Fool. The idea of "sola scriptura" is alien to the apostles and the church fathers. The tradition of the church is older than the bible. The bible is part of the Christian (that is: catholic) religion, but not its mere foundation. In fact you cannot even say why you regard the books contained in your bible as authoritative.
What comes out if someone claims to be a "true bible believer" is: thounsands of contradictory protestant sects who all claim to understand the scriptures propperly.
@a2j93 SHOULD ONE BE READY TO CONCEDE THAT THE BIBLE WAS HANDED TO US, IN A SENSE BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT WE MUST BELIEVE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THE BIBLE? IF I MUST REPOSSESS THE NEWSPAPER FROM THE MOUTH OF MY NEIGHBOUR’S DOG, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT I MUST BELIEVE IN MY NEIGHBOUR’S DOG IN ORDER TO ACCEPT WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER?
I would like to see the chapter where the 27 books of the New Testament were listed. Otherwise believing that the New Testament is sacred scripture is an extra-biblical belief unto itself since nowhere in those 27 books are those 27 books cited as such. And since the Bible is not a magic book that fell out of the sky, it had an origin, a creation
Then the question remains, who declared these texts as sacred scripture, and by what divine authority did said group or individual have to do so?
So no sola scriptura makes no sense. The truth that you are speaking of is non existent. there is only one truth and the scriture states that it is found in the church.
1 Tim 3:15 - But if i should be delayed you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
For all Christians the TRUTH is here. Who is faithful enough to accept it?
@bbgiraffes The word “pillar” in Greek is στύλος and the word “foundation” in Greek is ἑδραίωμα.When you look at the meaning of these two Greek words,you will know that they mean a “support”,“base” or “ground”. It doesn’t say that the church is the truth but only the basis, ground & the support of truth..Not that the authority of the scriptures depends upon that of the church, as the papists pretend, for truth is the pillar and foundation of the church
@bbgiraffes The church should hold forth the scripture and the doctrine of Christ, otherwise she is no longer a support of the truth of scriptures. In other words, the church’s responsibility is to uphold the truth of scriptures as the foundation or “support” of truth rather than the source or the truth itself.
@bbgiraffes Now when the church ceases to be the pillar and foundation of truth, we may and ought to forsake her; for our regard to truth should be greater than our regard to the church; we are no longer obliged to continue in the church than she continues to be the pillar and foundation of truth. Furthermore, Scriptures stands true even without the church because it doesn't need the church to verify its truthfulness.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. -Jesus-
@357archangel To the contrary, Scripture does indeed need a validating authority to verify its truthfulness. Logically, a document cannot authenticate itself. The Scriptures are authenticated by the organization Christ founded, His Church. The canon of the bible was authenticated by that Church circa 400 AD.
From then until the 16th century 73 books were the canon. Then Luther decided by his own authority that 66 books, and his interpretation, alone, are the rule of faith.
@AmericanBerean We only have 66 books in our Bible because these books do not contradict themselves..the reason why Luther omitted those books that were canonized by the Catholics was because they don't harmonize with the general teachings taught in these 66 books..
Now we accept traditions provided they are taught by Jesus and in the Scriptures..however so many of these catholic traditions were never taught by Christ and by the Scriptures.
@357archangel "they don't harmonize...": with Luther's private interpretation. They harmonize with Jesus and the Apostles just fine, since they often referred to the Scriptures including them.
Sola Scriptura wouldn't be all bad if it's adherents correctly interpreted. Then they'd see how Jesus did indeed turn bread into His body and empowered His apostles to do likewise. And how the Church He established is a visible organization as well as a spiritual association.
@AmericanBerean "they don't harmonize...": with Luther's private interpretation.
So sorry buddy but we interpret God's word with the help of His Holy Spirit. We don't have any problem understanding or interpreting God's word privately.We don't need a pope, priest or a pastor to be able to understand it.
Making images and bowing down to them is never taught by Jesus and his apostles..as well as praying to Mary or calling Mary the Mother of God..these things are not taught by Jesus.
@357archangel "with the help of His Holy Spirit": I believe that is true, for some. Many, if not all, Christians feel they are helped by the Holy Spirit to interpret. But when two believers, each feeling led by the Spirit, have diametrically opposed interpretations, what then? The answer is to compare one's own interpretation with how it has been interpreted historically. Doing so, you will find that the post-apostolic Christians interpreted Scripture as the Catholic Church does today.
@AmericanBerean Buddy i don't find two genuine believers led by the same Spirit who have opposed interpretations..such thing don't really exist..true believers of the Lord have one common teachings or doctrines..they may differ in some minor practices but not with the most clear and major doctrines taught in the Scriptures.
I just don't agree with most of Catholic traditions..there are traditions which we accept but not the ones with man-made teachings or doctrines.
@357archangel I agree, those who are genuinely led by the Spirit cannot contradict. But some guy can feel confident he is led by the Spirit yet be wrong about that. That's my point.
You determine someone is a "genuine" believer if they agree with your interpretation. But you can't expect me to believe your private revelation, I'm only required to believe public revelation which ceased when the last Apostle died. They passed it down to us.
Sola Scriptura just leads to interpretational anarchy.
@AmericanBerean You determine someone is a "genuine" believer if they agree with your interpretation.
NOPE i didn't say that..a genuine believer is determined by his exemplary life that was changed by the power of God..there is nothing more evident than the LIFE.
@AmericanBerean you can't expect me to believe your private revelation..
And what is this private revelation you are talking about? God's truth is already revealed in His word..no need for private revelation..what do you mean?like Joseph Smith declaring he received revelations from God after locking himself inside his room for couple of days without any witnesses?
@357archangel I mean your private revelation in the sense of Spirit-led interpretation.
God does reveal His truth with written Word. But He also established a society to protect and spread that Truth. He did not commission the writing of a book for that purpose. Even looking at Scripture Alone one can see how Jesus built His Church on the foundation of the Apostles. It is that society which authenticates Scripture, that's how we know what Scripture is.
@357archangel An organization does exist today (and has throughout history) which preserved and propagated God's Word and still does so. It can be identified by it's historical longevity and it's characteristics as Scripture describes it: One, Holy, Universal, Apostolic. You'll find that today's Catholic Church meets these criteria.
Many bad things are alleged against this Church, but most are lies and half-truths. Bad popes notwithstanding, Jesus promised it would last to the end of the Age.
@AmericanBerean If I willingly, knowingly commit serious sin and die before repenting of it I will not see heaven. It's in that sense that works (doing good and avoiding bad) are required for salvation.
NO bud, good works is never required for salvation..and since you are not saved by doing good works then you will not be damned by doing bad works..Now, im not saying that it is okay to do bad works..of course Matt. 5:16 is a good encouragement to us.
@357archangel I was saved by grace through faith in Jesus as the sole source of salvation and grace. Nothing outside myself can change that. I did not, cannot, earn that gift, but I can earn to lose it. I still have free will. If I willingly, knowingly commit serious sin and die before repenting of it I will not see heaven. It's in that sense that works (doing good and avoiding bad) are required for salvation. Justification is a process, and sanctification is also on-going.
@AmericanBerean Many bad things are alleged against this Church, but most are lies and half-truths.
I disagree..those were not lies..those were true..not even half truths..i myself can even testify to that..many priests, bishops and nuns are involved in sexual immoralities.
@AmericanBerean I was saved by grace through faith in Jesus as the sole source of salvation and grace. I did not, cannot, earn that gift...It's in that sense that works (doing good and avoiding bad) are required for salvation.
This is such a complicated statement my friend..Grace is the unmerited favor of God to undeserving sinners and by saying that you are correct..but works are required for salvation is never taught in scriptures.
NOT BY WORKS LEST ANY ONE SHOULD BOAST (Eph.2:8-9)
@AmericanBerean Justification is a process, and sanctification is also on-going.
I respectfully disagree with this..Justification is not a process..it is a declaration by God where He declares a believing and repentant sinner saved by virtue of his faith in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross..
Yes sanctification is a process but justification is not.
@357archangel Justification makes us righteous, but as the Bible says, it is also a process: I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13). I can reject the Gift by my own free will.
@AmericanBerean In Eph. 2:8 Paul said, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith." Notice that the word saved is in the past tense..Paul did not say "you will be save." In other words, they have been declared righteous or justified by grace through faith.
@AmericanBerean Sin does not change our status or position in God's family..like when a child commits sin against his father. When a child sins against his father, it will affect his fellowship with him but not his position as a child. You get what i mean? If i disobey my father, i didn't cease to be his son..yes it would affect my fellowship with him but it won't change the fact that I am his son and he is my father.
@357archangel Sin can indeed change your status as God's child. The biological analogy is not applicable to this spiritual issue. Just look at the first man, Adam. He was God's son ("made in His image and likeness"), but his sin caused all humanity to lose sonship by default.
Good works before faith are fruitless but works after faith are beneficial and generally required because without works, faith is fruitless.
@AmericanBerean You just stated that salvation is a gift that you cannot earn, right?now may i ask you..Do you have to work for a gift in order to have it?
@357archangel Right, we cannot earn salvation. But we can earn to lose it, ie through willful bad behavior.
I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
@357archangel biological analogy doesn't apply, because sinning against a dad is not like sinning against God. The magnitude of offense is in the one offended, and the magnitude of honor is in the one honoring. When we sin against God, the offense is infinite and severs us from relationship and we cannot honor God enough to pay for that. But sinning against a man is finite (since man is finite) so cannot sever the relationship.
@AmericanBerean Just look at the first man, Adam. He was God's son ("made in His image and likeness").
I never read in my Bible that Adam was called God's son...yes he was created by God but the Lord Jesus did not die for him the way Jesus did for those who believe and trust on His redemptive work on the cross..You cannot compare Adam's situation before with our situation and standing before God right now.
@357archangel Adam was God's son: Luke3:38 "the son of Adam, the son of God."
Adam and Eve needed the savior as do we all. Jesus died for ALL believers of ALL ages. Jesus' sacrifice transcends time and space, Him being God. All the OT faithful had to wait in Sheol (aka Abraham's bosom & Paradise) for Him. After His death, Jesus descended there to let them into Heaven.
Adam was told by God that He would send a savior. That's the first Gospel. His salvation plan was put in action back then.
@AmericanBerean Good works is just the result of genuine faith but it is never the means of salvation..Faith justifies us before God while good works only justifies us before men since faith is abstract..you cannot see faith in a person unless he proves it by his actions.
Good works is the result of God's Spirit working in us and through us..and again salvation is a gift to be received and not a reward to be achieved.You see you don't have to work for a gift, it's FREE!
In general it only makes sense that the authority of the creator like our God presides over what he has created correct? Just as we have been given our lord he has given us his church which has given us his gospel.
The truth that you speak of is non existent. the holy spirit doesnt lie. Its not confused. Its not revealing pastor bob one thing and pastor billy another. But your video here says that it does. what does the bible say about division? we know that its not acceptable.
Also if we are to be guided by scripture alone find in scripture where it states that? If you cant find it then sola scriptura is a self refuting document.
I ask you another question where is the bible from? I know as an adult with much more age under your belt than myself you would understand that substance comes from matter.
correct?
Well this substance (the bible) is from somewhere something had to put it together. can you tell me who did that? It was put together by the early church
Hello Sir my name is Ariel Fernandez in hebrew my name means Lion of God. I am Catholic but have always been open to protestants. Been part of many music endeavors with protestant praise and worship bands. Just saying this so as to clear myself of being accused of ignorance or misunderstanding protestants.
Sir you keep speaking of the "Truth" as a protestant where is the truth found? I know of pastors that dont agree with one another. What pastor or whose holy spirit is right?
In describing his strategy for arguing with non-believers in Sola Scriptura, he says, ""Now you can't give them Scripture, because they don't believe that Scripture is the true word of God, so you have to go around and come up with another point to give to them." So he admits that he needs something besides Scripture Alone.
Sola Scriptura plays upon the pride and arrogance of the sinner, as if they are protected from making false judgments on interpreting Holy Scripture. The heretic becomes the sole authority on the Truth, even though he has absolutely NO authority to do so.
Jesus gave that authority to Peter and the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18.
I study the Bible, but I defer to the teaching authority of the Church, as the Apostles did to Christ. I submit my will to her teaching.
I don't understand. You believe Sola Scriptura because people say the Bible text is corrupt? Does this mean you will stop believing Sola Scriptura if they said the Bible text is not corrupt? I don't mean to be critical here but your logic and reason seems very flawed. That would be like me saying I believe Tom is right because Cindy said he is wrong. Out of curiosity, have you ever read a book or studied logic and reason because you are presenting an invalid argument.
The Bible is a Catholic book. It is only on the authority of the Catholic Church that we know what the Bible is. But it was never intended as the sole component of salvation. The world was largely illiterate for the first thousand years so the faithful attended Mass where the scrip tures were brought to life by the teachings of the clergy. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and the authority of the Bible rests on her foundation.
@CatholicFaithFacts - The Catholic Church did not write the Bible. They only claim they compiled the sacred writings into one book. There is no evidence this is true, but it doesn't really matter. Why doesn't it matter? Because if we take their word for it, then this means that the Catholic Church contradicts teachings of the Bible which they compiled. There are many verses which prove sola scriptura and that scriptures were written to be easily understood by the common man.
"There are many verses which prove sola scriptura"
Show us just one of those.
"The Catholic Church did not write the Bible."
Since you know who dint cannonize Sacred Scripture, you surely know who did. Tell us who Cannonized the Bible. And since you are "sola scriptura" you need to show us the authority that cannonized the Scripture in the Bible. Book, Chapter and verse of the cannonizer please.
I listened to your video here, but your logic is flawed on one very important point. You say that you believe in sola scriptura because you observe that not following sola scriptura has lead other groups astray. However, that is circular reasoning. How do you know the other groups have gone astray? It think it is because you have already assumed sola scriptura to be true to judge them, then think other groups are wrong, therefore sola scriptura is true. That is not a proof.
Catholics DO BELIEVE that the scripture is the true word of God. Do not misrepresent the Catholic Church. I believe Christ said something about ravenous wolves in sheep clothing...
For crying out loud, Catholics do NOT believe in idol worship. At least take the time to read the Catholic catechism where it clearly states that idol worship is forbidden. Furthermore, Sola Scriptura isn't even biblical in itself.
@medusa210562 --So you were an idoloter when you were Catholic? Shame on you. Im catholic and I have Icons of Jesus, but im smart enough to know they are pictures only and not divine in any way.
@GoldenHarvest454 Catholics practice Idolatry. Read acts 10:26. I was a catholic. I remember ladys on their knees chanting the names of saints until their knees were bleeding. The fact is the Vatican doesn't care.
@medusa210562 --The Littany of the Saints is not Idolotry, as long as we know saints are not "gods". And the old Testament has Jewish people bowing to other people in respect and honor, so acts 10 26 may have a dif story behind it.
@GoldenHarvest454 I was a catholic, I know I have seen people on their knees untill their knees were bleeding following the procession of saint. I was plaing the clarinet behind the processions. In south Italy. Read acts 10:26 and rev 22:8 In the old testament people killed people, people feared people. It portrays a reality. In a world where man would not have sinned no one would bow to anyone. young people worship rock stars yet they would never agree to it.don't be naive.
I think its great thing as well because it allows us to put in "our" truth into the scriptures. It like Burger King, we get to have it "our" way. We need not great Doctors of the church to tell us the meaning of Scripture, all I need to do is pick up the book and start reading. Yep, the bible says I can do alot of things that go against God. But hey I am my own interpreter no one else LOL.
Yet, so many people have done that, and look at what we got.. Jehovah witnesses, SDA, baptists, mormons, christian scientists.. all saying that they are right through there personal interpretations of the bible.
Exactly, the hell with Christ's Church right? Protestantism is reklessly false, heretical and regarded as such amongst the earliest christians as well.
some Christian sects that operate this way Each person is told to interpret the Bible, the Word of GOD, for himself. Whatever feels right for him is all that matters. It is every man for himself essentially. This policy breeds chaos, infighting, and disunity. Remember what Jesus Christ said, "Every house divided against itself cannot stand." Mt 12:25
c. Would you want to believe the interpretation of one man, whose credentials might be questionable, or of the collective interpretation of a group of men with impeccable credentials AND The Holy Spirit?
b. The Bible is not a novel. It is the Word of GOD. If you read it like you would read a novel, you would not
gain much from it except mass confusion. If you gave a million people each a Bible, and asked each to interpret
it, you would get a million different interpretations. Which one would you believe? Which one has the truth? As we have seen, 'Truth is One'. Which person's interpretation is that truthful ONE?
c. In John 20:30, and 21:25, John said, '...and there are MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH JESUS DID, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even THE WORLD ITSELF
COULD NOT CONTAIN THE BOOKS THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN'. This says in very simple terms that there are two areas of GOD'S Holy Word, the Holy Scripture and Tradition.
2. Tradition and Holy Scripture taken together are known as 'The Deposit of Faith'.
b. He spoke to us through His written word, the Holy Scriptures. The New Testament books were not even written until starting around 48 A.D. and ending about 100 A.D., which was many years after Jesus Christ was crucified about 33 A.D.. It was up to the writers of the NT to accurately record many years later, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of Jesus Christ, and base much of their writings
a. When Jesus spoke to His Apostles, He spoke orally. He did not write to them or give them a book to read. The Apostles spoke the words of Jesus Christ to others and their descendants, the Bishops. This is called 'Tradition', with a capitol 'T'. See separate file, 'Scriptra.txt', for more on Tradition.
Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
First, Jesus didn't ask the apostles to write the bible and spread it to the whole world. Second, there are things not written in the bible and the books in the Bible is chosen by the Catholic Church.
As you said, there should be only one church, but Sola Scriptura means that everyone is able to interpret the Bible as they like it. If it happens, who is right?
So if you think it is OK to kill babies in the womb then just find a church that thinks it is OK (BY USING THE BIBLE ALONE) and you will not be judged.
My brothers, there are too many references that the RCC is using and some of this dogmas or doctrines already contradicted the source of our faith which is the Word of God(Bible).
I don't understand how they could call their dogmas infallible when some of their former dogmas from the Council of Trent were change during the Vatican I and Vatican II council?
The Bible says:
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
the eaerth is the proper distance from the sun for life which shows God is merciful to life and is good,therefore a good reason to believe in a good God.Jesus dying in the place of sinners on a cruel cross, and all we have to do is put our faith and trust in Jesus as our God and saviour and turn from our sins, to inherit eternal happiness in paradise,also shows Gods love
(cont) While am not extremely well studied on the subject, I know that the book of Daniel and some of Paul's works indicate that there would come a point of finality, where God had spoken and the Word had been completed. In the Bible we have God's complete, finished Word to man. You don't need another word, or another doctrine. You don't need an infallible prophet or pope to come up with more truth. It's all there.
(cont.) Sola Scriptura took effect, so to speak. God has already crafted His perfect Word, and inside of it we have all we need. Don't make it more technical than it is.
Im not saying that the scriptures themselves are not inspired, that is not the issue since we both agree on that. The question is, HOW the church father's determined if they were inspired. You just said the Bible was canonized, as if these church fathers already knew which books belonged in there, when in reality there were many disputes, thats why it took 300 years after christ to finalize the canon. Also, since there are infallible prophesies as you say, aren't you implying that the Church
(cont.) Church fathers were infallible? In either case, the Bible itself did not specify which books, like Luke if it was inspired or not. The fact that it was determined by the Church fathers just proves my point. You say that sola scriptura was a reality after scripture was canonized, how convenient...where does the bible teach that?
If you alter something infallible, you do not become infallible yourself. They were uttering the eternal Word, which already Was and Is and Is to Come. In way it is similar to when I read the Bible aloud. God guided the early church fathers in which books were to be canonized. Even if they had done it entirely of their flesh, they would still have chosen God's Word, because they could not escape God's will. Scripture teaches that it is "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction" etc.
Also, how could they speak or read the words of the bible aloud, when most of the books of the NT were not yet written? And the ones that were, were in dispute among the early Christians. This is assuming they already had a text to go off by, when in reality it is not the case. When you say, "they could not escape God's will" you still prove my point that God used the Church fathers to decide on the Canon, an EXTRA-biblical source. I agree God guided them, that just proves my point..
In any case, no matter how you look at it, an Extra-biblical source was used to determine the Canon. If you believe that it is only after the Canon was determined that sola scriptura applies, you need to show me where in the bible it says that. Also, you are implying that the church fathers were infallible.
I never said that an extrabiblical source was not used. The fact of the matter is that today, in our time, The Bible is God's final, finished Word. He speaks to us, but its not the same as a new massive revelation. God's already done that.
Thank you for proving my point, the bible itself was not used to determine the canon. I agree, that today the Bible is God's final word, thanks to the Church Fathers. But I am still waiting for that scripture verse where it says that after the canon was completed that we could use sola scriptura.
Well in a way it was, as books that didnt line up with past books were eliminated. But I know what you mean. If such a verse exists, then I myself do not know it. It is possible if not likely that there is such a verse, however. I believe in Sola Scriptura based on what Paul says to Timothy of Scripture, and Johns warning in Revelation. Scripture is enough, and nothing will be added to it. There is a finality and sufficiency to the Bible.
The problem with that is that, how did the Church fathers know which books to line up and which not to line up? In order for them to do that, they had to already have a preconceived idea of what God's word was. In fact this is the case, since God's word was originally transmitted by Oral tradition. Also, God could have infallibly led them to that conclusion as well. This just proves the catholic notion of believing in God's word in its written and spoken form, bible and oral tradition.
(cont.) Also in regards to finding a verse that says we must believe in Sola Scriptura after the canon was determined...no such verse exists, so don't waste your time on that, I was just trying to prove my point. I do agree that nothing could be added to scripture as revelations says, however, the bible does not say that scripture alone in sufficient for knowing the truth of God's word.
Exactly! I agree. The Church came WAY before the New Testament. The complete Bible we read today wasn't put together until the late 4th century. The first NT list was put together around 150 years after Jesus died.
My brother, remember that the church started FIRST in Jerusalem and NOT in Rome as you read it in the ACTS chapters 1-2. Peter started the ministry together with the other apostles in Israel and not in Rome.
Here is a question for sola scriptura adherants. ALL christians accept the Gospel of Luke, however, the title "Gospel according to Luke" is not a title given in the original manuscripts, in fact, it was a title given later on. So I ask believers of Sola Scriptura, how do you know that the Gospel of Luke is the Gospel of Luke?? Can you please show me chapter and verse where it says that Luke was written by Luke?
Whether or not the book was written by Luke is rather irrelevant to the book's divinity. Your point does not in any way effectively attack Sola Scriptura. However, I'll answer your question... We know that the author of Acts also wrote a Gospel-like book. Both of these texts can historically be verified as being written by Luke.
First of all it IS relevant that we know Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke. We know from the early times of Christianity that many books had alleged titles such as Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, etc and that CLAIMED divinity. We also know that some early Church Father's rejected books that are in the canon of the NT, ex. 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon were rejected as inspired by Justin Martyr and Polycarp. But other church fathers accepted books that are NOT in the canon of the NT, ex.
part.2- Epistle of Barnabas and Didache was accepted by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, Shepherd of Hermas was accepted by Iranaeus, Tertullian, Origen. So it was very difficult to decide which books were to be regarding in the NT canon, as there were many disputes among christians. It was decided in 398 AD in carthage which books were to be in the NT. We know Luke was authentic bec of the attestation of the Church fathers.
pt.3- Gospel of Luke does not even claim it is inspired, it does not even say that Luke wrote it. Once again, it was decided and attested by the Church fathers, you YOURSELF said we had to use history to find out about Luke. This is all extra-biblical, so once again I ask you, how do you know Luke wrote Luke, and how do you know it was inspired, give me chapter and verse, sola scriptura is using only the bible, so I would appreciate it if u can quote me using the bible.
Again, I do not believe that it is extremely relevant if it was Luke or not. My God is a sovereign God, and the fact that the Gospel of Luke made it into the Bible attests to its divinity. If the Gospel of Luke is not truly written by God, then the New Testament is corrupted and the Christian God is too weak to protect His own book. I do not need to give you Bible verses, because God has gifted me with a vague sense of logic.
If it is not relevant who wrote Luke or not, then how do you know it was inspired by God? I agree God is sovereign, and that's why he used holy men such as the church fathers to make Luke into the canon of the NT. In any case, an EXTRA-biblical source was needed to decide whether it was inspired or not, so much for sola scriptura. Do you believe that these men who decided on Luke were infallible? If not, then would you say that their judgement could contain error and what criteria would u use
Sola Scriptura does not mean that I cannot or will not use other methods besides the Bible to ascertain truth, only that the Bible alone IS infallible truth. Because Luke is in the Bible, I trust that it is divinely inspired. I can say that with confidence based on what I know of the character of God as it is revealed in the Bible. If the Gospel of Luke was not infallible, it would not be in the Bible. And that's that. Those who canonized the book were not infallible, but their God was.
So in reality you do not believe in sola scriptura, since that doctrine means that the bible alone is the sole infallible authority pertaining religion and doctrine. The canon of the NT was something pertaining religion and doctrine, no one used sola scriptura on that, an extra biblical source was used. God is infallible, I agree. But u said that those men are not infallible, so that means their judgement could contain error, if not then that means God led them to an infallible decision, which
Your argument is a straw-man, and you clearly have some misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. In the early church God gave to His Church specific gifts, i.e. prophecy. These gifts were given to assist in the writing of the new testament, as well as other things. These prophecies were indeed infallible, and came out of man's lips. However, the Bible had not yet been finalized. Sola Scriptura was not yet a reality. It was after the Bible was canonized, when the visions were sealed, that
Also, if the bible is the only infallible truth pertaining religion and doctrine, why would you use something else? Is it better than the word of God?
Think of all the days Catholics remember and celebrate the Lord: Midnight Mass, Ash Wednesday (marking the start of Lent), Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Resurrection Sunday, Ascension Thursday.
quote where the catholic church believes that the faithful cannot pray directly to God. quote where from an authoritative source that says the catholic church worships mary or the saints.
I am a Catholic. I believe in the Bible and I believe that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God. Why do you wrongly state that Catholics don't believe in Scripture? However, you don't know Scripture that well. Where in the Bible does it say to believe only in the Bible? If you believe in Scripture alone, then by that logic it should say that in the Bible. I haven't found it, so could you please show me where in the Bible does it say only believe in the Bible (or Scripture)?
"You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have life. I do not accept human praise; moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you."
here is a false statement by the poster, the claim that catholics don't believe in the Word of God. Does he know that Catholics gave him the Word of God?
How can we not believe in something that we wrote and defined?
I ask the poster how did the Bible come to be the Bible?
@ESEME11 How can we not believe in something that we wrote and defined?YOU CATHOLICS WROTE THE BIBLE?..ARE YOU SURE?...THAT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE...NOT ONE CATHOLIC EVER WROTE A BOOK IN THE BIBLE...YOU JUST COMPILED IT...I NEVER THOUGHT THAT CATHOLICS WERE GREEKS AND JEWS WHO SPEAK HEBREW AND GREEK..
@ESEME11 SHOULD ONE BE READY TO CONCEDE THAT THE BIBLE WAS HANDED TO US, IN A SENSE BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT WE MUST BELIEVE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THE BIBLE? IF I MUST REPOSSESS THE NEWSPAPER FROM THE MOUTH OF MY NEIGHBOUR’S DOG, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT I MUST BELIEVE IN MY NEIGHBOUR’S DOG IN ORDER TO ACCEPT WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER?
@ESEME11 Are you sure that Catholics gave the Word of God to people?I think something is wrong here..Scriptures exist before the catholic church and God's word did not come from catholics..yes catholic compiled the books in the Bible but they are not the source of it..the Word of God came from God Himself.
It's impossible for you, sir, to correct people because you have no authority over them. Catholics call the Bible the word of God. You're not being honest when you accuse them. And why do you care what any one else believes any how? And how do you know what any one else believes unless you ask them?
The Scripture calls the catholic church of Rome 'called of God to be saints.'
Adding anti-catholic is adding to the Bible also. There are catholics who read the king James Bible.
What he means is he is trying to help them. Im sure that he has asked people of those faiths.We are supposed to care what happens to our brothers and sisters in Christ and try to help them see the way. Scripture also tells us that all who believe in Christ are called saints. Why do you claim anti-catholic?
DerektheDuctTape, I get that belief from the book of Romans. I get that belief from 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' Also the new testament admonition not to be busybodies in other men's matters(1Peter). Also, whenever I see the word 'churches' in The New testament, I think of Trinitarian believers in Jesus' Deity, which includes Catholic, Baptist, Anglican- i.e. churches that glorify Jesus as The Lord God the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.
Hello teethofthelamb - I'm sorry, but you have a misguided view of what Catholics believe. If you would like me to clarify on any of your points, let me know and you can be assured it will be responded to in a matter of charity and love. God bless!
8. And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
Did the Jews have the Holy Spirit in 70 AD? No. They did not. But you are missing some evidence regarding the Jews. The Palestinian Jews did in fact use the Septuagiant and the Septuagint contained the Dueterocanonicals. We know this because the NT uses phrasing that is out of the Septuagaint rather than the Hebrew Scriptures. We also see many refs to the Dueteros in the NT. Go to the scripturecatholic website and click on dueterocanonicals as well as septuigaint.
You get the HS before you convert to Christianity? It is the council of Jamnia that Protestants use to justify their OT canon. That was a council of all Jews who practiced the Jewish faith. Did they have the Holy Spirit?
"You get the HS before you convert to Christianity?" I never said that. I was talking about the Jewish converts to Christianity. You know the early Christians.
We can't pray to God directly? We believe in worshipping the saints? We don't believe the scriptures are accurate? Distortion, distortion, distortion. Bearing false witness apprantely doesn't bother this guy. It's in the Bible that you shouldn't do that dude.
he seems to think that not believing sola scriptura is the cause of all the denominations. That's down right funny. 99+% of all the denominations have their foundation in Sola Scriptura. 99% of all the denominations that conflict with eachother teach sola scriptura. What's wrong with this picture. SS is the most divisive doctrine in Christianity and division is not of God.
Not with sola gratia and sola christus or Sola deo gloria. Not with faith alone if it means a living and active faith that produces good works. Sola Scriptura I have shown is false.
By what authority do you rebuke me? Self proclaimed it seems to me. There is no authority accept that given by Christ to his apostles, passed down through the bishops and magesterium of the catholic Church.
The claim that constantine founded the CC is a false one and easily shown to be so. The doctrines of the CC were held by the early Church fathers long before him and he added nothing to them. This is a protestant wives tale unless you can back it up with history. Good luck.
As one of many evidences that Constantine did not found the CC, we see clement of Rome, writing in the late first Century, wrote an Encyclical to Corinth, ordering them to reinstate those they had ousted from leadership. Every indication is they complied and this letter is given great regard in other early writings. Now what is interesting is that at this time John was still alinve and in Ephuses, only 200 miles away, yet Clement in Rome, 500 miles away was recognized as having great authority
We see in the writings of Eusibius in the early third century listings of the first 13 bishops of rome and indication that they had special autority. Irenaus in the 2nd also lists them and give recognition to their authority outside their diocese as do many others. No way did Constantine start the CC. If you study history its silly. Lots more evidence I could give on the Eucharist, Baptismal Regen. Apostolic Succession, etc. etc.
Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Not the pope, not the pastor.
Men appointing themselves and other men to positions of authority that do not belong to them, is how the RCC wound up engaging in the murder of the inquisitions and the Crusades.
In the tenth century, a wealthy Italian noblewoman named Marozia put nine popes into office in eight years. In order to do that, she also had to get rid of reigning popes. Two of them were strangled, one was suffocated, and four disappeared under mysterious circumstances. One of the popes was Marozia's son; he was fathered by a Pope.
There were problemms in the papacy. But God does not promise us perfect leaders. Of the scribes and pharasees he said "the scribes and phrasees sit on moses seat. Therefore DO WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU" matt 23. Caiphas the high preist prophesizes by the holy spirit in John 11 and 18. HE HAD JESUS PUT TO DEATH. Don't know where you get your info about the 9th century. Looking at the list in that time frame there was no strech of 9 popes in 8 years. Sorry.
You are describing some of the darkest appearing hearts in human history as less than perfect?
The inquisitions alone point out the preposterous notion that the popes are any kind of succession from Jesus.
It was the sinful nature of mankind that had Jesus put to death, not an individual.
"In 769, Pope Stephen IV came to power with the help of an army which conquered the previous Pope. Stephen gave orders for his papal rival to be flogged, have his eyes cut out, have his kneecaps broken,...
...and be imprisoned until he died. Then Pope Stephen sentenced a second man to die a slow, agonizing death. He had pieces of his body cut off every day until he finally died.
God appoints leaders. It is quite clear that Peter was the visible head of the Church. Tons of evidence in the Bible. Clearly you don't understand the inquisition and crusades. Yes popes approved of them being held as government objective. They did not approve of all that went on. Governments have the authority of the sword. See Romans 13.
Jesus Christ is the head of the church, not Peter not the pope. There is no evidence that Peter is the rock but that Jesus Christ is the rock that the church is built on, not Peter.
Try a YouTube or Yahoo search of the subject.
brotherpete. com/index. php?board=7.0
Marinaism another heresy.
brotherpete. com/index. php?topic=16.0
Misunderstanding that Jesus Christ is the head of the ecclesia is WHAT HAPPENED to the Roman church. From there to understanding the "church" to be a building, etc.
How much more divided does Christianity have to become for people to get it. Division is not of God. The root of 99% of all division in Christianity is the so called "Reformation" and the abomniable doctrine that appeals to men's pride in themselves called Sola Scriptura! It's a lie.
Men becoming their own popes, deciding what is right individually rather than having the Church guide them. Sola scriptura appeals to men's pride. 99% of all denominations started since the reformation of the 1500's which wasn't really a reformation. Individuals broke off and started their own Churches, considering themselves wiser than what had been taught for 1500 years since the time of Christ.
"Men becoming their own popes, deciding what is right individually rather than having the Church guide them."
Sola Scriptura means having the Bible guide them. A lot of things that the Roman Catholic Church does contradicts the Bible. That's why many people, True Christians and Cults alike couldn't wait to leave it.
What does the CC do that contradicts scripture? Name one thing. That's kind of funny that you think someone leaving and going to a cult as evidence that the CC was wrong about scripture. Think about that. It doesnt make any sense. Open up your phone book and see all the denominations. One Protestant book numbers them at 30,000+. This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura and the deformation (reformation).
Fool. The idea of "sola scriptura" is alien to the apostles and the church fathers. The tradition of the church is older than the bible. The bible is part of the Christian (that is: catholic) religion, but not its mere foundation. In fact you cannot even say why you regard the books contained in your bible as authoritative.
What comes out if someone claims to be a "true bible believer" is: thounsands of contradictory protestant sects who all claim to understand the scriptures propperly.
lxnvcts 4 weeks ago
Jehovah's witnesses believe in sola scriptura. Protestants got the Bible from CATHOLICS! Get that into your head.
a2j93 10 months ago
@a2j93 SHOULD ONE BE READY TO CONCEDE THAT THE BIBLE WAS HANDED TO US, IN A SENSE BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT WE MUST BELIEVE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THE BIBLE? IF I MUST REPOSSESS THE NEWSPAPER FROM THE MOUTH OF MY NEIGHBOUR’S DOG, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT I MUST BELIEVE IN MY NEIGHBOUR’S DOG IN ORDER TO ACCEPT WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER?
357archangel 8 months ago
this guy is a moron .........
dhstely 11 months ago
I would like to see the chapter where the 27 books of the New Testament were listed. Otherwise believing that the New Testament is sacred scripture is an extra-biblical belief unto itself since nowhere in those 27 books are those 27 books cited as such. And since the Bible is not a magic book that fell out of the sky, it had an origin, a creation
Then the question remains, who declared these texts as sacred scripture, and by what divine authority did said group or individual have to do so?
FoundationofTruth 1 year ago
Comment removed
FoundationofTruth 1 year ago
So no sola scriptura makes no sense. The truth that you are speaking of is non existent. there is only one truth and the scriture states that it is found in the church.
1 Tim 3:15 - But if i should be delayed you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
For all Christians the TRUTH is here. Who is faithful enough to accept it?
bbgiraffes 1 year ago
@bbgiraffes The word “pillar” in Greek is στύλος and the word “foundation” in Greek is ἑδραίωμα.When you look at the meaning of these two Greek words,you will know that they mean a “support”,“base” or “ground”. It doesn’t say that the church is the truth but only the basis, ground & the support of truth..Not that the authority of the scriptures depends upon that of the church, as the papists pretend, for truth is the pillar and foundation of the church
357archangel 8 months ago
@bbgiraffes The church should hold forth the scripture and the doctrine of Christ, otherwise she is no longer a support of the truth of scriptures. In other words, the church’s responsibility is to uphold the truth of scriptures as the foundation or “support” of truth rather than the source or the truth itself.
357archangel 8 months ago
@bbgiraffes Now when the church ceases to be the pillar and foundation of truth, we may and ought to forsake her; for our regard to truth should be greater than our regard to the church; we are no longer obliged to continue in the church than she continues to be the pillar and foundation of truth. Furthermore, Scriptures stands true even without the church because it doesn't need the church to verify its truthfulness.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. -Jesus-
357archangel 8 months ago
@357archangel To the contrary, Scripture does indeed need a validating authority to verify its truthfulness. Logically, a document cannot authenticate itself. The Scriptures are authenticated by the organization Christ founded, His Church. The canon of the bible was authenticated by that Church circa 400 AD.
From then until the 16th century 73 books were the canon. Then Luther decided by his own authority that 66 books, and his interpretation, alone, are the rule of faith.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean We only have 66 books in our Bible because these books do not contradict themselves..the reason why Luther omitted those books that were canonized by the Catholics was because they don't harmonize with the general teachings taught in these 66 books..
Now we accept traditions provided they are taught by Jesus and in the Scriptures..however so many of these catholic traditions were never taught by Christ and by the Scriptures.
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel "they don't harmonize...": with Luther's private interpretation. They harmonize with Jesus and the Apostles just fine, since they often referred to the Scriptures including them.
Sola Scriptura wouldn't be all bad if it's adherents correctly interpreted. Then they'd see how Jesus did indeed turn bread into His body and empowered His apostles to do likewise. And how the Church He established is a visible organization as well as a spiritual association.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean "they don't harmonize...": with Luther's private interpretation.
So sorry buddy but we interpret God's word with the help of His Holy Spirit. We don't have any problem understanding or interpreting God's word privately.We don't need a pope, priest or a pastor to be able to understand it.
Making images and bowing down to them is never taught by Jesus and his apostles..as well as praying to Mary or calling Mary the Mother of God..these things are not taught by Jesus.
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel "with the help of His Holy Spirit": I believe that is true, for some. Many, if not all, Christians feel they are helped by the Holy Spirit to interpret. But when two believers, each feeling led by the Spirit, have diametrically opposed interpretations, what then? The answer is to compare one's own interpretation with how it has been interpreted historically. Doing so, you will find that the post-apostolic Christians interpreted Scripture as the Catholic Church does today.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean Buddy i don't find two genuine believers led by the same Spirit who have opposed interpretations..such thing don't really exist..true believers of the Lord have one common teachings or doctrines..they may differ in some minor practices but not with the most clear and major doctrines taught in the Scriptures.
I just don't agree with most of Catholic traditions..there are traditions which we accept but not the ones with man-made teachings or doctrines.
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel I agree, those who are genuinely led by the Spirit cannot contradict. But some guy can feel confident he is led by the Spirit yet be wrong about that. That's my point.
You determine someone is a "genuine" believer if they agree with your interpretation. But you can't expect me to believe your private revelation, I'm only required to believe public revelation which ceased when the last Apostle died. They passed it down to us.
Sola Scriptura just leads to interpretational anarchy.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean You determine someone is a "genuine" believer if they agree with your interpretation.
NOPE i didn't say that..a genuine believer is determined by his exemplary life that was changed by the power of God..there is nothing more evident than the LIFE.
357archangel 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean you can't expect me to believe your private revelation..
And what is this private revelation you are talking about? God's truth is already revealed in His word..no need for private revelation..what do you mean?like Joseph Smith declaring he received revelations from God after locking himself inside his room for couple of days without any witnesses?
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel I mean your private revelation in the sense of Spirit-led interpretation.
God does reveal His truth with written Word. But He also established a society to protect and spread that Truth. He did not commission the writing of a book for that purpose. Even looking at Scripture Alone one can see how Jesus built His Church on the foundation of the Apostles. It is that society which authenticates Scripture, that's how we know what Scripture is.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean So who protects and spreads the truth today? And who preserved it?
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel An organization does exist today (and has throughout history) which preserved and propagated God's Word and still does so. It can be identified by it's historical longevity and it's characteristics as Scripture describes it: One, Holy, Universal, Apostolic. You'll find that today's Catholic Church meets these criteria.
Many bad things are alleged against this Church, but most are lies and half-truths. Bad popes notwithstanding, Jesus promised it would last to the end of the Age.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanBerean If I willingly, knowingly commit serious sin and die before repenting of it I will not see heaven. It's in that sense that works (doing good and avoiding bad) are required for salvation.
NO bud, good works is never required for salvation..and since you are not saved by doing good works then you will not be damned by doing bad works..Now, im not saying that it is okay to do bad works..of course Matt. 5:16 is a good encouragement to us.
357archangel 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean Let me ask you something buddy.
Do you believe that God's grace is sufficient? Do you believe that a man is saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and not by good deeds?
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel I was saved by grace through faith in Jesus as the sole source of salvation and grace. Nothing outside myself can change that. I did not, cannot, earn that gift, but I can earn to lose it. I still have free will. If I willingly, knowingly commit serious sin and die before repenting of it I will not see heaven. It's in that sense that works (doing good and avoiding bad) are required for salvation. Justification is a process, and sanctification is also on-going.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean Many bad things are alleged against this Church, but most are lies and half-truths.
I disagree..those were not lies..those were true..not even half truths..i myself can even testify to that..many priests, bishops and nuns are involved in sexual immoralities.
357archangel 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean I was saved by grace through faith in Jesus as the sole source of salvation and grace. I did not, cannot, earn that gift...It's in that sense that works (doing good and avoiding bad) are required for salvation.
This is such a complicated statement my friend..Grace is the unmerited favor of God to undeserving sinners and by saying that you are correct..but works are required for salvation is never taught in scriptures.
NOT BY WORKS LEST ANY ONE SHOULD BOAST (Eph.2:8-9)
357archangel 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean Justification is a process, and sanctification is also on-going.
I respectfully disagree with this..Justification is not a process..it is a declaration by God where He declares a believing and repentant sinner saved by virtue of his faith in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross..
Yes sanctification is a process but justification is not.
357archangel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@357archangel Justification makes us righteous, but as the Bible says, it is also a process: I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13). I can reject the Gift by my own free will.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanBerean In Eph. 2:8 Paul said, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith." Notice that the word saved is in the past tense..Paul did not say "you will be save." In other words, they have been declared righteous or justified by grace through faith.
357archangel 6 months ago
Comment removed
357archangel 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean Sin does not change our status or position in God's family..like when a child commits sin against his father. When a child sins against his father, it will affect his fellowship with him but not his position as a child. You get what i mean? If i disobey my father, i didn't cease to be his son..yes it would affect my fellowship with him but it won't change the fact that I am his son and he is my father.
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel Sin can indeed change your status as God's child. The biological analogy is not applicable to this spiritual issue. Just look at the first man, Adam. He was God's son ("made in His image and likeness"), but his sin caused all humanity to lose sonship by default.
Good works before faith are fruitless but works after faith are beneficial and generally required because without works, faith is fruitless.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean You just stated that salvation is a gift that you cannot earn, right?now may i ask you..Do you have to work for a gift in order to have it?
357archangel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@357archangel Right, we cannot earn salvation. But we can earn to lose it, ie through willful bad behavior.
I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean The biological analogy is not applicable to this spiritual issue..
AND why not?
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel biological analogy doesn't apply, because sinning against a dad is not like sinning against God. The magnitude of offense is in the one offended, and the magnitude of honor is in the one honoring. When we sin against God, the offense is infinite and severs us from relationship and we cannot honor God enough to pay for that. But sinning against a man is finite (since man is finite) so cannot sever the relationship.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean Just look at the first man, Adam. He was God's son ("made in His image and likeness").
I never read in my Bible that Adam was called God's son...yes he was created by God but the Lord Jesus did not die for him the way Jesus did for those who believe and trust on His redemptive work on the cross..You cannot compare Adam's situation before with our situation and standing before God right now.
357archangel 6 months ago
@357archangel Adam was God's son: Luke3:38 "the son of Adam, the son of God."
Adam and Eve needed the savior as do we all. Jesus died for ALL believers of ALL ages. Jesus' sacrifice transcends time and space, Him being God. All the OT faithful had to wait in Sheol (aka Abraham's bosom & Paradise) for Him. After His death, Jesus descended there to let them into Heaven.
Adam was told by God that He would send a savior. That's the first Gospel. His salvation plan was put in action back then.
AmericanBerean 6 months ago
@AmericanBerean Good works is just the result of genuine faith but it is never the means of salvation..Faith justifies us before God while good works only justifies us before men since faith is abstract..you cannot see faith in a person unless he proves it by his actions.
Good works is the result of God's Spirit working in us and through us..and again salvation is a gift to be received and not a reward to be achieved.You see you don't have to work for a gift, it's FREE!
357archangel 6 months ago
In general it only makes sense that the authority of the creator like our God presides over what he has created correct? Just as we have been given our lord he has given us his church which has given us his gospel.
The truth that you speak of is non existent. the holy spirit doesnt lie. Its not confused. Its not revealing pastor bob one thing and pastor billy another. But your video here says that it does. what does the bible say about division? we know that its not acceptable.
bbgiraffes 1 year ago
Also if we are to be guided by scripture alone find in scripture where it states that? If you cant find it then sola scriptura is a self refuting document.
I ask you another question where is the bible from? I know as an adult with much more age under your belt than myself you would understand that substance comes from matter.
correct?
Well this substance (the bible) is from somewhere something had to put it together. can you tell me who did that? It was put together by the early church
bbgiraffes 1 year ago
Hello Sir my name is Ariel Fernandez in hebrew my name means Lion of God. I am Catholic but have always been open to protestants. Been part of many music endeavors with protestant praise and worship bands. Just saying this so as to clear myself of being accused of ignorance or misunderstanding protestants.
Sir you keep speaking of the "Truth" as a protestant where is the truth found? I know of pastors that dont agree with one another. What pastor or whose holy spirit is right?
bbgiraffes 1 year ago
In describing his strategy for arguing with non-believers in Sola Scriptura, he says, ""Now you can't give them Scripture, because they don't believe that Scripture is the true word of God, so you have to go around and come up with another point to give to them." So he admits that he needs something besides Scripture Alone.
opt1jack1usa1 1 year ago
Sola Scriptura plays upon the pride and arrogance of the sinner, as if they are protected from making false judgments on interpreting Holy Scripture. The heretic becomes the sole authority on the Truth, even though he has absolutely NO authority to do so.
Jesus gave that authority to Peter and the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18.
I study the Bible, but I defer to the teaching authority of the Church, as the Apostles did to Christ. I submit my will to her teaching.
THAT.... is faith.
drdst17 1 year ago
Not STOP the HATE....STOP THE STUPIDITY.
Enigmatik691 1 year ago
I don't understand. You believe Sola Scriptura because people say the Bible text is corrupt? Does this mean you will stop believing Sola Scriptura if they said the Bible text is not corrupt? I don't mean to be critical here but your logic and reason seems very flawed. That would be like me saying I believe Tom is right because Cindy said he is wrong. Out of curiosity, have you ever read a book or studied logic and reason because you are presenting an invalid argument.
Buzzz46 1 year ago
The Bible is a Catholic book. It is only on the authority of the Catholic Church that we know what the Bible is. But it was never intended as the sole component of salvation. The world was largely illiterate for the first thousand years so the faithful attended Mass where the scrip tures were brought to life by the teachings of the clergy. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and the authority of the Bible rests on her foundation.
CatholicFaithFacts 1 year ago
@CatholicFaithFacts - The Catholic Church did not write the Bible. They only claim they compiled the sacred writings into one book. There is no evidence this is true, but it doesn't really matter. Why doesn't it matter? Because if we take their word for it, then this means that the Catholic Church contradicts teachings of the Bible which they compiled. There are many verses which prove sola scriptura and that scriptures were written to be easily understood by the common man.
jamezbond78 1 year ago
@jamezbond78
"There are many verses which prove sola scriptura"
Show us just one of those.
"The Catholic Church did not write the Bible."
Since you know who dint cannonize Sacred Scripture, you surely know who did. Tell us who Cannonized the Bible. And since you are "sola scriptura" you need to show us the authority that cannonized the Scripture in the Bible. Book, Chapter and verse of the cannonizer please.
MrJamesthecatholic 11 months ago
Comment removed
CatholicFaithFacts 1 year ago
Comment removed
CatholicFaithFacts 1 year ago
I listened to your video here, but your logic is flawed on one very important point. You say that you believe in sola scriptura because you observe that not following sola scriptura has lead other groups astray. However, that is circular reasoning. How do you know the other groups have gone astray? It think it is because you have already assumed sola scriptura to be true to judge them, then think other groups are wrong, therefore sola scriptura is true. That is not a proof.
emptysilo 1 year ago
This man has no clue as to what he is talking about with regards to the Catholic Church.
sonofmary1 1 year ago
Catholics DO BELIEVE that the scripture is the true word of God. Do not misrepresent the Catholic Church. I believe Christ said something about ravenous wolves in sheep clothing...
anthonywaynepalmer 1 year ago
For crying out loud, Catholics do NOT believe in idol worship. At least take the time to read the Catholic catechism where it clearly states that idol worship is forbidden. Furthermore, Sola Scriptura isn't even biblical in itself.
jmkeller 1 year ago 3
@jmkeller Catholics have idols. I was a catholic, I know. ask me and I will demostrate it.
medusa210562 2 months ago
@medusa210562 --So you were an idoloter when you were Catholic? Shame on you. Im catholic and I have Icons of Jesus, but im smart enough to know they are pictures only and not divine in any way.
GoldenHarvest454 1 month ago
@GoldenHarvest454 Catholics practice Idolatry. Read acts 10:26. I was a catholic. I remember ladys on their knees chanting the names of saints until their knees were bleeding. The fact is the Vatican doesn't care.
medusa210562 1 month ago
@medusa210562 --The Littany of the Saints is not Idolotry, as long as we know saints are not "gods". And the old Testament has Jewish people bowing to other people in respect and honor, so acts 10 26 may have a dif story behind it.
GoldenHarvest454 1 month ago
@GoldenHarvest454 I was a catholic, I know I have seen people on their knees untill their knees were bleeding following the procession of saint. I was plaing the clarinet behind the processions. In south Italy. Read acts 10:26 and rev 22:8 In the old testament people killed people, people feared people. It portrays a reality. In a world where man would not have sinned no one would bow to anyone. young people worship rock stars yet they would never agree to it.don't be naive.
medusa210562 1 month ago
I think its great thing as well because it allows us to put in "our" truth into the scriptures. It like Burger King, we get to have it "our" way. We need not great Doctors of the church to tell us the meaning of Scripture, all I need to do is pick up the book and start reading. Yep, the bible says I can do alot of things that go against God. But hey I am my own interpreter no one else LOL.
evilfreddy2006 2 years ago
Yet, so many people have done that, and look at what we got.. Jehovah witnesses, SDA, baptists, mormons, christian scientists.. all saying that they are right through there personal interpretations of the bible.
RockyBalboa211 2 years ago
God bless what? ......always be clear and bless people in Jesus Christ name....
Sergei91 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChrisJK94 2 years ago
Exactly, the hell with Christ's Church right? Protestantism is reklessly false, heretical and regarded as such amongst the earliest christians as well.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
some Christian sects that operate this way Each person is told to interpret the Bible, the Word of GOD, for himself. Whatever feels right for him is all that matters. It is every man for himself essentially. This policy breeds chaos, infighting, and disunity. Remember what Jesus Christ said, "Every house divided against itself cannot stand." Mt 12:25
polgas733 2 years ago
if you rely on the bible alone...
part2
c. Would you want to believe the interpretation of one man, whose credentials might be questionable, or of the collective interpretation of a group of men with impeccable credentials AND The Holy Spirit?
polgas733 2 years ago
The collective interpretation of a group of men with impeccable credentials AND The Holy Spirit.
ilbill220 2 years ago
if you rely on the bible alone....
PART 1
b. The Bible is not a novel. It is the Word of GOD. If you read it like you would read a novel, you would not
gain much from it except mass confusion. If you gave a million people each a Bible, and asked each to interpret
it, you would get a million different interpretations. Which one would you believe? Which one has the truth? As we have seen, 'Truth is One'. Which person's interpretation is that truthful ONE?
polgas733 2 years ago
part 4
c. In John 20:30, and 21:25, John said, '...and there are MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH JESUS DID, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even THE WORLD ITSELF
COULD NOT CONTAIN THE BOOKS THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN'. This says in very simple terms that there are two areas of GOD'S Holy Word, the Holy Scripture and Tradition.
2. Tradition and Holy Scripture taken together are known as 'The Deposit of Faith'.
polgas733 2 years ago
part 3
b. He spoke to us through His written word, the Holy Scriptures. The New Testament books were not even written until starting around 48 A.D. and ending about 100 A.D., which was many years after Jesus Christ was crucified about 33 A.D.. It was up to the writers of the NT to accurately record many years later, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of Jesus Christ, and base much of their writings
on 'Tradition'.
polgas733 2 years ago
part 2
1. GOD has spoken to us in two ways.
a. When Jesus spoke to His Apostles, He spoke orally. He did not write to them or give them a book to read. The Apostles spoke the words of Jesus Christ to others and their descendants, the Bishops. This is called 'Tradition', with a capitol 'T'. See separate file, 'Scriptra.txt', for more on Tradition.
polgas733 2 years ago
part 1
I. What is Truth? Asked by Pilate in John 18:38.
A. Truth is one. There can be only one truth.
B. 'Truth' is the opposite of 'error'.
C. The definition of 'Truth' is, 'conformable to fact'. It is when the conscience agrees with the intellect.
D. Jesus Christ is GOD, and GOD is truth, Jn 14:6. GOD cannot lie as it is impossible for Him since He IS truth.
When Jesus Christ said something, we know it is true because HE said it.
polgas733 2 years ago
Matt 28:18-20,
Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
polgas733 2 years ago
First, Jesus didn't ask the apostles to write the bible and spread it to the whole world. Second, there are things not written in the bible and the books in the Bible is chosen by the Catholic Church.
As you said, there should be only one church, but Sola Scriptura means that everyone is able to interpret the Bible as they like it. If it happens, who is right?
polgas733 2 years ago
Sola Scriptura why you shouldn't believe it
John 5:39
39You diligently study[a] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
polgas733 2 years ago
This guy makes absolutely no sense!
So if you think it is OK to kill babies in the womb then just find a church that thinks it is OK (BY USING THE BIBLE ALONE) and you will not be judged.
GOD HELP US!
mrjdeneve 2 years ago
This guy should find out what Catholics actually believe. NOT what he thinks they believe! His arrogance might just land him in Hell.
Do you actually think the church doesn't know the bible? They wrote it!
mrjdeneve 2 years ago
My brothers, there are too many references that the RCC is using and some of this dogmas or doctrines already contradicted the source of our faith which is the Word of God(Bible).
I don't understand how they could call their dogmas infallible when some of their former dogmas from the Council of Trent were change during the Vatican I and Vatican II council?
The Bible says:
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
-Mark 13:31
The Bible alone is infallible.
primecrimson 2 years ago
You are actually wrong in saying we "changed" dogmas. They never did in those councils.
VersaillesLaNuit 2 years ago
the eaerth is the proper distance from the sun for life which shows God is merciful to life and is good,therefore a good reason to believe in a good God.Jesus dying in the place of sinners on a cruel cross, and all we have to do is put our faith and trust in Jesus as our God and saviour and turn from our sins, to inherit eternal happiness in paradise,also shows Gods love
bibliosca 2 years ago
(cont) While am not extremely well studied on the subject, I know that the book of Daniel and some of Paul's works indicate that there would come a point of finality, where God had spoken and the Word had been completed. In the Bible we have God's complete, finished Word to man. You don't need another word, or another doctrine. You don't need an infallible prophet or pope to come up with more truth. It's all there.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
(cont.) Sola Scriptura took effect, so to speak. God has already crafted His perfect Word, and inside of it we have all we need. Don't make it more technical than it is.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
Im not saying that the scriptures themselves are not inspired, that is not the issue since we both agree on that. The question is, HOW the church father's determined if they were inspired. You just said the Bible was canonized, as if these church fathers already knew which books belonged in there, when in reality there were many disputes, thats why it took 300 years after christ to finalize the canon. Also, since there are infallible prophesies as you say, aren't you implying that the Church
Mkvine 2 years ago
(cont.) Church fathers were infallible? In either case, the Bible itself did not specify which books, like Luke if it was inspired or not. The fact that it was determined by the Church fathers just proves my point. You say that sola scriptura was a reality after scripture was canonized, how convenient...where does the bible teach that?
Mkvine 2 years ago
If you alter something infallible, you do not become infallible yourself. They were uttering the eternal Word, which already Was and Is and Is to Come. In way it is similar to when I read the Bible aloud. God guided the early church fathers in which books were to be canonized. Even if they had done it entirely of their flesh, they would still have chosen God's Word, because they could not escape God's will. Scripture teaches that it is "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction" etc.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
I disagree with that, but I do want to know where in the bible does it say that "after the NT was canonized" could we use sola scriptura?
Mkvine 2 years ago
Also, how could they speak or read the words of the bible aloud, when most of the books of the NT were not yet written? And the ones that were, were in dispute among the early Christians. This is assuming they already had a text to go off by, when in reality it is not the case. When you say, "they could not escape God's will" you still prove my point that God used the Church fathers to decide on the Canon, an EXTRA-biblical source. I agree God guided them, that just proves my point..
Mkvine 2 years ago
In any case, no matter how you look at it, an Extra-biblical source was used to determine the Canon. If you believe that it is only after the Canon was determined that sola scriptura applies, you need to show me where in the bible it says that. Also, you are implying that the church fathers were infallible.
Mkvine 2 years ago
I never said that an extrabiblical source was not used. The fact of the matter is that today, in our time, The Bible is God's final, finished Word. He speaks to us, but its not the same as a new massive revelation. God's already done that.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
Thank you for proving my point, the bible itself was not used to determine the canon. I agree, that today the Bible is God's final word, thanks to the Church Fathers. But I am still waiting for that scripture verse where it says that after the canon was completed that we could use sola scriptura.
Mkvine 2 years ago 2
Well in a way it was, as books that didnt line up with past books were eliminated. But I know what you mean. If such a verse exists, then I myself do not know it. It is possible if not likely that there is such a verse, however. I believe in Sola Scriptura based on what Paul says to Timothy of Scripture, and Johns warning in Revelation. Scripture is enough, and nothing will be added to it. There is a finality and sufficiency to the Bible.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
The problem with that is that, how did the Church fathers know which books to line up and which not to line up? In order for them to do that, they had to already have a preconceived idea of what God's word was. In fact this is the case, since God's word was originally transmitted by Oral tradition. Also, God could have infallibly led them to that conclusion as well. This just proves the catholic notion of believing in God's word in its written and spoken form, bible and oral tradition.
Mkvine 2 years ago
(cont.) Also in regards to finding a verse that says we must believe in Sola Scriptura after the canon was determined...no such verse exists, so don't waste your time on that, I was just trying to prove my point. I do agree that nothing could be added to scripture as revelations says, however, the bible does not say that scripture alone in sufficient for knowing the truth of God's word.
Mkvine 2 years ago
If you believe that the Bible is not sufficient for knowing the truth of God's Word, then that is a grave issue indeed.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
can you show me where in the bible it says that the bible alone is sufficient?
Mkvine 2 years ago
Exactly! I agree. The Church came WAY before the New Testament. The complete Bible we read today wasn't put together until the late 4th century. The first NT list was put together around 150 years after Jesus died.
The Bible IS a part of the Holy Tradition.
beejaysucka 2 years ago
My brother, remember that the church started FIRST in Jerusalem and NOT in Rome as you read it in the ACTS chapters 1-2. Peter started the ministry together with the other apostles in Israel and not in Rome.
primecrimson 2 years ago
Amennn!
beejaysucka 2 years ago
Here is a question for sola scriptura adherants. ALL christians accept the Gospel of Luke, however, the title "Gospel according to Luke" is not a title given in the original manuscripts, in fact, it was a title given later on. So I ask believers of Sola Scriptura, how do you know that the Gospel of Luke is the Gospel of Luke?? Can you please show me chapter and verse where it says that Luke was written by Luke?
Mkvine 2 years ago
Whether or not the book was written by Luke is rather irrelevant to the book's divinity. Your point does not in any way effectively attack Sola Scriptura. However, I'll answer your question... We know that the author of Acts also wrote a Gospel-like book. Both of these texts can historically be verified as being written by Luke.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
First of all it IS relevant that we know Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke. We know from the early times of Christianity that many books had alleged titles such as Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, etc and that CLAIMED divinity. We also know that some early Church Father's rejected books that are in the canon of the NT, ex. 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon were rejected as inspired by Justin Martyr and Polycarp. But other church fathers accepted books that are NOT in the canon of the NT, ex.
Mkvine 2 years ago
part.2- Epistle of Barnabas and Didache was accepted by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, Shepherd of Hermas was accepted by Iranaeus, Tertullian, Origen. So it was very difficult to decide which books were to be regarding in the NT canon, as there were many disputes among christians. It was decided in 398 AD in carthage which books were to be in the NT. We know Luke was authentic bec of the attestation of the Church fathers.
Mkvine 2 years ago
pt.3- Gospel of Luke does not even claim it is inspired, it does not even say that Luke wrote it. Once again, it was decided and attested by the Church fathers, you YOURSELF said we had to use history to find out about Luke. This is all extra-biblical, so once again I ask you, how do you know Luke wrote Luke, and how do you know it was inspired, give me chapter and verse, sola scriptura is using only the bible, so I would appreciate it if u can quote me using the bible.
Mkvine 2 years ago
Again, I do not believe that it is extremely relevant if it was Luke or not. My God is a sovereign God, and the fact that the Gospel of Luke made it into the Bible attests to its divinity. If the Gospel of Luke is not truly written by God, then the New Testament is corrupted and the Christian God is too weak to protect His own book. I do not need to give you Bible verses, because God has gifted me with a vague sense of logic.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
If it is not relevant who wrote Luke or not, then how do you know it was inspired by God? I agree God is sovereign, and that's why he used holy men such as the church fathers to make Luke into the canon of the NT. In any case, an EXTRA-biblical source was needed to decide whether it was inspired or not, so much for sola scriptura. Do you believe that these men who decided on Luke were infallible? If not, then would you say that their judgement could contain error and what criteria would u use
Mkvine 2 years ago
(cont) what criteria would u use to decide if their judgement on Luke was an infallible one or not?
Mkvine 2 years ago
Sola Scriptura does not mean that I cannot or will not use other methods besides the Bible to ascertain truth, only that the Bible alone IS infallible truth. Because Luke is in the Bible, I trust that it is divinely inspired. I can say that with confidence based on what I know of the character of God as it is revealed in the Bible. If the Gospel of Luke was not infallible, it would not be in the Bible. And that's that. Those who canonized the book were not infallible, but their God was.
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
So in reality you do not believe in sola scriptura, since that doctrine means that the bible alone is the sole infallible authority pertaining religion and doctrine. The canon of the NT was something pertaining religion and doctrine, no one used sola scriptura on that, an extra biblical source was used. God is infallible, I agree. But u said that those men are not infallible, so that means their judgement could contain error, if not then that means God led them to an infallible decision, which
Mkvine 2 years ago
(cont.) which would make them infallible.
Mkvine 2 years ago
Your argument is a straw-man, and you clearly have some misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. In the early church God gave to His Church specific gifts, i.e. prophecy. These gifts were given to assist in the writing of the new testament, as well as other things. These prophecies were indeed infallible, and came out of man's lips. However, the Bible had not yet been finalized. Sola Scriptura was not yet a reality. It was after the Bible was canonized, when the visions were sealed, that
Unw0rthy0fn0te 2 years ago
Also, if the bible is the only infallible truth pertaining religion and doctrine, why would you use something else? Is it better than the word of God?
Mkvine 2 years ago
Think of all the days Catholics remember and celebrate the Lord: Midnight Mass, Ash Wednesday (marking the start of Lent), Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Resurrection Sunday, Ascension Thursday.
WordAmongWords 2 years ago
Catholics have never denied Jesus, the Christ.
WordAmongWords 2 years ago
Comment removed
WordAmongWords 2 years ago
quote where the catholic church believes that the faithful cannot pray directly to God. quote where from an authoritative source that says the catholic church worships mary or the saints.
virumdei 2 years ago
Steve,
I am a Catholic. I believe in the Bible and I believe that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God. Why do you wrongly state that Catholics don't believe in Scripture? However, you don't know Scripture that well. Where in the Bible does it say to believe only in the Bible? If you believe in Scripture alone, then by that logic it should say that in the Bible. I haven't found it, so could you please show me where in the Bible does it say only believe in the Bible (or Scripture)?
projogger 3 years ago 5
"You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have life. I do not accept human praise; moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you."
John 5:39-42
BigDink57 3 years ago
here is a false statement by the poster, the claim that catholics don't believe in the Word of God. Does he know that Catholics gave him the Word of God?
How can we not believe in something that we wrote and defined?
I ask the poster how did the Bible come to be the Bible?
ESEME11 3 years ago 12
Comment removed
357archangel 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ESEME11 How can we not believe in something that we wrote and defined?YOU CATHOLICS WROTE THE BIBLE?..ARE YOU SURE?...THAT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE...NOT ONE CATHOLIC EVER WROTE A BOOK IN THE BIBLE...YOU JUST COMPILED IT...I NEVER THOUGHT THAT CATHOLICS WERE GREEKS AND JEWS WHO SPEAK HEBREW AND GREEK..
357archangel 8 months ago
@ESEME11 SHOULD ONE BE READY TO CONCEDE THAT THE BIBLE WAS HANDED TO US, IN A SENSE BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT WE MUST BELIEVE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THE BIBLE? IF I MUST REPOSSESS THE NEWSPAPER FROM THE MOUTH OF MY NEIGHBOUR’S DOG, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT I MUST BELIEVE IN MY NEIGHBOUR’S DOG IN ORDER TO ACCEPT WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER?
357archangel 8 months ago
@ESEME11 Are you sure that Catholics gave the Word of God to people?I think something is wrong here..Scriptures exist before the catholic church and God's word did not come from catholics..yes catholic compiled the books in the Bible but they are not the source of it..the Word of God came from God Himself.
357archangel 6 months ago
@ESEME11 How can we not believe in something that we wrote..
CORRECTION buddy..you did not write the Word of God..the apostles and godly men in the past did..my goodness..you are saying things you don't know..
357archangel 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
good video.
DerektheDuctTape 3 years ago
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Steve! :)
lovejesusplz 3 years ago
It's impossible for you, sir, to correct people because you have no authority over them. Catholics call the Bible the word of God. You're not being honest when you accuse them. And why do you care what any one else believes any how? And how do you know what any one else believes unless you ask them?
The Scripture calls the catholic church of Rome 'called of God to be saints.'
Adding anti-catholic is adding to the Bible also. There are catholics who read the king James Bible.
Silam81 3 years ago
What he means is he is trying to help them. Im sure that he has asked people of those faiths.We are supposed to care what happens to our brothers and sisters in Christ and try to help them see the way. Scripture also tells us that all who believe in Christ are called saints. Why do you claim anti-catholic?
MrsMcCullough86 3 years ago
Where do you get that belief from.
DerektheDuctTape 3 years ago
DerektheDuctTape, I get that belief from the book of Romans. I get that belief from 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' Also the new testament admonition not to be busybodies in other men's matters(1Peter). Also, whenever I see the word 'churches' in The New testament, I think of Trinitarian believers in Jesus' Deity, which includes Catholic, Baptist, Anglican- i.e. churches that glorify Jesus as The Lord God the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.
Silam81 3 years ago
Hello teethofthelamb - I'm sorry, but you have a misguided view of what Catholics believe. If you would like me to clarify on any of your points, let me know and you can be assured it will be responded to in a matter of charity and love. God bless!
jmkeller 3 years ago
That a pope had a son is not that troubling as people can repent. Or can't they in your church?
imromancatholic 3 years ago
Duet 33
8. And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
This is moses I believe. "holy one".
imromancatholic 3 years ago
Did the Jews have the Holy Spirit in 70 AD? No. They did not. But you are missing some evidence regarding the Jews. The Palestinian Jews did in fact use the Septuagiant and the Septuagint contained the Dueterocanonicals. We know this because the NT uses phrasing that is out of the Septuagaint rather than the Hebrew Scriptures. We also see many refs to the Dueteros in the NT. Go to the scripturecatholic website and click on dueterocanonicals as well as septuigaint.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
"Did the Jews have the Holy Spirit in 70 AD?"
Some of them did and converted to Christianity.
gneisenau321 3 years ago
You get the HS before you convert to Christianity? It is the council of Jamnia that Protestants use to justify their OT canon. That was a council of all Jews who practiced the Jewish faith. Did they have the Holy Spirit?
imromancatholic 3 years ago
"You get the HS before you convert to Christianity?" I never said that. I was talking about the Jewish converts to Christianity. You know the early Christians.
gneisenau321 3 years ago
We can't pray to God directly? We believe in worshipping the saints? We don't believe the scriptures are accurate? Distortion, distortion, distortion. Bearing false witness apprantely doesn't bother this guy. It's in the Bible that you shouldn't do that dude.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
he seems to think that not believing sola scriptura is the cause of all the denominations. That's down right funny. 99+% of all the denominations have their foundation in Sola Scriptura. 99% of all the denominations that conflict with eachother teach sola scriptura. What's wrong with this picture. SS is the most divisive doctrine in Christianity and division is not of God.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
You have a problem with:
Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"),
Sola fide ("by faith alone"),
Sola gratia ("by grace alone"),
Solus Christus ("Christ alone") and
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")?
gneisenau321 3 years ago
Not with sola gratia and sola christus or Sola deo gloria. Not with faith alone if it means a living and active faith that produces good works. Sola Scriptura I have shown is false.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
Whats wrong with Sola Scriptura?
gneisenau321 3 years ago
By what authority do you rebuke me? Self proclaimed it seems to me. There is no authority accept that given by Christ to his apostles, passed down through the bishops and magesterium of the catholic Church.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
"passed down through the bishops and magesterium of the catholic Church." No, if I recalled correctly, Constantine founded Roman Catholicism.
gneisenau321 3 years ago
The claim that constantine founded the CC is a false one and easily shown to be so. The doctrines of the CC were held by the early Church fathers long before him and he added nothing to them. This is a protestant wives tale unless you can back it up with history. Good luck.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
Before Constantine, the Church was never called the "Roman Catholic Church". And there wasn't a Pope.
gneisenau321 3 years ago
As one of many evidences that Constantine did not found the CC, we see clement of Rome, writing in the late first Century, wrote an Encyclical to Corinth, ordering them to reinstate those they had ousted from leadership. Every indication is they complied and this letter is given great regard in other early writings. Now what is interesting is that at this time John was still alinve and in Ephuses, only 200 miles away, yet Clement in Rome, 500 miles away was recognized as having great authority
imromancatholic 3 years ago
We see in the writings of Eusibius in the early third century listings of the first 13 bishops of rome and indication that they had special autority. Irenaus in the 2nd also lists them and give recognition to their authority outside their diocese as do many others. No way did Constantine start the CC. If you study history its silly. Lots more evidence I could give on the Eucharist, Baptismal Regen. Apostolic Succession, etc. etc.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Not the pope, not the pastor.
Men appointing themselves and other men to positions of authority that do not belong to them, is how the RCC wound up engaging in the murder of the inquisitions and the Crusades.
PeteWaldo 3 years ago
That's not all. For example:
In the tenth century, a wealthy Italian noblewoman named Marozia put nine popes into office in eight years. In order to do that, she also had to get rid of reigning popes. Two of them were strangled, one was suffocated, and four disappeared under mysterious circumstances. One of the popes was Marozia's son; he was fathered by a Pope.
PeteWaldo 3 years ago
There were problemms in the papacy. But God does not promise us perfect leaders. Of the scribes and pharasees he said "the scribes and phrasees sit on moses seat. Therefore DO WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU" matt 23. Caiphas the high preist prophesizes by the holy spirit in John 11 and 18. HE HAD JESUS PUT TO DEATH. Don't know where you get your info about the 9th century. Looking at the list in that time frame there was no strech of 9 popes in 8 years. Sorry.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
You are describing some of the darkest appearing hearts in human history as less than perfect?
The inquisitions alone point out the preposterous notion that the popes are any kind of succession from Jesus.
It was the sinful nature of mankind that had Jesus put to death, not an individual.
"In 769, Pope Stephen IV came to power with the help of an army which conquered the previous Pope. Stephen gave orders for his papal rival to be flogged, have his eyes cut out, have his kneecaps broken,...
PeteWaldo 3 years ago
...and be imprisoned until he died. Then Pope Stephen sentenced a second man to die a slow, agonizing death. He had pieces of his body cut off every day until he finally died.
PeteWaldo 3 years ago
God appoints leaders. It is quite clear that Peter was the visible head of the Church. Tons of evidence in the Bible. Clearly you don't understand the inquisition and crusades. Yes popes approved of them being held as government objective. They did not approve of all that went on. Governments have the authority of the sword. See Romans 13.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
Jesus Christ is the head of the church, not Peter not the pope. There is no evidence that Peter is the rock but that Jesus Christ is the rock that the church is built on, not Peter.
Try a YouTube or Yahoo search of the subject.
brotherpete. com/index. php?board=7.0
Marinaism another heresy.
brotherpete. com/index. php?topic=16.0
Misunderstanding that Jesus Christ is the head of the ecclesia is WHAT HAPPENED to the Roman church. From there to understanding the "church" to be a building, etc.
PeteWaldo 3 years ago
How much more divided does Christianity have to become for people to get it. Division is not of God. The root of 99% of all division in Christianity is the so called "Reformation" and the abomniable doctrine that appeals to men's pride in themselves called Sola Scriptura! It's a lie.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
To imromancatholic:
So your saying that Sola Scriptura divides us? How?
gneisenau321 3 years ago
Men becoming their own popes, deciding what is right individually rather than having the Church guide them. Sola scriptura appeals to men's pride. 99% of all denominations started since the reformation of the 1500's which wasn't really a reformation. Individuals broke off and started their own Churches, considering themselves wiser than what had been taught for 1500 years since the time of Christ.
imromancatholic 3 years ago
"Men becoming their own popes, deciding what is right individually rather than having the Church guide them."
Sola Scriptura means having the Bible guide them. A lot of things that the Roman Catholic Church does contradicts the Bible. That's why many people, True Christians and Cults alike couldn't wait to leave it.
gneisenau321 3 years ago
What does the CC do that contradicts scripture? Name one thing. That's kind of funny that you think someone leaving and going to a cult as evidence that the CC was wrong about scripture. Think about that. It doesnt make any sense. Open up your phone book and see all the denominations. One Protestant book numbers them at 30,000+. This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura and the deformation (reformation).
imromancatholic 3 years ago
"What does the CC do that contradicts scripture?" A few things in particular.
1) Why do Catholics ask people who are already dead to pray for them?
2) Catholics believe that Mary can save souls/is a co-redeemer of Christ.(Correct me if I am wrong.)
3) Papacy. Why do Catholics say that the Pope is the "holy father" when God the Father is the one and only HOLY FATHER?
gneisenau321 3 years ago