Sola-Scriptura destroys itself!

[metis]

Protestants contend that the Apostolic Church was the Church of the Apostles. Whatever names adopted the post Apostolic church adopted are the names they adopted. The body of Christ is both visible and invisible, depending upon who is looking.

Yes, and that body is manifest in the three churches that derived from the apostles and their appointees, namely the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Church. Churches that had been separated from those three because of time and distance joined either the Catholic or Orthodox churches once communication and transportation was re-established.

The mark of the early church was not who had which scriptures but was whether their local churches were part of the "one body", as Paul repeatedly called it, that came from the apostles and their appointees. One can see that process at play in the book of Acts. The Protestant churches simply do not qualify, which is not to say that somehow Protestants cannot be "saved", however.

And it was the Catholic Church under Constantine's order that led to the selection of the canon that you use. Also, there's the issue of church "tradition" since the apostles told their flock to follow the traditions that they set for them as it even shows up in the N.T.

BTW, if you ever see a copy of "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), buy it-- it's worth its weight in gold as it's very informative and heavily documented-- the best I've seen thus far even though it's out of print the last time I checked. Maybe check your local library.

 

[shmogie]

Yes, and that body is manifest in the three churches that derived from the apostles and their appointees, namely the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Church. Churches that had been separated from those three because of time and distance joined either the Catholic or Orthodox churches once communication and transportation was re-established.

The mark of the early church was not who had which scriptures but was whether their local churches were part of the "one body", as Paul repeatedly called it, that came from the apostles and their appointees. One can see that process at play in the book of Acts. The Protestant churches simply do not qualify, which is not to say that somehow Protestants cannot be "saved", however.

And it was the Catholic Church under Constantine's order that led to the selection of the canon that you use. Also, there's the issue of church "tradition" since the apostles told their flock to follow the traditions that they set for them as it even shows up in the N.T.

BTW, if you ever see a copy of "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), buy it-- it's worth its weight in gold as it's very informative and heavily documented-- the best I've seen thus far even though it's out of print the last time I checked. Maybe check your local library.

The one Church of which Paul spoke was the Apostolic Church. What made them the Church ? They followed the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. For any "church" these are the standard. The further away from these teachings with added layers of human chaff, the further from being the "true Church". It isn't a matter of being a member of a club that exists from generation to generation, or the political power or pomp of the "church" or the writings of the earlier or later members of the club, there is only one standard. Protestantism is the attempt to reclaim that standard. So, Constantine formalized the list of books in the Bible, to me that is irrelevant. We know that the letters of Paul were circulating very early, the written Gospels were in place as early as 100 - 125 AD, From the internal evidence of them it may have been much earlier. Certainly within the lifetimes of members of the Apostolic Church. So Constantine's council got it right, especially in light of the bogus and later material they rejected. Then promptly debased the doctrines by the addition those layers and layers of human non Biblical stuff.

 

[metis]

The one Church of which Paul spoke was the Apostolic Church.

If you look it up, there simply was no entity called the "Apostolic Church" back then. The church of the apostles (note lower case) was called "the Way" but later began to be called "Christian" and also "Catholic". Same church-- just an evolution of the title. The link I provided to you explained that, so the impression I'm getting is that you didn't open and read it.

So Constantine's council got it right, especially in light of the bogus and later material they rejected. Then promptly debased the doctrines by the addition those layers and layers of human non Biblical stuff.

All successful institutions must change over time to accommodate different conditions, and no church is exempt from that. If a Protestant thinks for one minute that their church somehow mimics the original, they are badly and sadly mistaken.

Therefore, the question one needs to really ask is whether the changes that were made were anti what was originally taught? The Catholic response to that is that they cannot accept any change that is counter to what the scriptures say they must do.

The reality is that it was the Protestants, not the Catholics, that went more against what the early church taught, which includes ignoring the leadership structure of the early church, ignoring the traditions of the early church that continued on into the 2nd and subsequent centuries, etc.

OTOH, where the CC made a huge mistake, imo, was allowing itself over time to get too cozy with the secular political leaders, which most Protestant denominations also did, btw. It was mostly just what we call the "peace churches" that didn't. By doing as such, so many decisions were made to make the church more "successful", but not often in a good way.

 

[shmogie]

If you look it up, there simply was no entity called the "Apostolic Church" back then. The church of the apostles (note lower case) was called "the Way" but later began to be called "Christian" and also "Catholic". Same church-- just an evolution of the title. The link I provided to you explained that, so the impression I'm getting is that you didn't open and read it.

All successful institutions must change over time to accommodate different conditions, and no church is exempt from that. If a Protestant thinks for one minute that their church somehow mimics the original, they are badly and sadly mistaken.

Therefore, the question one needs to really ask is whether the changes that were made were anti what was originally taught? The Catholic response to that is that they cannot accept any change that is counter to what the scriptures say they must do.

The reality is that it was the Protestants, not the Catholics, that went more against what the early church taught, which includes ignoring the leadership structure of the early church, ignoring the traditions of the early church that continued on into the 2nd and subsequent centuries, etc.

OTOH, where the CC made a huge mistake, imo, was allowing itself over time to get too cozy with the secular political leaders, which most Protestant denominations also did, btw. It was mostly just what we call the "peace churches" that didn't. By doing as such, so many decisions were made to make the church more "successful", but not often in a good way.

Correct, it was The Way, but you are hung up on names and when they were applied. If Luther used the term Apostolic Church to identify the Church of the Apostles, what possible difference does it make when it was applied ? The meaning is perfectly clear and applies to The Church founded and based upon the doctrines of the Apostles. The Catholics SAY many things. If you can find praying to saints, infant baptism, a pope speaking infallibly for God, a command of celibacy, purgatory, a priest interceding for, and forgiving a sin, even the pope himself in the NT, in the example of the Apostles, I will be impressed. They even claim they changed the sabbath day, which is pure nonsense because it never applied to Christians in the first place. I don't think sabbath keeping Jews will accept that the Catholics changed the sign of the covenant between they and God to sunday. Correct doctrines and practices NEVER CHANGE, they don't evolve with the Biblically predicted slide of humanity into further depravity. Some Protestant denominations have joined the slide, but others have not. They do not accept the traditions of men, they do not accept any authority but that of the Scriptures, they certainly do not accept the vacuous mumbo jumbo and nonsense that characterized the church from very early on, and had reached it's corrupt totally depraved state by the beginning of the Reformation. They adhere to the doctrines and principles of THE WAY, divinely recorded in the Scriptures.

 

[metis]

Correct, it was The Way, but you are hung up on names and when they were applied. If Luther used the term Apostolic Church to identify the Church of the Apostles, what possible difference does it make when it was applied ? The meaning is perfectly clear and applies to The Church founded and based upon the doctrines of the Apostles. The Catholics SAY many things. If you can find praying to saints, infant baptism, a pope speaking infallibly for God, a command of celibacy, purgatory, a priest interceding for, and forgiving a sin, even the pope himself in the NT, in the example of the Apostles, I will be impressed...

Now all you have done was to "move the goalposts" to detract from what we were actually talking about, namely "sola-scriptura", and then you add anti-Catholic bigotry (the part I underlined). Does your church teach this kind of bigotry? If it does, then let me recommend that you find one that less emphasizes narrow-minded "politically-correct" dogma and more emphasizes love and respect even for those whom you might disagree with. I don't see Catholics doing to Protestants what you are doing to Catholics.

Each one of your statements above have a counter-argument, and if you want to discuss these separately, then maybe post them one at a time on different threads. The average priest or monk in the RCC has a minimum of a four-year college education, and most American Jesuits have a ph.d., so these are not stupid people, shmogie. Yes, they can be wrong, no doubt, and since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian I certainly don't believe in their theology, but I do give credit where credit is due.

 

[shmogie]

Now all you have done was to "move the goalposts" to detract from what we were actually talking about, namely "sola-scriptura", and then you add anti-Catholic bigotry (the part I underlined). Does your church teach this kind of bigotry? If it does, then let me recommend that you find one that less emphasizes narrow-minded "politically-correct" dogma and more emphasizes love and respect even for those whom you might disagree with. I don't see Catholics doing to Protestants what you are doing to Catholics.

Each one of your statements above have a counter-argument, and I you want to discuss these separately, then maybe post them one at a time on different threads. The average priest or monk in the RCC has a minimum of a four-year college education, and most American Jesuits have a ph.d., so these are not stupid people, shmogie. Yes, they can be wrong, no doubt, and since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian I certainly don't believe in their theology, but I do give credit where credit is due.

Sorry, once again, when trying to have a civil conversation with you, you slip into your accusatory tone. Stating Catholic doctrines not found in the Bible isn't "bigotry", it is a statement of doctrinal differences, nothing more. Further, in a discussion about specific Biblical doctrine, comments about "love and respect", as if you know me, and know how I relate to Catholics is pure hubris. Like ever conversation with you, personal comments of a demeaning nature sooner or later appear in your posts. Consider this discussion ended

 

[metis]

Sorry, once again, when trying to have a civil conversation with you, you slip into your accusatory tone. Stating Catholic doctrines not found in the Bible isn't "bigotry", it is a statement of doctrinal differences, nothing more. Further, in a discussion about specific Biblical doctrine, comments about "love and respect", as if you know me, and know how I relate to Catholics is pure hubris. Like ever conversation with you, personal comments of a demeaning nature sooner or later appear in your posts. Consider this discussion ended

 

[jtartar]

By all means follow your heart, just don't use Scripture to condemn others (as i see chronically) or assume something has to be in Scripture to be a true practice or teaching

PopeADope,
There re a few places where some truth can be found, but the only place to get true doctrines, to mean Everlasting Life to mankind, can only be found in the Holy Scriptures.
Allow me to refute a few of your sayings. The very worse thing you can do is follow your heart, unless it has been trained by the Bible, Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Hebrews 5:12-14.
There are only three professions that are called, Learned Professions, Medical, Law, and Religion. Each of these professions take many years to be proficient in.
I have read about five people on this network who has more than a superficial knowledge, or a nodding acquaintance. To most on here they are a tabular rasa at best or a terra Incognita, but they all keep making assertions as if they knew something. These are lost souls if they do not become like a child, as Jesus said, Matthew 18:1-6. No person should be teaching the word of God unless he has, first got it into his own heart, or he will get a heavier judgment, James 3:1.
Everyone who wants to learn Holy Scripture that can mean Eternal Life, must eat on their knees and pray to God that He will help them to understand, because only those of a good heart can, Daniel 12:10, Matthew 13:13-15.
The last thing you want to do is try to reason out truth with your own mind, for we must trust God with all our hearts, and not lean on our own understanding, Proverbs 3:5,6. Mankind knows so very little that it is called doping out something, when he tries to reason on something from the Bible. We always come up against Egocentric predicament, epistemological predicament, knowing so little that we are fooling ourselves if we think we can come to a better understanding by thinking or reasoning without looking into the Holy Scriptures, to find out what God actually says about anything you want to k ow about. Agape!!!

 

[MJFlores]

There are many reasons why Sola-Scriptura (Bible alone Doctrine) doesn't work. I'm going to share one I came across today.

Today I opened my Bible to

Ephesians 5: 29 no one ever hated their own body, but they nourish and care for their bodies, just as Christ does the church

No one ever hated their own body?? WTF!?! All kinds of people hate their body! I passionately hate my flesh and think being human is gross. I hate eating, hate bowel movements, bodily functions, boogers, tooth decay, and if I could be delivered from this body and be a spirit today, I would do so, and I pray it happens, I'm just not going to kill myself because I'm waiting for God's timing (And I don't have firearms). I have also known people who starve themselves, commit suicide, induce vomiting, whip themselves, burn themselves, cut themselves, and abuse their bodies in all sorts of ways.

Yet Scripture says no one ever hated their body but they nourish and care for it as Christ does the Church. Total falsehood! Duh!

This Scripture verse bothers me because yet again I have come across a verse in Scripture that appears completely false. I would like to tell people that Scripture is reliable and doesn't contain falsehood, but I can present multiple Scripture verses that don't mean what they say.

It bothers me because people constantly use Scripture to rebuke people and assume various people are condemned to the "Lake of fire", yet how do we know when the Scripture actually means what it says? Very often Scripture doesn't mean what it says...like John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

But the main reason Solascriptura doesn't work is because it is a Doctrine that destroys itself. If the Bible is the final and only authority, then there should have to be something in Scripture that says it is. I will renounce my Catholic Faith today if you can show me where Solascriptura is found in the Bible. Solascriptura has splintered Christianity into thousands of denominations because the Bible is soooo confusing. THE BIBLE DIVIDES PEOPLE!

So, don't condemn someone for doing something that isn't found in the Bible, and how about you don't use Scripture to condemn at all, because Scripture contains clear blatant falsehood, as I have shown you and is loaded with Hyperbole, poetry, parable, and symbolic speech that isn't meant to be taken literal.

Yet people constantly use Scripture to judge and condemn other faiths or say "don't do that, it isn't in the Bible". Nothing in the Bible says something has to be in the Bible to be true!

Funny!

 

[shmogie]

Funny!
View attachment 16877

I will become a Catholic today if you can find in the Bible authorization for an ex cathedra speaking pope, praying to saints, infant baptism, statues as "aids to worship", purgatory, men interceeding for sinners rather than Christ, men forgiving sin rather than God. Find these, then I will have another list, good luck

 

[MJFlores]

I will become a Catholic today if you can find in the Bible authorization for an ex cathedra speaking pope, praying to saints, infant baptism, statues as "aids to worship", purgatory, men interceeding for sinners rather than Christ, men forgiving sin rather than God. Find these, then I will have another list, good luck

I believe none of those, bro - but I used to blindly believe them.

 

[shmogie]

I believe none of those, bro - but I used to blindly believe them.

Good for you

 

[metis]

if you can find in the Bible authorization for an ex cathedra speaking pope

In the gospels and in Acts, it says that Jesus and the apostles spoke "from authority", which is why Paul went to Peter and the others for his suggestions and guidance. The early church was not a democratic institution or one so loosey-goosey whereas one could just do their own thing.

infant baptism

In Acts, it mentions that an entire family was baptized. Even though adult baptism was the norm, infant baptism grew, especially during one of the early plagues, so the church split baptism into two sacraments: baptism and confirmation, whereas with the latter, one verifies their baptism.

statues as "aids to worship"

They are not worshiped, therefore they don't fit into the definition of "idolatry". Got any statuary of any humans or any animals in your house? any pictures?

purgatory

A theological construct based on a series of verses, which I can provide if asked.

men interceeding for sinners rather than Christ

"...And the communion of saints...", namely that not only can the living pray for each other, but also the living can pray for the dead and the dead for the living. IOW, the belief is that there is no wall of separation between the living and dead saints".

men forgiving sin rather than God

Jesus told the apostles that they had to the power to loosen or bind sins, and that position was passed on to their appointees with those seeking admission into the local churches. Later on, regular "confession" was encouraged because people typically do still commit periodic sins even after conversion, plus those borne Christian obviously are likely to sin. Technically, it is not the priest who forgives sins as he is viewed as only being a conduit.

My point of posting this is not that the RCC is right, only that there are reasons why they teach what they do. The church has been around for almost 2000 years, and I would suggest that the leadership over all those years was not based on them being ignorant.

Much like the value of a house is largely based on "location, location, location", theologies are largely based on "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Catholicism is not sola scriptura. You ask the same questions. Maybe let it alone. Catholicism is also based oral traditions that are Based on the bible and native practices in both Jewish and Roman faiths.

authorization for an ex cathedra speaking pope

It is not there. Oral tradition is, by nature of it being oral, isnt written. Most religions have oral tradition. Protestants are new age.

praying to saints,

Not in scripture. My praying to you is to you isnt there either. But you may think it weird for me to pray to you to get advice because you ha e a relationship with christ that i can learn from. Wrong? No. Acqward? To those who dont believe in jesus family and followers just jesus himself.

Now That is weird in itself. Divorce the brothers, sisters, and family of christ. Scripture speaks against that though.

infant baptism,

Not there. How does this influence ones salvation. If salvation isnt based on water baptism, infant or not it woulsnt matter, right?

statues as "aids to worship",

Finally! Someone got it right. Aid. Bible is an aid. Biblical commentaries are aids. Your pastor is an aid. Of course you dont worship your pastor. That would be weird. But prayi g to statues is even sillier so Im glas you said aid.

Though like any religion why are aids wrong?

purgatory

Not there. Roman belief not jewish far as I remember. Catholicism, the one you dislike, is Roman. Think thats were the apostles were when they ventured out. They didnt stay in jeresalum.

men interceeding for sinners rather than Christ

Caholics value all the brothers and sisters of christ helping each other in their worship to christ. I feel sorry protestants dont have a relationship with other family members. Most cultures are collectivist. If youre america or western this could influence why you dont get it.

men forgiving sin rather than God.

Have you gone to confession before??????

Catholics believe GOD forgives not the priest. You really need to interact with the body of christ not judge it.

 

[metis]

Praying for the dead was indeed a practice within Judaism prior to Jesus as it shows up in II Maccabees 15.

 

[Searching1981]

There are many reasons why Sola-Scriptura (Bible alone Doctrine) doesn't work. I'm going to share one I came across today.

Today I opened my Bible to

Ephesians 5: 29 no one ever hated their own body, but they nourish and care for their bodies, just as Christ does the church

No one ever hated their own body?? WTF!?! All kinds of people hate their body! I passionately hate my flesh and think being human is gross. I hate eating, hate bowel movements, bodily functions, boogers, tooth decay, and if I could be delivered from this body and be a spirit today, I would do so, and I pray it happens, I'm just not going to kill myself because I'm waiting for God's timing (And I don't have firearms). I have also known people who starve themselves, commit suicide, induce vomiting, whip themselves, burn themselves, cut themselves, and abuse their bodies in all sorts of ways.

Yet Scripture says no one ever hated their body but they nourish and care for it as Christ does the Church. Total falsehood! Duh!

This Scripture verse bothers me because yet again I have come across a verse in Scripture that appears completely false. I would like to tell people that Scripture is reliable and doesn't contain falsehood, but I can present multiple Scripture verses that don't mean what they say.

It bothers me because people constantly use Scripture to rebuke people and assume various people are condemned to the "Lake of fire", yet how do we know when the Scripture actually means what it says? Very often Scripture doesn't mean what it says...like John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

But the main reason Solascriptura doesn't work is because it is a Doctrine that destroys itself. If the Bible is the final and only authority, then there should have to be something in Scripture that says it is. I will renounce my Catholic Faith today if you can show me where Solascriptura is found in the Bible. Solascriptura has splintered Christianity into thousands of denominations because the Bible is soooo confusing. THE BIBLE DIVIDES PEOPLE!

So, don't condemn someone for doing something that isn't found in the Bible, and how about you don't use Scripture to condemn at all, because Scripture contains clear blatant falsehood, as I have shown you and is loaded with Hyperbole, poetry, parable, and symbolic speech that isn't meant to be taken literal.

Yet people constantly use Scripture to judge and condemn other faiths or say "don't do that, it isn't in the Bible". Nothing in the Bible says something has to be in the Bible to be true!

Hi, I read most of what you wrote and I am a Catholic so I think more like you than not. But I'm writing to say it seems like you are hitting a wall with Sola Scriptura. What I suspect is it's not a vanity thing; it's not about being right and proving it. You are genuinely hurt people can't see what you do and what I sort of do. It's obvious, right? But they can't see it? Why?

I'll tell you, you can argue your whole life and be stuck in a loop trying to get people to see it but the people who do, do and the people who don't, don't. I think what hurts you, is why can't they see it and never will. Stay with me but I think you are angry at God and don't want to admit it. Let me explain.

Grey and nuanced thinking is a gift, it's a talent, it's a sign of intellect. Sadly, many people's brains aren't wired that way and they are just born that way; all their mind can handle is black and white. It's like homosexuality or being born blind, it's not their fault and you just can't, "fix it," especially with words or argument. They genuinely need an entirely new brain. This is why I write you are angry at God because all you keep asking over and over again is, "why did God make them this way, why is there a deficit?" You so badly want equality, you choose it over God when a situation clearly arises where you know, "this just isn't rational, this just isn't equal," you blame them.

I tell you they are blameless as it is written in Scripture Mathew 25:25 "And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey." That's where God is, they have less ability, less is required of them to go to Heaven what is important is we all take that Journey straight away with enthusiasm the best we can.

The converse of Sola Scriptura, is the same deficit Catholic who anything any old Priest says they will believe. I suspect you are not that way. I will tell you honestly I've met very good Priests, and I've met very bad, abusive, ignorant Priests. I will tell you honestly, I love Pope John Paul and Pope Francis, while Pope Benedict is bad. To a Conservative Catholic that is all heresy because they have Sola Scriptura illness and they cannot think. They are also Blameless.