The Bible Aloneâ€ÂSola Scriptura†But thats not in the bible

[stranger]

Re: reply

The key in understanding verse 15 is the word "taught" - notice that it is not referring to future teachings or traditions, but that we are to hold firm to the traditions which your WERE taught by word and letter.

So what has been taught to the church at Thessilonica? the answer is in 13 and 14 - the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Yes - I agree that we are to hold to oral teachings - the oral teachings that were taught at the time of the writting of the letter - the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ah.. Good ol Scripture that intrepets itself and provides all the teachings that we need. God is good to have inspired the Word and preserved the word!

2 Tim. 3:16

Hi aLonevoice,

This discussion is headed for apostolic authority which is prehaps where it should also have started. The letters being referred to in the above passage were not any letters but letter from the apostles, nor was the oral teaching just any teaching but apostolic oral teaching.

This occurred in an environment were there were: false apostles, false letters, and false teachers.

 

[Apostolic_Believer]

WHERE IS THE VERSE THAT ABROGATES PAUL'S "STANDING FAST" TO ORAL TEACHINGS???

To answer that question. How do you think Paul got to know Christ? By reading the letters he would write in the future?? No, he came to know Christ from learning through oral traditions that had been passed down from the apostles and others who witnessed for the church.

Someone else responded saying that there were many false teachings in the early church. Yes that is true, Thus the reason why Paul wrote to many to make sure that people were teaching the right doctrines.
1 Timothy 1:3- remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach different doctrine.
1 Timothy 4:1- Now the spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.
(Paul's talking about those who want to be bishop in this letter to Titus)
Titus 1:9- He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

The key in understanding verse 15 is the word "taught" - notice that it is not referring to future teachings or traditions, but that we are to hold firm to the traditions which your WERE taught by word and letter.

You are merely avoiding my point.

Where is the verse that tells us that the Bible "swallowed" all the oral teachings? Nowhere. This verse has nothing to do with teachings that are invented 1000 years later. This verse, among others, tells us that the Apostolic Church did not believe in a "Bible only" religion. Despite your attempt to lead us eschew, the question remains:

Where is the verse - ANYWHERE - that tells us that what the Apostles taught orally is now officially abrogated in favor of a WRITTEN ALONE basis?

You place ALL of your teachings on this extra-biblical teaching - and don't even realize it contradicts itself.

If God intended that the Bible would engulf oral tradition, He certainly would have saw to it that SOMEONE would have written something to the effect that His Church would follow that RULE!!!

Somewhere, God's Word would have said it. But God's Word NOWHERE SAYS IT!!!

"The Scripture interprets itself" is a fantasy that even the first century Christians KNEW was false. They wrote about it, using the Apostlic Succession of the Bishops as their PROOF that THEIR interpretation - not the Bible interpreting itself - was the NORM of Christian faith.

If you don't believe me, read what the men of 100-200 AD wrote...

Deny it all you want, but the more you read about what the Church ACTUALLY believed immediately following the Apostles, the more you will see that this "Sola Scriptura" is a false teaching that leads men away from part of the Word of God, making it a tradition of men.

It is reading these men that convinced me that Protestantism, while well-meaning, is wrong in this regard and has made me Catholic.

Regards

 

[Guest]

It is getting clearer and clearer that we are merely running around in circles. I attempted once in another thread to end the round n round by asking for a formal one on one discussion between you and me - and you were not willing to take up a formal discussion whereby you present your facts, and I present my facts.

I believe you do not truly understand what Sola Scriptura means, nor do I believe that you are actually reading my posts. If you had, you would have found the verse that says that the written Word is the foundation and authority.

What Sola Scriptura means in essense, is that all teachings - Oral or Written need to be rooted in the Scriptures. In other words, it needs to have a Biblical basis.

In another thread you have admitted as much, that there are some doctrines within the Catholic church that are not rooted in Scripture - in other words, there is no biblical basis for the teaching. It seems, that you are okay with this and in fact promote it.

The oral teachings that are referenced in the verse that you supplied are those teachings of Christ, and Christ crucified.

Are you attempting to suggest that such notions of the perpetual viriginity of Mary, the sinlessness of Mary, etc were around when Paul penned 2 Thess?

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

I know Fran. depends on the early church doctors and and their writings. But, Javier, couldn't they be wrong?

Golfjack,

If the first Christians were SO WRONG about such basics as the fundamental rule of faith (which you claim is Sola Scriptura), then the Bible itself is not trustworthy.

We place our hopes on the witness of those men from the first century. If they "got it wrong" so quickly, then how do you trust their decision to judge what IS Scriptures? It becomes just another "sacred" book. Christianity stands or falls on its historicity. Remove this, and it becomes just another moral way of life. If Jesus Christ did NOT rise from the dead, then we are the most pitiable of mortals, as I paraphrase Paul.

In the first centuries Christians thought was coming back real soon. So, they got complacement and out of touch with what they learned

That includes Paul, as well. Would you say he got complacent right before they chopped off his head? Would you say that St. Ignatius, tossed to the lions in 107 AD got complacent? What about the whole herd of martyrs? I guess they complacently went to their death rather than sacrifice of bit of incense to the genius of Caesar. Yea, that's pretty complacent... :roll:

Perhaps you should look at our OWN society and see who has gotten complacent. You accusations are patently ridiculous. I wonder how many Americans would give their lives for the name of God...

Go stand in front of a lion cage for awhile and think about yourself wrestling with him during dinner time and think about how complacent one must be to enter willingly into the cage... :roll:

Any unbiased person studying the first 200 years of the Church would find Protestantism NOWHERE among the writings of those men. One would also find an uncanny and solid connection between the beliefs of those men and the Roman Catholic Church. Like the Catholic Church or not. It is historically undeniable that there is no connection between Protestantism and the early Church. What we find is the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Belief in the Communion of Saints, the special position of Mary, Confession for forgiveness of sins, Baptism as the means by which we are saved, a third state of existence that we now call Purgatory, the special position of the Bishop of Rome, and finally, Apostlic Succession.

Fran. This verse taken into context is what Paul was warning them about the great Apostasy. He wanted then to hold fast to their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Yes, the Protestant Reformation was among one of the apostasies that the Church has had to deal with. The later letters of the Scriptures warn against false teachings. Those bishops and leaders of the Church were charged to HOLD what they had been taught. They were promised the gift of the Spirit to guide them and strengthen them. And judging from the depths they were prepared to go to so as to keep the doctrine untainted, it appears that they were indeed successful - thanks be to God.

Regards

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

I understand that the RC church in many ways futhered the cause of education. The simple point I was trying to make (not dribble) was that up until that time, the common people had no avenue to receive for themselves the truth of his word. Even Education was biased in favor of Roman ideals, wasn't it? Why do you think people like Galileo, Copernicus, and DaVinci suffered so much, HUH? Do you know there was a whole underground movement of people, producing Bibles by hand in Wycliffe's and Tyndale day! That it was illegal to own one! That people were burned alive for having one! This was done by groups of people known then as Lollards. Eventually, this lead to the King James Bible, which was a compromise. Because they couldn't stop people from owning one, and it became so poplular that most people had one anyways. Edit , maybe you should look more deaply at the simple point I was making?

 

[jgredline]

I understand that the RC church in many ways futhered the cause of education. The simple point I was trying to make (not dribble) was that up until that time, the common people had no avenue to receive for themselves the truth of his word. Even Education was biased in favor of Roman ideals, wasn't it? Why do you think people like Galileo, Copernicus, and DaVinci suffered so much, HUH? Do you know there was a whole underground movement of people, producing Bibles by hand in Wycliffe's and Tyndale day! That it was illegal to own one! That people were burned alive for having one! This was done by groups of people known then as Lollards. Eventually, this lead to the King James Bible, which was a compromise. Because they couldn't stop people from owning one, and it became so poplular that most people had one anyways. Edit, maybe you should look more deaply at the simple point I was making?

Another good post and good points, but I ask you and ''every''poster to watch the ad homien jabs....I have edit out that part of your post and really it was mild compared to other things I have been reading, but again. POSTERS..and again I speak to myself as I have been guilty of this myself......Please address the issue and not the Poster..This will give you far more credibility with the readers.....Thanks
JG

 

[aj830]

I understand that the RC church in many ways futhered the cause of education. The simple point I was trying to make (not dribble) was that up until that time, the common people had no avenue to receive for themselves the truth of his word. Even Education was biased in favor of Roman ideals, wasn't it? Why do you think people like Galileo, Copernicus, and DaVinci suffered so much, HUH? Do you know there was a whole underground movement of people, producing Bibles by hand in Wycliffe's and Tyndale day! That it was illegal to own one! That people were burned alive for having one! This was done by groups of people known then as Lollards. Eventually, this lead to the King James Bible, which was a compromise. Because they couldn't stop people from owning one, and it became so poplular that most people had one anyways. Edit maybe you should look more deaply at the simple point I was making?

I don't know if this was directed at me or at someone else but would like to respond.

Yes people did have a avenue to receive the Word. Through the Church. Before the advent of the printing press handmade copies were extremly expensive because they were all handwritten (Imagine trying to write the entire Bible by Hand) and most of those were reserved to a particular parish because each Church needed a Bible.

As for Galileo, Copernicus, and Da Vinci we could talk about a while for each of their cases. But one must keep in mind the culture of the time. I am not condoning actions of governments at the time for burning heretics but people back then believed that leading someone to hell should be punishable by death. Now they could have prevented this by imprisonement but they didn't and this was wrong. However it was the government and not the Church that carried out executions.

For Wycliffe and Tyndale they produced Bibles in the vernacular and they were not approved of by the Church because they had mistranslations. The Church would rather have no vernacular translation for a certain language than have a heretical one that would lead people to false ideas.

I don't believe I am very intelligent. I just don't believe that the simple point you were making was right. It still seems to me that you are trying to make the point that the Church repressed people from having Bibles, which it didn't. It did not want people to be led astray by mistranslations. If I misunderstanding your point please let me know but if this is the point I humbly believe you are wrong.

 

[jgredline]

Re: reply

Perhaps you should ponder this, rather than ignore it. I am beginning to see how MUCH you revere Scriptures - only the parts that support your pet theories, apparently.

Joe, Two things...I accept the compliment.. Thank you...Yes I do believe the scriptures to be complete in the 66 books God gave us...As far as my theories go, you made an ad homien attack and did not even provide a quote from one of my pet theories....

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15

Ponder it and ask yourself -

I see that between AloneVoice and Stranger, they already addressed this verse...I don't see how I could do much better than what they already said...To summarize I will simply say this...That verse is in the past tense and yes it is referring to the Apostolic teaching of the apostles, so no you can't use this verse to justify all the added stuff the CC has added or has attempted to add to the Holy Scriptures.... Martin Luther was man sent from God to do away with the Legalism that had been in place for many years by the Roman Catholic Church...As fas as Church history goes, I have studied quite a bit of it and I can assure you that it is a history the CC would rather forget, or perhaps, they are proud of it....

WHERE IS THE VERSE THAT ABROGATES PAUL'S "STANDING FAST" TO ORAL TEACHINGS???

Where is the verse that says it is ok to add to the Holy Scriptures ''in context''...Meaning it would have to be in the future tense.....
I do however read
Rev 22:18 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:...And yes I know that this verse is referring to the book of Revelation....I am sure many have used this as an excuse to add or change scripture......

Sola Scriptura. A self-contradicting lie.

Actually, this says allot !!!! about what you believe...


I for one believe the scripture
2 tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[aj830]

Martin Luther was man sent from God to do away with the Legalism that had been in place for many years by the Roman Catholic Church...As fas as Church history goes, I have studied quite a bit of it and I can assure you that it is a history the CC would rather forget, or perhaps, they are proud of it....

Martin Luther was correct in reprimanding people for abuses by individuals within the Church. He was not correct in taking all of the steps to bring people away from the Church and many of his other actions, however. The actions of individuals within the Church don't however meant that the whole Church is corrupt. The Church is a hospital for sinners and full of sinners but the Church itself is perfect.

I for one believe the scripture
2 tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I do to! And I am sure Fran does. All scripture is given inspiration by God and it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. However nowhere does it say that ONLY scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Also nowhere does it tell us what scripture is the scripture.

Sola Scriptura is a very important doctrine for Protestants because it seems that if this is false then all of there other unique beliefs would fall. It is a very important subject to discuss because most problems between the Catholics and Protestants arise from this.

 

[jgredline]

Re: reply

Javier, I agree with you 100 percent. I think about all the different religions of the world, like Muslems and Buddahists and many more. They have one thing in common, and that is some kind of false Prophet.

...Yes...I have been to a budhist temple and if there was such a thing as good works getting you to heaven, they would all be in, but unless they come to a saving Grace in Jesus Christ, they are doomed...

I know Fran. depends on the early church doctors and and their writings. But, Javier, couldn't they be wrong? In the first centuries Christians thought was coming back real soon. So, they got complacement and out of touch with what they learned from the Apostles and Disciples. I believe many were Jewish believers who went back to Judiasm and made new doctrines to fit their religious beliefs. They were rich in tradition, ceremony, and quite legalistic. Therefore, this is how I think the Catholic Church started. Go to Mass sometime and you will see what I mean. I believe Jesus healed so many on His days on earth, John couldn't write them all down. When we see how through the Book of Acts that many were healed, and that made them to come into a believing faith in Jesus Christ. What do you think Javier?

Well, I don't want to speculate on what Joe depends on because I really don't know...But lets do look at history..with out getting to detailed, let us ask our selves some questions....If the CC really had its act together as is claimed, one has to ask? What is up with the Crusades?...The thought of going to battle over jerusalem for the forgiveness of sins is crazy....To think that Pope Alexander II sent folks to die in exchange for an ''Indulgence'' which by catholic theology is ''remission or forgiven of sins'' and skipping etrnal punishment / torment....sIMply put, This is playing Jesus / God...:o

Fran. This verse taken into context is what Paul was warning them about the great Apostasy. He wanted then to hold fast to their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. What did Paul do? He preached to them about salvation. What are the traditions? His letters about their new found Christian faith. He taught them many things. He wrote over half the New Testament. He had the Holy Spirit minister to him for at least three years before he made his Missionary trips. He wrote down exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted Him to write. Therefore, The traditions are from the Holy Spirit who guides us into all Truth.



May God bless, Golfjack

Yes, I agree 100% with you jack...If I can take it a step further...Jon Coursen has a saying that really summs it up....

Proper Doctrine
Expressed by Christ
Practiced in Acts
Explained by Paul

It really is that simple....To the best of my Knowledge no Apostle or Christ or anybody in the NT ever referred to anything other than OT scripture....This in itself says allot....

What do u think Jack? And what about Martin Luther? He was literally and physically harassed by Satan himself...Folks may look at me like I am crazy, but truly this happened...Why would SATAN HIMSelf bother with a single simple man?

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Why, was i edited? I know I didn't use a cuss word or a derogatory statement?

Well, Again not to challenge your intelligence. But, at that time in England primarily, the cost wasn't a factor at all.

Soon afterwards he already determined to translate the Bible into English: he was convinced that the way to God was through His word and that scripture should be available even to common people. Foxe ( Of Foxe's Christian Martyrs) describes an argument with a "learned" but "blasphemous" clergyman, in which Tyndale said that "if God spared him life, ere many years he would cause the boy that driveth the plough to know more of scripture than he did."

Tyndale, escaped to Germany, under an alias, and produced what was the Tyndale Bible. Which along with the Wycliffe and Geneva versions were the basis for the King James.

Hers a Quote from Wikipedia:
---------------------------------
William Tyndale was a gifted linguist (fluent in French, Greek, Hebrew, German, Italian, Latin, Spanish and of course his native English) and subsequently went to Cambridge (possibly studying under Erasmus) The 16th century Protestant reformer and scholar translated the Bible into the Early Modern English of his day. Although numerous partial and complete English translations had been made from the 7th century onward. Tyndale's was the first to take advantage of the new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution. In 1535 Tyndale was tried for heresy and treason and then strangled and burnt at the stake.

Much of Tyndale's work eventually found its way to the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the Bible, published in 1611, which, through the work of 54 independent scholars, is based primarily on Tyndale's translations. Within a year of his death, Henry the 8th died and he never saw the impact he had on England, and on what would be the modern Bibles of today!

The Fact that the Lollard Bibles, are the most easily obtained pre-printing-press Bible in the world should sound a red flag! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy

John Wycliffe organized the first complete translation of the Bible into Middle English in the 1380s. The translation was a collaborative effort, and it is not clear which portions are actually Wycliffe's work. Church authorities officially condemned the translators of the Bible into vernacular languages because they had done so without the sanction of the Church. As such, the Church officailly labeled such men heretics and Lollards. Despite their prohibition by the Church, revised versions of Wycliffite Bibles remained in use for about 100 years.

In the century just after Wycliffe's translation, two great events occurred which bore heavily on the spread of the Bible. One was the revival of learning, which made popular again the study of the classics and the classical languages. Critical and exact Greek scholarship became again a possibility. Under the influence of Erasmus and his kind, with their new insistence on classical learning, there came necessarily a new appraisal of the Vulgate as a translation of the original Bible. For a thousand years there had been no new study of the original Bible languages in Europe. The Latin of the Vulgate had become as sacred as the Book itself. But the revival of learning threw scholarship back on the sources of the text. Erasmus and others published versions of the Greek Testament which disturbed the Vulgate's position as a final version.

From Foxe's Book of Martyrs: "There dwelt not far off a certain doctor, that had been chancellor to a bishop, who had been of old, familiar acquaintance with Master Tyndale, and favored him well; unto whom Master Tyndale went and opened his mind upon divers questions of the Scripture: for to him he durst be bold to disclose his heart. Unto whom the doctor said, 'Do you not know that the pope is very Antichrist, whom the Scripture speaketh of? But beware what you say; for if you shall be perceived to be of that opinion, it will cost you your life.' "

What your telling me is just tradition and general facts were all suppose to assume. But I don't buy that, its just an excuse, to buy into a convenient truth not facts!

 

[golfjack]

reply

Javier, You have made some excellent points. Yes, Jesus often referred to the Old Testament when He said it is written. All the authors of the New Trestament are Jews and that says much. This is one of the reasons whhy I believe Believers should be praying for the peace of Israel. Javier, Would you agree that Believers are suppose to do good works only when God is given glory and He alone deserves glory. Many at the judgment seat of Christ are going to have what they did good burned up if they make it there. Therefore, even Jesus was sola scriptura.

After Church today, I will go through my papers on Luther, which I have obtained from a friend of mine. Javier, is there any way I coulld get them over to you?



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[jgredline]

Re: reply

Javier, You have made some excellent points. Yes, Jesus often referred to the Old Testament when He said it is written. All the authors of the New Trestament are Jews and that says much. This is one of the reasons whhy I believe Believers should be praying for the peace of Israel. Javier, Would you agree that Believers are suppose to do good works only when God is given glory and He alone deserves glory. Many at the judgment seat of Christ are going to have what they did good burned up if they make it there. Therefore, even Jesus was sola scriptura.

After Church today, I will go through my papers on Luther, which I have obtained from a friend of mine. Javier, is there any way I coulld get them over to you?



May God bless, Golfjack

Jack
I agree totally with what you have said...Don't spend to much time or any on Luther. I have studied the reformation period in depth and especially the life of Martin Luther. I was asking the question in more of a rhetorical way,,,I will adddress this more a little later, right now I am to church. Blessings, javier

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

Two things...I accept the compliment.. Thank you...Yes I do believe the scriptures to be complete in the 66 books God gave us...As far as my theories go, you made an ad homien attack and did not even provide a quote from one of my pet theories....

That's not an "ad hominem attack. I didn't attack your person. I said you have pet theories. How is that an attack on you? And secondly, where did you come up with 66 books?

I see that between AloneVoice and Stranger, they already addressed this verse...I don't see how I could do much better than what they already said...To summarize I will simply say this...That verse is in the past tense and yes it is referring to the Apostolic teaching of the apostles, so no you can't use this verse to justify all the added stuff the CC has added or has attempted to add to the Holy Scriptures.... Martin Luther was man sent from God to do away with the Legalism that had been in place for many years by the Roman Catholic Church...As fas as Church history goes, I have studied quite a bit of it and I can assure you that it is a history the CC would rather forget, or perhaps, they are proud of it....

First of all, the verse has NOT been addressed. The fact of the matter remains that you claim that the Bible is the sole source of Christian faith. This verse, 2 thes 2:15, among others, tells us that the Bible is NOT the sole source of Christian faith. I am not talking about "adding" to our beliefs. I bring this up because it DESTROYS Sola Scriptura. What is your answer to that? You claim you believe in ONLY what the Bible details, yet, your core belief is NOWHERE found in Sacred Scriptures.

What sort of hypocritical idea is that?

Secondly, Martin Luther was sent by God? Since when did you have access to the mind of God to know such things? I imagine ANYONE could make such statements about Joseph Smith or anyone else who invented a religion. The fact remains that Protestantism is built upon sand. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not found in Scriptures. The later is even denied within its pages. So how could God bring about a logically inconsistent theology into existence? This very fact tells us that Luther was a heretic, not a saint. His life clearly tells us the same thing.


And finally, as to the history of the Catholic Church, have you ever read the Old Testament? How wonderful is THEIR history? Intermittent poor leadership or individual wolves that roam the fold are not indications that the entire Church is rotten. There are several parables that express the same thing. Even during the times of the New Testament's compilation, you will find that the Church THEN had problems in leadership and among the people. Have you not read Corinthians, Galatians, or the Thessalonians? What about James? And John? Wasn't there problems even in the earliest Christian churches? Didn't they ALREADY have problems with false prophets and false teachers? It seems to me that you think the Church established by Christ should be perfect NOW! It will NEVER be perfect until the next age.

I do however read Rev 22:18 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:...And yes I know that this verse is referring to the book of Revelation....I am sure many have used this as an excuse to add or change scripture......

Please. Even Protestant commentaries do not apply that verse to the entire Bible!!! That applies only to the visions and words of the book of Revelation. John makes absolutely no indication that his work would BECOME part of a larger collection of books and that he knew HIS book would be the end book of this collection...

Actually, this says allot !!!! about what you believe...

I for one believe the scripture
2 tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Calm down, Javier. Read the Scriptures carefully and follow what it says. Stop trying to make it what you want it to say.

NOWHERE does it say in 2 Tim 3:16 that the Bible is the ONLY means for "reproof, correction, instruction" and so forth. It is USEFUL for those things.

I wonder if you have read this one, Javier...

And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; Eph 4:11-13

Let's look at this. First, NO MENTION OF THE BIBLE. Secondly, God gave US MEN for perfecting the saints - for coming to the knowledge of God. Now, this verse, along with proper reading of 2 Tim, should be enough for a person to determine that Paul did not believe in Sola Scriptura.

Again, it is a self-contradictory lie. It is refuted over and over again in Scriptures. In Ephesians, Paul gives us ANOTHER MEANS of perfecting the saints. Apostolic Succession. Bishops. Evangelists. MEN! Men guided by God to perfect the saints.

Anyone who REALLY considers the Bible the Word of God will heed these verses and come away with realizing that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of the devil which leads men away from part of the Word of God, part of that which perfects the saints. It is a tradition of men found NOWHERE in the Bible.

If you have any other evidence, bring it forth. I desire that you come away from such false teachings.

Regards

 

[jgredline]

Jack
As I was in church this morning I was pondering many things and one of them is how how folks will introduce a Golden Calf into their lives....and what is sad is that many of them do it knowingly....And what is up with these Catholic folks who call a priest ''Father''? I am sure there is some crazy reason or rationalizing for them to disrespect God like this....


Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."

Oh well, I am to the street fair...be back later....

 

[jgredline]

Joe
I can't reason with someone who believes it is ok to add to the scriptures...I hold to the 66 books contained in the bible....Your response to my post is all gibberish and nonsense...

 

[francisdesales]

Joe
I can't reason with someone who believes it is ok to add to the scriptures...I hold to the 66 books contained in the bible....Your response to my post is all gibberish and nonsense...

Javier,

You can't reason with someone who believes it is OK to add to the Bible? How many books does the Old Testament have? I think it is quite a few less than 66. Would you say the Jews would accuse Christians of ADDING to the Bible? And where do you come up with the number of 66 for the entire bible? Which verse tells us that?

You can't reason with someone who believes it is OK to add to the Bible? What exactly do you call "Sola Scriptura"??? Where exactly do you get that verse from the Scriptures?

Tell me how this is not a tradition of men from the 16th century. I await the enlightenment you are sure to provide.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Jack
As I was in church this morning I was pondering many things and one of them is how how folks will introduce a Golden Calf into their lives....and what is sad is that many of them do it knowingly....And what is up with these Catholic folks who call a priest ''Father''? I am sure there is some crazy reason or rationalizing for them to disrespect God like this....


Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."

Oh well, I am to the street fair...be back later....

Clearly, you must not be aware that John called the people of his communities his CHILDREN, and also, that Paul calls himself a spiritual father to the Corinthians. Apparently, Jesus meant something else than what you imply it to mean.

Regards

 

[aj830]

Joe
I can't reason with someone who believes it is ok to add to the scriptures...I hold to the 66 books contained in the bible....Your response to my post is all gibberish and nonsense...

You quoted Rev 22:18 earlier. I shall but forth Rev 22:19 because Protestants simply remove the other books of the Bible. For Sola Scriptura to be true you must have someway of knowing what the "Scriptura". How do you know you have the right 66 books? How do you know there is not more or less? How come both the Catholics and Orthodox (the only two brances of Christianity that can really claim apostolic succesion) both hold to the real canon that includes the deteurocanonical books?