Featured Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

Christ is the head of the church on earth, too. Another gross error propagated by the RCC.

Bishops in churches are overseers, but never the head of the local church. So the Pope is no more the head of the RCC on earth than I am.

Please come out from this whore. I am begging you.

 

Your first request is reasonable given the subject..

Your second point is self-conflicted as even you admit that the issue of the existence of at least some tradition that is not in outright error is in fact a doctrine found in scripture.

As to your first point - the answer is simple and has been often posted.

Christ demonstrates how church tradition is slammed - "Sola Scriptura" when it is found to be in error.



Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

Neither can history that hasn't been revised by the Catholic Church.
Peter's bones are not in Rome and there isn't much but some scant tradition that can put him there.
Consider this history:

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome. The source of this rumor, written in Italian, was not clear; it left considerable room for doubt or rather wonder. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if such proved encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first hand information on the subject. I therefore went to Rome. After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian. It is called, "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit," printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. I consequently determined to go to Jerusalem to see for myself, if possible, that which appeared to be almost unbelievable, especially since it came from priests, who naturally because of the existing tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the last ones to welcome such a discovery or to bring it to the attention of the world.

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures tell the story. The first shows an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl373.htm

Not only can it be demonstrated that Peter was not in Rome through archaeological evidence, but it can be demonstrated that he was not in Rome through Biblical evidence as well. We can trace the movements of Peter through the Bible and demonstrate that he was not there. Basically the RCC is propagating a lie. They claim that Peter was the first Pope in Peter, when he was never there in the first place! What a hoax! What fraud! This entire religion (as yours) is built on a pack of lies.

 

I have already done this, but clearly you are not satisfied, so I suppose I shall have to address the rest of your post.

• Herbert, you have freely chosen to come onto a Baptist website and present the views of your denomination. I haven't come onto a Roman catholic site. It's no good feeling aggrieved if people press back rather hard against you. And in any case, it won't hurt you to be concise in your arguments.

You have not heard such comments from me. I do not have the authority to make such a call. I do not believe in denominations. I believe that 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.' What I do ask, of the adherents of any denomination, is 'where is your faith?' Is it in Christ alone or are you placing your faith in 'Christ plus'? Is your faith in

• Your denomination?
• Your baptism?
• Your good works?
• The 'mass'?
• The sacraments?
• The virgin Mary?
• Confession to a 'priest'?

If it is in anything other than the Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified, your faith is in a false Gospel. 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 3:11). I don't know the answer to this. You need to answer it in your own heart.

Well it depends whether you want a response or not. I suggest you go and write a book. But if you come on a discussion forum you have a duty to cut the woffle and be concise.

I think you'll find it has, but you don't like the answer.

Well we can agree on one thing: you have changed some of my words, and composed your own straw man by way of a syllogism. I rarely use syllogisms, but if I were to here it would go like this:
1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God.
2. He regularly quoted from the Scriptures, referred others to the Scriptures and denounced 'tradition.'
3. Therefore, the onus is on those who deny that Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians to prove that they are following Christ.
Over to you.

Can you refer me to the Scripture where the Lord Jesus Christ approved some or any 'tradition'?

You are very free with your 'non sequiturs.' As I have said, if you can refer me to the place where our Lord specifically approves certain traditions, you may possibly have a point, but not otherwise. As it stands, your church is deliberately and systematically thumbing its nose at our Lord in persisting in that which He condemned (cf. Ezekiel 8:17).

Again, you're not reading what I wrote, or at least you're not taking any notice of it. The Lord Jesus used Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments.
When the Jews accused Him of blasphemy, He quoted Scripture- John 10:33-34.
When His disciples were accused of Sabbath-breaking, He referred the Pharisees to the Sriptures- Mark 2:24-26, quoting 1 Samuel 21:1-6.
When He was challenged about the resurrection of the dead, He quoted Scripture- Mark 12:26.
When He was accused of mingling with undesirables, He quoted Scripture- Matthew 9:11-13.
When He was accused of ignoring 'tradition,' He quoted Scripture- Matthew 15:2-8.
When He was challenged about divorce, He quoted Scripture- Matthew 19:3-6.
When He cast the merchants out of the Temple, He justified Himself by quoting Scripture- Matthew 21:12-14.
These are just a few examples that come to mind immediately. I'm sure I can find some more very easily if you want. Never, ever did our Lord clinch an argument by referring to an unbiblical tradition.

 

That's your evidence? Ha! Ha! Ha. And you cannot demonstrate through the Scriptures that he was not there either, that is nothing more than another of your fanciful claims. I see, DHK has said it, so it must be true. What a hoax! What a fraud!

But really, let's go to the Scriptures and see what we find.

St. Peter wrote, "The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark." 1Pet 5:13. And what is this "Babylon"? Why Rome of course!

Also consider the following by a man named Fred Zaspel in a blog called "Biblical Studies". In part he wrote: "The third and most probable choice is Rome. Three reasons support this choice. The first is found in 1 Peter 5:13 itself; Peter speaks of his associate, Marcus — no one could ask for a more Roman name. Although this in itself in not necessarily determinative, it does give the impression that Peter is in a Roman area. Next, it is common in ancient Jewish writings to find Rome designated Babylon. This is what John does in Revelation chapter seventeen, and possiblye chapter eighteen. Rome had been the source of great grief to the Jewish people, and the term Babylon was most fitting. The figure was so common to them that it would have been easily understood to be Rome. The last reason for identifying Peter's Babylon with Rome is the overwhelming amount of ancient tradition which states that he died in Rome. Clement of Rome (d A.D. 97) wrote that Peter and Paul were martyred together at Rome. (Lest the critics object that this tradition was begun by the Roman church to bolster their position, notice that this statement came from a man who died probably before the apostle John – long before "Roman Catholicism.") Tertullian, writing about A.D. 200 said the same. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, said the same as well, adding that Peter's grave was in the Vatican "whether or not this is true may be debated, but he could not have been motivated by any "catholic" sentiment, for the Vatican was nothing then). Eusebius cites as his authority Caius, a Roman writer of the early third century, who said that Peter was buried in a shaft grave in Rome".

"The question which rises at this point is whether or not this is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church to justify their own claims. Probably not, for two reasons: 1) The statement of Clement is much too early, and 2) by at least A.D. 170 all Christian burials were in the catacombs, not individual graves. If Caius, or anyone else of his time, had invented the story, he would have said that Peter was buried in the catacombs, for people of his era knew virtually nothing of earlier burial customs. To make the story believable, he (if he had invented it) would undoubtedly have said Peter was in the catacombs. To say that he was in an individual grave, he must have had ample reason".

Now, my copying and pasting should also be considered. God bless!

 

Let's deal with this first. What gives you the right to so easily dismiss the archaeological evidence found that the remains of Peter are in Jerusalem and not in Rome. Peter was never in Rome and you don't have that evidence. Prove it.

 

You have not proved that he wasn't.

My brother, I don't have to prove anything. I am satisfied with what the Church teaches on the matter and that is all that counts. Really, the historical record of there being but one Universal Christian Church that 90% of all Christians were members of is a fact, and this was the reality until the first great schism between the East and West in the 11th century. Sure, there might have been a small Christian sect here or there, but the great preponderance of Christians were of the orthodox faith traditions - they believed in the sacraments and that the Bishop based in Rome was the chief pastor of all.

 

Along with the RCC you no doubt are guilty of idolatry.
Are the relics in Rome those of Peter? Even Pope Francis admits that he doesn't know for sure, and then he says, it really doesn't matter.

Pope Francis on Sunday venerated the purported remains of his first ever predecessor, as the Vatican gave a public display for what some claim are St Peter's remains.

Tens of thousands of worshippers packed St Peter's Square to catch a glimpse of the bronze chest containing eight small fragments of bone.

Pope Francis kissed and prayed before the chest, which is usually kept in the tiny chapel of the papal apartments, before blessing them with incense.

No pope has ever definitively declared the fragments to belong to the Apostle Peter, but Pope Paul VI in 1968 said fragments found in the necropolis under St Peter’s Basilica were “identified in a way that we can consider convincing”. Some archaeologists dispute this.

They were first discovered in a 1940 dig under St Peter’s Basilica in the years following the 1939 death of Pope Pius XI, who had asked to be buried in the grottoes where dozens of popes are buried. When archaeologist Margherita Guarducci discovered graffiti near the excavated tomb reading "Petros eni", which could mean "Peter is here", she requested tests on the fragments.

She found they belonged to a robust man who died aged between 60 and 70 and had been buried in a purple, gold-threaded cloth. That was enough to convince Pope Paul VI to say in 1968 that Peter's bones had been identified "in a convincing manner."

But last week, a top Vatican official, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, said it almost doesn’t matter if archaeologists one day definitively determine that the bones aren’t Peter’s, saying that Christians have prayed at Peter’s tomb for two millennia and will continue to do so, regardless of any findings.

“It’s not as if pilgrims who go to the altar (of Peter’s tomb) think that in that moment in which they profess their faith that below them are the relics of Peter, or of another or another still,” he told reporters. “They go there to profess the faith.”

“No Pope had ever permitted an exhaustive study, partly because a 1,000-year-old curse, attested by secret and apocalyptic documents, threatened anyone who disturbed the peace of Peter’s tomb with the worst possible misfortune,” veteran Vatican correspondent Bruno Bartoloni wrote in his book, The Ears of the Vatican.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-vatican-says-it-doesn-t-matter-8960451.html

Note the surreptitiousness of the RCC. They don't want to examine those bones any way. They are afraid of a curse. But that is what happens when one is unregenerate. Instead of a love of God they have fear.

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.

But the Catholic has fear. The entire religion is based on fear, not love. Telling isn't it.

 

Archaeology has proved it for me, and for you. Article after article demonstrates that he was not in Rome.

Is that all that counts? Really?
And if they tell you that humans live on Pluto will you believe them?
If they tell you that you have children on Jupiter will you believe them?
How far does this blind devotion and gullibility go? Does it go as far as the children in Syria and other Muslim countries who blow themselves up for "Allah's" sake?? Is that your position? One of totally blind faith?

Peter was never a leader of any kind in Rome. There is no evidence and you don't have any. You believe in a fable--one that Rome is giving you, and you gullibly accept it.

 

Why did you bring this subject up in answering my post? I never said a word about St. Peter and whether he was in Rome and suddenly this comes up. And you can make all the allegations you want of idolatry or other things that are routinely said against our faith tradition, they don't faze me in the least as I have heard them all before.

Let's not talk about fear shall we? I have heard many a fire and brimstone preacher and I don't see much love coming from quarters such as that. But once again you are wrong. My faith tradition teaches God's love and mercy, understanding and forgiveness - all through Jesus Christ. "Do unto others....." we are taught and forgive "7 times 70.....". That is what we are all about, not the things you continually and erroneously say we are.

 

For you to ponder about the veneration of relics - straight from the Scriptures of course! The Israelites took Josephs bones when they departed Egypt (Ex. 13:19). The bones of Elisha came in contact with a dead person who then was raised to life (2 Kings 13-21). The same Elisha took the mantle of Elijah and fashioned a miracle with it (2 Kings 2-13). The Christians of Ephesus, by using handkerchiefs and cloths touched to St. Paul's skin, effected the healing of the sick (Acts 19:12).

 

I was answering your post. This post shows that even the Pope is dubious as to the whereabouts of Peter's bones, and says it really doesn't matter.

What have we been discussing; do you forget?
In post #68 I said:
Let's deal with this first. What gives you the right to so easily dismiss the archaeological evidence found that the remains of Peter are in Jerusalem and not in Rome. Peter was never in Rome and you don't have that evidence. Prove it.

Again, in post #69 I said:
You have not proved that he wasn't. (in Rome)

In post #70 I posted
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-vatican-says-it-doesn-t-matter-8960451.html
--The Pope says it really doesn't matter if the bones here are the bones of Peter or not.
It also mentions the fact of the surreptitiousness of the RCC leaders in wanting to find out because of a supposed curse put on the box!
--But in the light of the great importance of Peter being the first Pope ruling from Rome, Francis says it really doesn't matter, and other RCC leaders are behaving superstitiously.

In post #71 I reaffirmed the importance of archaeology, and said you had no evidence that Peter was in Rome.

And now in #72 you finally object to what was said in post #70?!
Why not refute the argument as it relates to the discussion at hand.
Not even the Pope considers those bones important, and the others are too superstitious to find out. But there is a good amount of evidence that Peter's remains are in Jerusalem anyway.

 

Here is the thing, Herbert. The only thing a Christian can rule his/her life by is God's word He left for us, Sola Scriptura. There is no way one can not obey the commands written therein and remain a free citizen. Even the lost know it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery/fornication, &c.

I don't base my life off what sayeth Freud, Dr. Phil, Oprah, Dr. Oz, or any other celeb. The bible...Sola Scriptura...tells me how I am to love my wife, my neighbor, my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, my enemy, children(though the wifey and I can not have them), how to act in times of conflict, to obey civil gov't, &c. Nothing outside of Sola Scriptura teaches anyone these essentials.

 

So you say. You have posted but one scenario of what you believe is the truth about this. This is all speculation from what, 1958? Again, while you asked this specific question I did not bring this up first, you did. I never said a peep about where St. Peter's bones were. But since you believe in archeology, can you answer the following questions?

1. Do you believe the earth is just 5776 years old as the Jewish calendar goes?
2. Do you believe that dinosaurs once roamed this earth?
3. Do you believe that God created this world in exactly 7 days, with each day having but 24 hours as we know them to be?

 

Scripture Alone is Scripture Alone. Its not scripture AND common sense, Its not scripture and intelligence. It is scripture ALONE. SOLA SCRIPTURA. Only the writings can tell me what the writings means.

That means I don't require anyone's input or opinion or interpretation.


James 1

4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.


All I need is patience and I am perfect^

The scripture has spoken "ALONE"

Sola Patience leads to saving perfection.

The minute anyone attempts to tell me otherwise, you are contrary to scripture handling on its own.

 

I believe I can. But here is what is more important. While the Bible is not a book of science it is scientifically accurate. That is true science does not contradict the Bible or vice-versa. Science has always supported what the Bible says. In fact if the principles taught in Lev.17:11 some 1400 + years before Christ was born George Washington wouldn't have died when he did. "The life of the flesh is in the blood," the Bible teaches. They let his "life" (blood) out and he died. IOW, they practiced blood-letting. But the sickness was not carried by the blood; his life was.

Going by the best information that we have I believe that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

Yes I do. I believe they were wiped out by the Flood and the great climactic changes that the earth underwent shortly thereafter.

Absolutely. God created the earth to revolve around the sun, and the moon to revolve around the earth. How else would we get a 24 hour day.
Consider:
1. If the days were longer, much longer, (long days = long nights) then most of the plants would die for a lack of sunshine and the inability to go through the process of photosynthesis.
2. Note this very simple thing in creation:

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
--Flowers, plants, fruit-yielding trees, etc. were all created on the third day.

Now go the sixth day:
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The above plus the creation of man was on the sixth day (vs. 31).
--Every creeping thing refers to the insects. That includes the bees (honey bees. From the third day to the sixth day--3 nights or as some believe--3 thousand years, trees and flowers would not be pollinated. They would all be dead. Much of plant life depends on the bees. Even now we are hearing about that crisis. But three thousand years without bees! Impossible.

Yes, the days were 24 hour days. Common sense tells us that. If you want some more reasons why this is so, I have plenty. But the above should be enough.

To go back to your first objection:
Science backs up the Bible. It does not contradict it. But that is not true with the RCC.
It is obvious that science contradicts the outlandish claims that the RCC makes.
I have just shown you that; demonstrated it. Peter was never in Rome. Do you want some more proof. I will give it to you. It is impossible for Peter to have ever been in Rome. It is a RCC lie perpetuated by the RCC. The entire foundation of the RCC is built on a lie. It is not truth. Only Christ is truth. See John 14:6.
Your religion is built on a lie. That we know.
Peter was not a bishop; not a pope; never in Rome.
Can you prove any of the above to be true?

 

You are making no sense. Where in Scripture does our Lord say that He is supporting any tradition?

Would you kindly translate this into English for me, please? I have absolutely no idea what you're on about
.

But where does this 'Tradition' lie? It lies in the imagination of men. The Church Fathers contradict each other much of the time. Moreover, Paul knew full well that apostasy within the Church would start almost immediately after his departure (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3-4). The ECFs are not to be trusted unless they comply with Scripture, in which case they are pretty much superfluous.

You are being silly here. The Lord Jesus was making Scripture as He spoke. What is Scripture but the word of God written down? Our Lord said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words will by no means pass away' (Matt. 24:35 etc.). Nor have they, for by the will of God they were written down. His 'arguments' are Scripture, for that is where we read them..
]

 

You wrote:

I say it does, and if someone is not seeking to follow the example of His Lord and Saviour, he needs to justify himself as a Christian in a better way than crying 'Ad hominem!'

If they are not found in Scripture, then I agree with you. But if they are found in Scripture, then shame on the Fathers and the Church of Rome for not following them.

Non sequitur seems to be your word of the week. What I've written is nothing of the kind. You may not like my answer, but that is your problem, not mine. We must imitate our Lord's example, and whether you like it or not, it was Sola Scripture as I have explained to you several times.

He has. Scripture is given 'that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.' What extra thing is 'tradition' going to bring us? What good work in addition to 'every' is it going to equip us for? Paul is clearly teaching Sola Scriptura.

There is, as I have pointed out to you. As with the Trinity, it is not spelled out as you seem to want, but it's there.

From the very beginning of the post-apostolic age with the writings of what are known as the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache and Barnabus) there was an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists like Justin Martyr and Atheagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of a verbal or extra-biblical tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation. It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late 2nd Century that the concept of an apostolic tradition, which is handed down in the Church in oral form, is first encountered. The word 'tradition' simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that were given orally were rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written word. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the apostolic tradition that was orally preached in the churches, and it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic tradition that is not found in Scripture. In other words, the apostolic tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing, and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Church's faith.' [William Webster, 'Sola Scriptura and the Early Church']

I think Webster is being much too kind to Irenaeus and Tertullian who write a lot of nonsense at various points, but Irenaeus seems to have Scripture in mind when he writes about 'Tradition.'

Ah! I said earlier that we would come to this sooner or later. I think we shall need to start a new thread on this, but it certainly needs to be tackled.

'To the law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.' That Scripture has been quoted to you time after time. You really should have got the message by now.

No it's not. It's a statement of Scripture.

If the Lord Jesus had recommended some 'godly' traditions to us, you might have a point. But He didn't. He taught sola Scriptura and condemned tradition (Mark 7:5-8) as you know very well.

That's all I can manage tonight. It's way past my bedtime.