Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
So, please tell me where in Scripture it states that all truth is found only in Scripture. Surely that would be in Scripture. Otherwise, your assertion that the Bible is the standard of truth is not a biblical truth.
So, please tell me where in Scripture it states that all truth is found only in Scripture. Surely that would be in Scripture. Otherwise, your assertion that the Bible is the standard of truth is not a biblical truth.
“So, please tell me where in Scripture it states that all truth is found only in Scripture. Surely that would be in Scripture. Otherwise, your assertion that the Bible is the standard of truth is not a biblical truth.”
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Note the words “that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” It doesn’t seem that there is anything outside of the scriptures that we need to make us “more perfect.”
Interesting that the non Catholics constantly post scripture to back up their position and Catholics post dogma from some organization other than scripture. You see, the knowledge base I was speaking of was what scripture says. Catholics cannot back up their beliefs from scripture.
You’re accusing metmom of lying? Seriously? Surely we can agree between us that those types of comments are not necessary rather than hitting the abuse button can't we? If you want civil discourse I would suggest you dispense with accusations like that.
>> I have cited non-Catholic sources to you time and time again and you refuse to do the tiniest amount of research.<<
I would suggest that metmom has done considerably more research of Catholic beliefs than most. She has consistently posted Catholic sources for what she states. Catholics denying what their own church states as a belief is common.
>> Ignoring my posts will not help your cause, it just shows the intellectual dishonesty of protestantism,<<
There you go again.
>> and the inability of homeschoolers to defend a position.<<
You definitely need to do some research yourself on that one. Home schoolers outdo public education in every study. Diss home schoolers if you want but don’t expect anyone who knows better to take you statements with any credibility.
“I would suggest that metmom has done considerably more research of Catholic beliefs than most.”
Suggest away. Her posting history refutes that suggestion. It is very hard to credit her claim of being an apostate Catholic given how very many times over the years real members of the Catholic faith have refuted her errors and false claims about what we believe.
That only states that Scripture is profitable. It does not say that ONLY Scripture is profitable...that ALL truth is found only in the Bible.
I’m not arguing that truth is not found in the Bible.
Show me where it states that we can find Truth ONLY in Scripture.
>>Tell me which bothers you more, that Catholics actually read the Bible or that we understand it better than you?<<
Well then perhaps you could explain who the laws you quoted pertained to?
“That only states that Scripture is profitable.”
Finish the sentence, don’t just stop there without defining what we become “profitable” in. It says it is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly furnished for good works. Isn’t that what we are discussing? I don’t think you’re worried about learning calculus from the scripture.
St. Paul is only affirming Catholic teaching that all that is in Scripture is from God and useful for the formation of doctrine. It does NOT state that all truth is contained in Scripture.
Ironically, it is a reference to the Septuagint, which was the Scripture used in the Greek speaking area of Anatolia where St. Timothy was a bishop. Affirming the verse you did brings further into question the decision of so many followers of the Reformation to reject the much of the content of the Septuagint.
Peace be with you
Anyway, besides that, there are many things wrong with using that particular Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura. One would be that Paul then says in another Scripture passage, 2Thessalonians 2:15:
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Teachings were not always written (ie. Scripture). Teachings were also oral which supports the Oral Sacred Tradition handed down by the Catholic Church.
Sola Scriptura is false.
Of course I do. The Sabbath was for the Jews and will be for always.
>> Celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday?<<
Do you not understand what the New Covenant is?
“St. Paul is only affirming Catholic teaching that all that is in Scripture is from God and useful for the formation of doctrine. It does NOT state that all truth is contained in Scripture.”
The subject is “all scripture,” and he declares it is given by inspiration of God, and is capable of making a man perfect. It does not discuss anything else outside of scripture, nor does it deny that “all scripture” is capable of making a “man perfect.” If it really did fall under the Catholic definition, they would say that “all scripture, and unwritten tradition, and the decisions of the Magisterium, can make a man perfect and thoroughly furnished for good works.”
“Ironically, it is a reference to the Septuagint,”
Ironically, this is simply a Catholic assumption since they do not study the scripture very heavily. It reveals your own misunderstanding. It’s a reference to the epistle, and all the writings of the Apostles, on an equal basis with the Old Testament, since they considered their own writings to be scripture on par with the Prophets of the past.
I’ll ignore the LXX comment, since I think it’s just a distraction on your part. We’ll leave it for another thread.
I do.
Do you celebrate the Lord’s Day?
“Sola Scriptura is false.”
Well, of course. Those who believe in Sola Scriptura are making an IDOL of the Book.
“Wait, so we’re talking about good works?”
I’m talking about Doctrine, Reproof, Correction, Instruction in Righteousness.
“Teachings were not always written (ie. Scripture). Teachings were also oral which supports the Oral Sacred Tradition handed down by the Catholic Church.”
It be illogical for the Apostle who wrote that scripture is sufficient to bring perfection would then leave doctrines which are important for salvation to something like oral tradition.
To prove the point, here is a repost of my analysis earlier of Augustine and others teaching something other than the Roman dogma of transubstantiation. Presumably, the “oral tradition” is that of transubstantiation, even if they didn’t have a nice word to sum up the idea. But, that simply isn’t there.
“Most of the time the Catholics are simply reading back into historical documents their own theology that exists today, even though they didn’t really exist back then. A good example of this is with Augustine.
Here are some Roman Catholic quotations of Augustine allegedly “proving” that Augustine believed in what the RCC holds to today.
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Ser. 227)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Ser. 272)
To the unsuspecting reader, you would think that Augustine really does support your theology. But WAIT, how does Augustine actually define his own views?
“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood. (Augustine, Letters, 98)
He speaks of the Eucharist as being “in a certain manner” the body of Christ, based on its bearing the name of the “reality” they resemble. Thus, when Augustine speaks of the Eucharist being the body of Christ, he means it from the standpoint of what it symbolizes, but not that it is actually a part of Christ’s real physical body placed on the altar. Here’s more:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25.
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11,
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)
These are pretty firm refutations of the Catholic View. They even understand John 6 in the way Protestants do today. Augustine isn’t alone in this. Here’s from a Pope:
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
And another Bishop:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Orth. “” You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord. NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.””The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes.
The idea of a constant tradition on this matter is simply fiction. It stands only by reading into the Fathers the current theology of Rome today, and falsely claiming that all held the same view.”
“Those who believe in Sola Scriptura are making an IDOL of the Book.”
Wow, so if someone actually believes in the scripture, they’re idolaters. Interesting position.
Wow, so if someone actually believes in the scripture, they’re idolaters. Interesting position.
Ha, we don't even bow down to the book and pray to it like they do their pagan statues and we get accused of idolotry...
So you are copy and pasting things from an anti-Catholic site I assume. We’re not going to get anywhere here and we both know it. I’m certainly not going to dissect a wall of text.
Sola Scriptura is heresy. John’s Gospel, another bible verse refuting sola scriptura, states that not everything is written down. Both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have taught that Truth is both written and oral for hundreds of years.
Continue believing only part of the Truth and I will pray that you (and the other protestants here) come to the fullness of the Truth in the Catholic Church. I can not change your minds, only God can.
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.