts 2:42]

    In St. Paul's two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably. Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then gospel and word of God are also bad words! Thus, the commonly-asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically-minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men.

    Yes, but they were Catholic in practice and belief. The evidence is there if anyone wants to see it.
    By "very early on" do you mean the Gnostics or the Arians? Or do you mean the reformers?

    Sola scriptura steps outside the NT because its not in it.

    Yes, mine too.

    Paul does not say "...Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have read from me. Another example of oral tradition that, sadly, you think ceased.

    St. Ignatius of Antioch trained under St. John the Apostle, was ordained by St. Peter, was the third bishop of Jerusalem. Was he a Christian?
     
  19. katiemygirl

    katiemygirl CHRISTIAN

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +513
    Religion:
    CHRISTIAN
    Those traditions were passed on by inspired men, men who wrote and spoke by the Holy Spirit. And those traditions are recorded for us in the NT.

    The faith has been delivered. There are no new revelations since apostle John died.

    Do you really believe the Pope is inspired?

    Maybe you should consider this. Prior to about 1970, no Catholic ever shared the wine at communion. Why? At whose direction was this order? Would an inspired by the Holy Spirit "Pope" tell catholics that they could not take wine at communion? Didn't Jesus command all of us to partake of the bread and the wine? Who is the Pope to over ride a command of Jesus Christ? The Pope directly contradicted the Word of God.

    The Pope is not inspired nor is he infallible.
     
  20. kepha31

    kepha31 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Ratings:
    +99
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Oral Tradition that is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Thess 2:15, etc. does not refer to orally transmitting the message of the Bible. It refers to the Oral Tradition apart from the Written Tradition (the Bible).

    The Oral Tradition has not been corrupted and we know this for three reasons:

    1) Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.

    Oral Tradition was a long time aspect of the religious life of the Jews. They recognized the existence of Divine Oral Tradition. There are some passages in the New Testament, for example, that refer to the Divine Revelation of the Old Testament but deal with items not in the written Old Testament. It is obvious the Apostles knew and believed in a Divine Oral Tradition.

    2) The importance of Oral Tradition is great. This is seen by the fact that St. Paul tells us to listen to and obey Tradition (that is Divine Tradition, not human customs) as Scripture. He even tells us that people who do not follow this Divine Oral Tradition are to be shunned (2 Thess 3:14).

    All the possible teachings of Jesus cannot possible be placed into one book and the Bible itself affirms. Also, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the early decades of the Church. All that existed was the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. Even after the letters of the New Testament began to be written and passed around it was not until the 4th century that the Church put in place exactly which letters were to be considered Scripture and which were not. How the bishops made that decision was, in part, on whether the letter in question was consistent with the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

    Oral Tradition ALWAYS precedes Written Tradition. Written Tradition (the bible) is a small subset of the larger Oral Tradition. This has always been the case - in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times.

    Yes, the faith has been delivered, you see it to mean "the faith has been written.period."
    No. But his words are inspirational, if you bother to look them up. I think baptist Martin Luther King gave an inspired sermon, "I Have a Dream." Do you think it's inspired?

    Because it isn't true. Please quote your source.
    There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ.

    By the time of Vatican II, the Council saw no reason not to begin restoring the reception of Communion under both kinds. This was done in stages. In 1970 the Holy See approved for the United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday Masses (AGI 242:19).

    The Holy See extended this permission in 1984 to Sunday Masses in the U.S., when it approved the bishops’ directory, This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds. The directory stated that, in addition to weekday Masses, "Communion under both kinds is also permitted at parish and community Masses celebrated on Sundays and holy days of obligation in the dioceses of the United States" (HLS 21).

    The only exceptions are in those cases where the size or circumstance of the congregation would not permit reverent reception of the precious blood or when the congregation is so diverse that the priest cannot tell if its members have been sufficiently instructed about receiving Communion under both kinds.

    And finally, far from being appropriate only in monasteries and convents, the law states: "Communion under both kinds is to be desired in all celebrations of the Mass, though this is not possible in all cases" (HLS 19).​
    When should Communion be distributed under both forms? | Catholic Answers

    This anti-Catholic canard gets really tiresome.
    The Pope as a sole person is not infallible nor is he inspired. Here is a good explanation of PAPAL INFALLIBILITY and it doesn't mean what you think.

    How about an inspired verse that lists what books belong in the New Testament.
     
Loading...