Posted on 12/05/2014 7:18:21 PM PST by Salvation
Me thinks thou protest too much. How many of these do we need to post a week? The Bible itself supports Sola Scriptura despite the desperate pleas from Catholics otherwise. The same old arguments relived over and over like some Groundhog Day movie.
Would you like to be on the Advent series ping list?
Advent Series Ping!
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
Talk to Jimmy Akin, please.
John, chapter 21
Conclusion. 24It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them,* and we know that his testimony is true.n 25There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.o
3 John, chapter 1
13I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink.h 14Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. 15Peace be with you. The friends greet you; greet the friends* there each by name.i
No thank you.
Wow!! That really doesn’t make much of an argument against Sola Scriptura. If that’s all you have, I’d rethink my position.
The problem Christianity has with catholicism is that once the Bible was established, Catholicism started reading into the Bible things that weren't there. The papacy for instance is one.
There is no uniform agreement amongst the ECFs on the papacy.
There is nothing in the NT that says Peter, Paul and the guys would pass their "authority" down to the next guy. Would there be successors? Sure. No one denies that. You have to have a continuation of leadership. But no where in the NT does it say that only Peter and Paul and James, etc can teach/preach. There were a host of believers that were scattered about when Paul was persecuting the church and somehow they managed to spread the Word.
The other problem with catholic tradition is that it has taken great liberties with the Word. Instead of using context as the key for interpretation, analogy is used. This opens the door for false doctrine as we see in the catholic treatment of Mary labeling her as the new Eve. It also gives rise to the false teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin as the Bible notes Jesus did have brothers and sisters as evident from the context of the text.
There is also an apparent steadfast refusal by most catholics to use the original languages from my observations on this board. The original languages of Hebrew and Greek clear up a lot of the false teachings of any denomination. I know you and I have personally had discussions on the Greek used in Luke noting that Jesus was the first born of Mary. The greek word used by Luke indicates first born...not only born. The greek words used in John 3:16 and other verses cleary describe Jesus as the only Son of God...no other Son. Yet, catholics continue on in their "tradition".
Then we have the pope saying this today regarding Mary:
. Mary is thus the icon of the Church who, eagerly awaiting her Lord, progresses day after day in her understanding of the faith, thanks also to the patient work of men and women theologians. May Our Lady, the teacher of true theology, obtain for us, by her maternal prayer, that our charity “may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment”
Yet this stands in contradiction to the Word regarding the role of the Holy Spirit.
John 16:13
13“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14“He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you."
We also have the declaration from catholicism that Mary was born sinless and remained sinless in direct contradiction of Romans 3:23. Paul did not note Mary being the exception. He does note that Jesus was sinless though.
And yet, when this is pointed out to catholics, all they can do is scream, "its your own interpretation." No it's not. It's the Word. It's clear.
Those are some of the problems Christianity has with catholicism.
The article tells when the deuterocanonical were adopted. Did you read it?
24It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them,* and we know that his testimony is true. 25There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
THIS IS NOT TRADITION!!!!! It's the catholic carte blanche card!! The Bible can now mean anything we want because Jesus could. might possibly, maybe, we think, have said it!
John is noting that Jesus did other things not recorded in the Bible. That's not a big duh I don't think.
this is a perfect example of catholics taking Scripture out of context to make it mean what they want it to mean.
Thanks for your reply. And prayers for you and your family.
Good read, however, I think I will stick with Scripture. Works for me.
OK, tell me how Paul knew that 500 people saw Christ after his resurrection. He wasn’t there. It’s not in any Gospel. So how did Paul know?
Face to face communication, of course. Holy Tradition is what it is called.
deuterocanonicals
I did.
They left this out.
367 AD. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria was the first to list all 27 books of the NT to be read in a church service.
And at the Council of Trent in 1546, in a hissy fit, the catholic church, ignoring all of this, included the apocrypha as "canon" in spite of Jerome not according them the same status as the OT.
Two words....Holy Spirit.
Through people speaking to one another face to face — Holy Tradition.
Why don’t Protestants in general accept this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.