Ok,

I've read the entire New Testament and no where did I see the words "Scripture Alone"

Can a Protestant please tell me where that is in the Bible?

sure, as soon as you give me the criteria for peter's sucessors as pope...who they are to be, and how they are to be selected.


rhetorical for rhetorical

Ah, but that's your problem. You think everything has to be in the scriputres. We don't. So, if I say to you that it is part of Apostolic Tradition that the method for determining the successors of Peter is defined, and that this part of the Tradition handed down by Word and Letter (2 Thess 2:15) then you have to show me that the constant Tradition of the Church for 2000 years is wrong. And I would merely point out that this method was never in dispute by the church for 1400 years.

However, if you believe that Scripture Alone is the valid way to understand what Christ taught, then you have to show, based on your scriputre alone theory, where the scripture says this.

But nonetheless, you have to concede that the Apostles (with Peter's leadership notice) decided on a method to replace Judas. So there is a scriptural basis for the Apostles selecting the successor of another apostle. And I think we can safely assume that they might have developed another method later, like coming together and deciding who would succeed Peter when he died . . . in fact, we known in Tradition that this is the case. That a successor to peter was in fact selected. And a successor to his successor and a successor to his succesor . . . all the way down the line . . . Imagine that!

Blaze, you read my mind.
Now if only I could make my prot. friends understand that they believe in SCRIPTURE ALONE.

A most excellent post, BLAZEr.
All of the books in the world could not possibly contain all that Christ instructed His apostles.
And that's in the Bible!

Pax Christi. <><

here we go again with more side stepping from our prot friends, notice how the question was never answered but rather avoided?

Keep this up you'll be doin the electric slide around our questions.

Excellent post BLAZEr, too bad it probably wont be answered


CatholicAndFanatical

You can't see it -- it's electric -- boogie woogie woogie
You gotta feel it -- it's electric -- boogie woogie woogie
Ooh, it's shocking -- it's electric -- boogie woogie woogie

thats good Dave


its sad I was actually getting into it then all of a sudden

*RIIP*

pants rip'd..DOH!

Something Benny Hinn would say.

All you had to do was perform a simple internet search. Check this out: http://www.cbcisite.com/electionofapope.html

As for Sola Scriptura:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Paul tells us to preserve the traditions of the Church.

"I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
1 Corinthians 11:2
Paul praises the Corinthians for holding on to the tradition he passed to them.

"And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that,in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now atwork in you who believe."
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Paul tells the Thessalonians that the word of God is preserved through tradition.

"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."
Matthew 28:19-20
In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus tells the Apostles to preach to all people. He tells them to teach the people what he taught them.

I'm not surprised,
no not one bit
That a not a single Protestant has seen it fit
To respond and reconcile the problem that was posed.
I guess another door to Truth was quickly closed.

i think this has to be the shortest thread on sola scriptura in a long time...

ya know i have the patrick madrid 2 cassette tape on his public debate against Protestant James White on the subject Sola Scripture.

James White is a protestant is very anti-catholic. his sister, who was just like him converted to Catholicism!! Praise God!! (read about her in "Surprised by Truth "Part 3)

funny...patrick madrid asked him the exact same thing and that guy did not have the answer.

patrick madrid bought down the house with the truth of catholicism.

its awesome, you got to get it.

B)

i think the protestants are quiet cus they are scared. I mean BLAZEr not many people are as brave as you to go onto another religions websited and argue that ur religion is the right one. I know u would do it tho BLAZEr :P But see I know that ours is the one true religion and if i was in a protastants shoes i would be intimidate to speak up on her because i would imedialy be shot down becuase Catholocism is the true religion. I hope what im typing makes sence. if not, ignore this message

JP2 WE <3 U!

~Fx

It makes sense, just a lot of spelling errors.

Bumpp

Blaze, I hate to tell you but "faith alone" is in the Bible...
James 2:24
You must perceive that a person is justified by his works and not by FAITH ALONE.
GOD BLESS

??????????????where did that Come From???????????
Faith alone is in there but the verse is saying you must have works, whats that got to do with sola scriptura-bible alone?

John 8:31-32
31 ..."If you abide in My word, you are My disciples inDouche...
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Hebrews 4:12
12 ... the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Col 3:16-17
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
17 And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.

Also if Jesus is the Word, and Jesus is your role moded, your God and your saviour. How can Sola Scriptura be proven wrong?

Those verses do nothing for Sola Scriptura. They simply prove that the Word of God is, in fact, the Word of God, and powerful.

Catholics agree.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidelity to do not clash against biblical teaching as they form a Kingdom Culture...

Wasn't Augustine a firm believer in Sola Fidelity (100% Faith) and also a teacher of Sola Scriptura?

oops! double posted!

No. Definitely, emphatically no.

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is one of several myths that sprang full blown from the mind and pen of Martin Luther in the 16th century. (Sola Fide and OSAS are among the others, but those are separate subjects.)

History puts the lie to Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old when she canonized and formed the Bible. The Bible as we know it did not exist before then. The early Christians did not learn their Faith from a book, but from the dynamic teaching Church founded by Christ which, at the close of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth, collected and canonized 73 writings (out of about 200) and put them together in a single volume and called it "ta Biblia" (the books). But most Protestants are disconnected from the history of the Bible and the history of the Catholic Church and early Christianity. I know. I used to be one. I thought the Bible fell out of heaven in the leather bound, red-letter edition :^).

When a Catholic and a Protestant say "Bible," they're talking about different books.

A Protestant's Bible consists of only 66 writings ('books') -- the ones which Martin Luther accepted. A Catholic's Bible has 73 books -- the ones canonized by the Catholic bishops when they originally formed the Bible (St. Augustine was among them!). Martin Luther threw part of the OT on the trash heap because those writings conflicted with the novel doctrines of his so-called Reformation. He taught a new Gospel -- contrary to the admonitions of Scripture. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!" Galatians 1:8 RSV. Well it wasn't an angel, but the opposite that preached a different gospel -- and his name was Martin Luther.

Protestants have Luther to thank for their incomplete Bible. Pray for his poor soul. He's probably going to be in Purgatory until the end of time, with a millstone hung around his neck (Mt 18:6, Mk 9:42, Lk 17:2). The Catholic Church didn't say this, I did!

Likos
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

that sux man, you had good post going there till you said that. Totally unnecessary! Your prayer attempt was more of a joke then anything, how can you wish that one someone. It's dam straight ludicrous.

I found this:
CHAP. 3.--OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES COMPOSED BY THE DIVINE SPIRIT.

This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. For if we attain the knowledge of present objects by the testimony of our own senses,(3) whether internal or external, then, regarding objects remote from our own senses, we need others to bring their testimony, since we cannot know them by our own, and we credit the persons to whom the objects have been or are sensibly present. Accordingly, as in the case of visible objects which we have not seen, we trust those who have, (and likewise with all sensible objects,) so in the case of things which are perceived 4 by the mind and spirit, i.e., which are remote from our own interior sense, it behoves us to trust those who have seen them set in that incorporeal light, or abidingly contemplate them.



hope you understand
it I got the general drift
its writings from St Augustine....

Augustine also accepted all the writings of the Church FAthers as Sacred Tradition with equal authority to the Bible.

Do you?

:angry: :ph34r:
I need an icon that shows I want to bury my head in the sand.

sola scriptura is not biblical

No post that begins with "sux" has much to offer.
I've said it before, and will repeat that "sux" is a vulgarity which doesn't belong on this phorum, much less coming out of the mouth and heart of any Christian. ok?
The best any charitable, intelligent Catholic can hope for Luther is Purgatory; the place where he is assured entry into heaven once his sins are purged.
The alternative would be hell.
Doubtful that he received direct entry into heaven, but one never knows!


Trooper,
Here is a little history lesson for you:

Augustine was the Catholic Bishop of Hippo.
He was ordained a priest in 391 and consecrated bishop of Hippo in 396.

The canons of Scripture to which he was referring were the 73 books known as the Catholic Bible.

The Canon of Scripture was settled by a local Council in Rome (382), then reaffirmed at councils in Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). The Canon was also reaffirmed by Pope Innocent I in 405 in a correspondence with the Bishop of Toulouse.

This same canon was again (implicitly) affirmed at the Second Council of Nicaea (787)which approved the decrees of the second Council of Carthage (419).

Luther declared several of these books "apocrypha" or "uninspired" some 1200 years later, after 1500 years of Christians believed the Truths they contain.



I doubt that you need to worry about Likos misunderstanding history, or Augustine.
And I doubt that you got Augustine's drift. Seems you missed his message entirely.

I think the thing to take Note of here Trooper is that Augustine is pointing out that IN ADDITION to the Apostolic teaching that was being done by himself and the other Bishops and priests, that the Church had the Scriptures as an authoritative way to understand Christ's teachings. The Bible is the Word of God, as you say in your other posts. We believe this. However, we also Believe that the Tradition is the Word of God as well. That the WORD being Christ, is authoritatively revealed by the Tradition and the Scriptures.

That's where the skinny's at. The intention of this post was to get to the heart of a logical inconsistency: Protestants believe that the Scriptures ALONE (Sola Scriptura) are the way to understand what Christ taught. If you believe this, then you have to show how this is a Scriptural Teaching . . . otherwise you are basing your understanding on a human tradition, not a Tradition handed down by the Apostles in their Teaching or Writings (Apostolic Tradition and Scripture)

If that wasn't sarcastic that made no sense.

I'll assume it was sarcastic.

I believe it was sarcastic.

He was confused, thats why he is playing ostrich with his head in the sand.

You can come up now legion

So, what's your point?

James 2:24 is "See how a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone."

I wish you would start putting the entire verses down instead of trying to "put enough" to prove your point. Ive noticed that on several of your post.

Dont forget the church of England also changing it. Lets all remember the King James Bible.

Once one man began tampering with Sacred Scriptures, why not others?

The Catholic Bible, however, has remained the same since the day of St. Jerome. Augustine was a follower of Jerome. The Church safeguards the Sacred Scriptures, Traditions, and writings of the Early Church Fathers.

St. Jerome's work was wonderful. As you can see by my quote Im a fan. He was my saint at conformation.

i have never done it on another post, why does this bother you?

Little Flower, where did you get the Patrick Madrid vs. James White Sola Scriptura tapes? I gotta have 'em.

Patty Bonds, James White's sister that you wrote about, lives in my city , and so does he :angry:. I've heard her speak and used to be on a discussion list with her. Her conversion story is amazing (available at chnetwork.org for anyone who does not have Surprised by Truth 3). She's completely awesome. Ditto her family (husband and two daughters are also Catholic now -- two daughters down, one to go, she says).

James White is a professional anti-Catholic who makes his living beating on the Church. His sister's conversion to the Truth was a monumental happening, because she was just as anti-Catholic as he is! Please pray for the conversion of the enemies of the Church!

Ave Cor Mariae, Katholikos

Just wanted to drag this one out of the closet . . . because still NO ONE has been able to show that SCRIPTURE ALONE is a Biblically based teaching . . .


Anyone, anyone . . . throw me a bone here people? Don't let the most fundamental tenet of your Faith get passed by . . .


Where in the Bible does it say "scripture alone" is the authoritative Word of God?

I think it'd be best if we as a group visited a non-Catholic forum. To debate the whole sola scriptura issue.

Queen Flowery?
The tape?


A defense of Sola Scriptura...is there such a thing?
It appears not.....



Pax Christi. <><

YES.

www.christianguitar.org/forums

First off, I'd like to point out a couple of Scriptures that supposedly prove Sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:10-12

In Berea

10As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Many Protestants exegete the highlighted passage to mean that Scripture Alone is our infallible rule of faith, since the first century Jews thought that the teaching of the apostles was to be judged against the Scriptures - hence, Scripture is an infallible rule of faith.

I have given the defence, in past, that these are 1st Century Jews we're talking about, so naturally they would look to the Scriptures if this man were preaching that the Messiah had come, as they would have wanted to know if Paul was "the real shabang".

However, the counter-argument I've recieved is that the Jews considered Scripture alone authoritative here, therefore Scripture Alone is authoritative elsewhere.

Next, we turn to 2 Tim 3:10-17

10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings--what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Tim 3:16 (Gk) "16Pasa graphe theopneustos kai opsielimos pros didaskalian, pros elegchon, pros epanorthosin, pros paideian ten en dikaiosune,17 ina artios ho tou Theou anthropos, pros pan ergon agathon exertismenos.

I draw your attention to the word "artios" in v. 16.

Artios, according to Strongs concordance, means

1) fitted

2) complete, perfect

a) having reference apparently to "special aptitude for given uses"

If the man of God, therefore, is complete (artios) or perfect by the Scriptures for EVERY ("pan", in Greek, can mean either "all" or "every") good work (ergon agathon), then Scripture is our infallible rule of faith - or so a Protestant would argue (and so I have heard our good buddy mustbenothing argue!)

Any thoughts?

First of all, what Scriptures were the Bereans referring to? The New Testament? The Gospels? NO! They were looking at the Old Testament. The Jewish scriputres. If anything this just goes to show that the New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old.


Second

Here again, St. Paul is referring to the Old Testametn Scriptures. However it is important to point out what I highlighted above. It seems that St. Paul is here referring to the Teaching authority of the Apostles and their assistants . . . those whom they "learned" it from.

hmm so the Scriptures are "infallible rule of faith"

what is included in "scriptures"?

so it perfectly completes man... but it can be transformed from one kind of document to another depending on interpretation. if someone interprets scripture one way, the scripture is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the same scripture if it is interpretted another way.

therefore, the Scripture is the infallible rule of faith when interpretted correctly

it completes the man of God when interpretted correctly


does this make sense? i'm sure someone else can provide a better explanation than I.

Since Protestants cannot show us the "inspired table of contents" for their "scriptures," their claim of Sola Scriptura is futile. They cannot demonstrate what Scripture is (the inspired Word of God), or what is Scripture (the "inspired" list from God telling us which writings belong in the Bible). The Bible, which is a collection of writings made at different times by different writers for different reasons, cannot authenticate itself. No book can. An inanimate object requires a human agency to speak for it. The Catholic Church wrote the NT and formed the Bible -- she alone can vouch for it.

St. Paul is writing only to an individual -- Timothy. Acts, written by St. Luke -- a history of the nascent Catholic Church -- speaks of the writings available to the Bereans. Acts also was written to an individual. In both cases, Sts. Paul and Luke were referring to their own Scriptures -- the Greek Septuagint -- which Protestants reject. Neither Tim nor Acts nor any other biblical passage refers to the entire collection of Scriptures as we know them -- the Bible collected, canonized, and formed by the nearly 400-year-old Catholic Church.

With St. Augustine, I affirm: "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Letter to Mani)

Ave Cor Mariae.

Right on, Al. You said it well.

A comment on your first point: "Bible" means an entirely different book to a Catholic and a Protestant. The Protestant believes that when Martin Luther said "those writings are not scripture" and desecrated the Bible, he was speaking for God -- although the books he discarded had been part of the Bible for 16 centuries.

A comment on your second point: The only valid interpretation is the one the sacred writers intended to convey. The only way to know what they intended to convey is to examine the teachings of the early Church, who was teaching what the Apostles taught while some of them were still living. The early Church was the Catholic Church, and one can examine the teachings that are taught today and learn that they are the same as the Apostles taught. John Henry Newman found that out through a careful study of history, wrote his masterpiece, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," and became a Catholic. (He was formerly an Anglican clergyman.)

And: The Church considered around 200 writings and chose 27 for the New Testament. Among the criteria for the canon was that the writings had to conform to the teaching of the Church! So those who interpret the scriptures any other way (which is every Protestant) are WRONG.

It is not Scripture Alone. There was no Bible as we know it until the beginning of the fifth century. Revelation is found in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament, which contains part of what she learned from the Apostles. The whole truth and nothing but the truth is contained in the teachings of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ for the salvation of the world.

Ave Cor Mariae.