Catholic argument against sola scriptura refuted. Willing and able to take on his replacements

[Winnies]

Iv just joined and not surprised to see the catholic’s being targeted

Wrong again.
But then we have been through all of this before. No point in repeating it all.

Is it not the Protestant churches who interpret the bible to suit all their dominations, some 6000 or more?

 

[Winnies]

All l hear so far is the devil trying to turn us all against each other. Don’t you understand Jesus won’t come back until the churches are UNITED!!

 

[Winnies]

All l hear so far is the devil trying to turn us all against each other. Don’t you understand Jesus won’t come back until the churches are UNITED!!

Not that the catholic’s can’t stand up for themselves. But we are never going to agree so can we just learn to live with each other and try and LOVE one another like we are asked, and if we can’t then religion is gone forever and people with believe the new doctrine that we ourselves can be like God. And that’s when the devil will have all the souls. It is to even about God anymore, it’s about land here un the uk. The Catholi are Irish and be the Protestants are English and the other countries can see it for what it is and that’s why we now live in a secular society huh!!!

 

[Winnies]

Not that the catholic’s can’t stand up for themselves. But we are never going to agree so can we just learn to live with each other and try and LOVE one another like we are asked, and if we can’t then religion is gone forever and people with believe the new doctrine that we ourselves can be like God. And that’s when the devil will have all the souls. It is to even about God anymore, it’s about land here un the uk. The Catholi are Irish and be the Protestants are English and the other countries can see it for what it is and that’s why we now live in a secular society huh!!!

The only weapon we had against the English was God but they twisted that all up to suit themselves.

 

[donadams]

Is it possible to include “scripture is the ultimate authority” in the context of sola scriptura?

Thks

 

[Alfred Persson]

You said...

"Jesus was born Holy because of the Holy Spirit, not Mary:"

Source

Jesus was born Holy because He is God. He is holy by nature.

Jesus didn't overshadow the virgin and cause her to conceive, the Holy Spirit did....therefore what was born is Holy because of the Holy Spirit.

Of course Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, Holy. I never said different.

 

[Walpole]

Jesus didn't overshadow the virgin and cause her to conceive, the Holy Spirit did....therefore what was born is Holy because of the Holy Spirit.

Conceived by the Holy Spirit means the Holy Spirit was the active principle of His conception in the womb of Mary. It does not mean unto likeness of species, as we can say you were born of your father. It is for this reason we do not say Christ is the Son of the Holy Spirit.

Once again, Jesus Christ is holy because He is God and therefore holy by His very nature.

Of course Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, Holy. I never said different.

Your line of attack against the immaculate conception of Mary was that Jesus was holy "because of the Holy Spirit".

This statement of yours demonstrates one of two things: Either you have no understanding of the Christian understanding of the Trinity, or you have no understanding of the Christian understanding of the Incarnation. I would venture to guess if we continue this discussion, it will be revealed that both of these are true.

 

[donadams]

Jesus didn't overshadow the virgin and cause her to conceive, the Holy Spirit did....therefore what was born is Holy because of the Holy Spirit.

Of course Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, Holy. I never said different.

Can something unholy be consecrated to God’s service?

Can something consecrated to God’s service then be used for an ordinary purpose?

Hint: exodus even the utensils had to be covered in pure gold and consecrated for God’s purpose alone

 

[Alfred Persson]

Conceived by the Holy Spirit means the Holy Spirit was the active principle of His conception in the womb of Mary. It does not mean unto likeness of species, as we can say you were born of your father. It is for this reason we do not say Christ is the Son of the Holy Spirit.

Once again, Jesus Christ is holy because He is God and therefore holy by His very nature.


Your line of attack against the immaculate conception of Mary was that Jesus was holy "because of the Holy Spirit".

This statement of yours demonstrates one of two things: Either you have no understanding of the Christian understanding of the Trinity, or you have no understanding of the Christian understanding of the Incarnation. I would venture to guess if we continue this discussion, it will be revealed that both of these are true.

I had enough. Bye.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Can something unholy be consecrated to God’s service?

Can something consecrated to God’s service then be used for an ordinary purpose?

Hint: exodus even the utensils had to be covered in pure gold and consecrated for God’s purpose alone

Of course not, but I never said it could. You confuse me with someone else.

 

[Walpole]

I had enough. Bye.

Goodbye and take care.

 

[donadams]

Scripture says: “holiness befits thy house, O Lord” (Ps 93:5). Mary was Jesus’ “house” for 9 months so if holiness befits God’s house would not Mary be holy also? Just like the Ark and the Tabernacle she was set apart and consecrated to the Lord., the holy dwelling of God.

1 cor 3:17 …..for the temple of God is holy….. Mary is the temple, house, dwelling of God, God had need of Her to become man!

As Job said “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.” (Job 14:4).

 

[Walpole]

Scripture says: “holiness befits thy house, O Lord” (Ps 93:5). Mary was Jesus’ “house” for 9 months so if holiness befits God’s house would not Mary be holy also? Just like the Ark and the Tabernacle she was set apart and consecrated to the Lord., the holy dwelling of God.

1 cor 3:17 …..for the temple of God is holy….. Mary is the temple, house, dwelling of God, God had need of Her to become man!

As Job said “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.” (Job 14:4).

All these attacks against Mary end up revealing they have a flawed Christology and have no understanding of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

 

[donadams]

“The Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture,” and I find that it just turns the sola Scriptura critiques right around. St. Francis goes through three chapters showing first, that Scripture is a true rule of Faith; second, that we should guard Scripture jealously; and third, that Scripture includes the Deuterocanon, as defined by the ecumenical Councils of Trent and Florence, and which had previously been established at the Council of Carthage well over a thousand years before the Reformation.

Having affirmed the very thing which Catholics are alleged to deny (that Scripture is a rule of Faith which should be jealously guarded in all of Her parts), St. Francis turns the tables onto the Reformers, asking in Chapter 4, “Such are the sacred and canonical books which the Church has unanimously received and acknowledged during twelve hundred years. And by what authority have these new reformers dared to wipe out at one stroke so many noble parts of the Bible? They have erased a part of Esther, and Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees. Who has told them that these books are not legitimate, and not to be received? Why do they thus dismember the sacred body of the Scriptures?” He spends chapter 4 answering back (easily) all of the usual oppositions to the Deuterocanon, showing that arguments like “these are Greek books, not Hebrew” aren’t even true of all of the books (since books like First Maccabees were written in Hebrew). By the end of the chapter, it’s clear that most of the anti-Deuterocanonical arguments are pretextual. St. Francis also does a lot with the writings of St. Augustine, who he notes lived prior to Pope Gregory the Great, “before whose time Calvin confesses that the Church was still in its purity.” The Council of Carthage, of course, was also pre-Gregorian. So the pure Church (in either a Calvinist or a Catholic history) believed in the Deuterocanon.

St. Francis is at his finest in dismantling Calvin’s argument that true Christians simply know which books are Scriptural based upon the light of the Holy Spirit:

Calvin takes away seven books of the Scripture: (In prologis Bib. Et horum lib.) Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees; Luther has removed the Epistle of S. James, that of S. Jude, the second of S. Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews; he ridicules Ecclesiastes, he holds Job as a fable. Reconcile, I pray you this false spirit, who takes away from Luther’s brain what he puts back in that of Calvin. Does this seem to you a trifling discord between these two evangelists? You will say you do not hold Luther’s intelligence in great account [remember, he’s writing to Calvinists]; his party think no better of that of Calvin. But see the progress of your fine church, how she ever pushes on further. Calvin had removed seven books, she has further thrown out the 8th, that of Esther; in Daniel she cuts off the canticle of the Three Children (c. iii.), the history of Susanna (c. xiii.), and that of the dragon slain by Daniel (xiv). In the Gospel of S. John is there not doubt among you of the history of the woman taken in adultery? S. Augustine had indeed said formerly that the enemies of the faith had erased it from their books, but not from all, as S. Jerome says. Do they not wish to take away these words of S. Luke [Luke 22:20], which shall be shed for you, because the Greek text clearly shows that what was in the chalice was not wine but the true blood of our Lord ? As if one were to say in French: Cecy est la coupe du Nouveau Testament, en mon sang, laquelle sera respandue pour vous: this is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which (chalice) shall be shed for you? For in this way of speaking one sees clearly that what is in the cup must be the blood, not wine, since the wine has not been shed for us, but the blood. In the Epistle of S. John have they not taken away these noble words: every spirit. who dissolveth Jesus is not of God (iv. 3)? What say you, gentlemen ? If your church continues in this liberty of conscience, making no scruple to take away what she pleases, soon the Scripture will fail you, and you will have to be satisfied with the Institutes of Calvin, which must indeed have I know not what excellence, since they censure the Scriptures themselves!
[…]
Herein who sees not the profanation of this sacred vase of the holy letter,
in which was preserved the precious balm of the Evangelical doctrine? For would
it not have been a profanation of the Ark of the Covenant to maintain that
everybody might seize it, carry it home, take it all to pieces, and then give it
what form he liked provided that it had some semblance of an ark? And what but
this is it to maintain that one may take the Scriptures and turn and adjust them
according to one’s own sense?

I’ve heard it frequently claimed – even by people with little idea of what the Catholic Church teaches – that She has little regard for the Bible, or at least, less regard than Her separated Evangelical brethren. My hope in quoting St. Francis De Sales at such length today is to demonstrate that this simply isn’t so.

 

[donadams]

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)​

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis.
• Exodus.
• Leviticus.
• Numbers.
• Deuteronomy.
• Joshua the Son of Nun.
• The Judges.
• Ruth.
• The Kings, iv. books.
• The Chronicles, ij. books.
• Job.
• The Psalter.
• The Five books of Solomon.
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
• Isaiah.
• Jeremiah.
• Ezechiel.
• Daniel.
• Tobit.
• Judith.
• Esther.
• Ezra, ij. books.
• Macchabees, ij. books.
  • The New Testament.
    • The Gospels, iv. books.
    • The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
    • The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
    • The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
    • The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
    • The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
    • The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
    • The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

 

[donadams]

Cannot believe scripture without believing the apostolic councils!
only the apostolic councils decree’s what is sacred scripture and what is not!

Rule of faith is not scripture alone but Christ and the apostles in holy church. Acts 2:42

 

[KV-44-v1]

Cannot believe scripture without believing the apostolic councils!
only the apostolic councils decree’s what is sacred scripture and what is not!

There is nothing to back the RCC being the apostolic church.
Not one time did you demonstrate that RCC is the apostolic church.

 

[KV-44-v1]

• Tobit.
• Judith.

Not once did you support the case for the unBiblical books, apocrypha, being inspired. If they are made up, which they are, they have no place as part of the Bible. truth mixed with lies is poison, 99% corn 1%poison!!
A little leaven contaminates the lump. Beware the leaven of the catholics and pharisees.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Rule of faith is not scripture alone

where did anyone say otherwise?

 

[KV-44-v1]

If the RCC asserts that eating frogs drives away demons, is it true? Answer, YES or NO?