Female RC Priests

Nine women challenge Roman Catholic Church ban on female priests
at 21:10 on July 25, 2005, EST.

Read more at:
Natonal News
DHK

 

I agree with the Catholic Church to stand firm against the ordination of women for Scriptural reasons.
However I disagree with the celibacy of priests as Peter himself was married. The Bible speaks specifically of his mother-in-law.

Your commparison with the Protestants' faith changing while the "Catholic faith has remained consisstent over 2,000 years is bogus and ludicrous. The fact is that Catholic doctrine is in a continual change or flux. While the Baptists have held to the same doctrine since the time of Christ. Their doctrine is the Bible. The Bible is only rule of faith and order. That is why we believe the same as the early believers did.

The assumption of Mary wasn't even declared a doctrine of the church until 1950. It took the Catholic church almost 2,000 years to decide that this heresy should become a part of their doctrine. And now there is a movement within the Catholic Church to try and make Mary a part of the trinity (however that would work??). Catholic Church doctrine changes more often than the colors of a chameleon.
DHK

 

ASSUMPTION OF MARY

And new doctrine changes and has been added throughout the centuries. This is but one example.
DHK

 

purgatory,
lent,
indulgences,
the assumption of Mary,
the perpetual virginity of Mary,
the immaculate conception,
confession to a priest,
celibacy,
the very office of a pope,
transubstantiation,
infant baptism,
baptismal regeneration,
penance,
praying to the dead,
canonization of "saints"
kissing the pope's ring,
etc., etc.,

All of these "damnable heresies" as the Bible calls them (2Pet.2:1), are man-made inventions of the Catholic Church at different periods in the history of the Catholic Church. Not one of them is supportable by Scripture. Every last one of them is totally unscriptural. It shows how the Bible remains unchanged, but the RCC changes constantly. It also shows how those who believe in SS have the same doctrines today as they did in the days of the early believers, and yes it is a Biblical doctrine in spite of your assertion that it isn't. The only reason you say it isn't is because it is one of the most hated doctrines of the RCC. It devastates their doctrines.
DHK

 

BAC,
There are many threads on SS, most of which have demonstrated that Sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine beyond any shadow of a doubt. All you can do is deny it.

But to go through it again:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--What did the Bereans do? Using the principle of SS, they searched the Scriptures to verify the message that Paul was preaching.

Acts 8:34-35 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Philip, using only the Sciptures (SS), preached Jesus to the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Acts 2:14-16 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
--Read Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost. What he says is based solely on the Scripture (SS). He quotes from the Psalms and the Prophets. He shows from the Old Testament that what is happening on that day is prophesied fulfilled. His message is verified from the Old Testament. It is Sola Scriptura.

The Apostles commanded all believers to use sola scriptura to study the Bible, and not anything else but sola scriptura:

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Be mindful of the words of the prophets.
--Be mindful of the commandments of the Apostles and of the Lord.
There were three sources of inspired Scripture that Peter says were authoritative: the prophets (O.T., the Lord--Gospels, the Apostles--rest of NT). Peter says to mindful of the words of the Lord and the Apostles (the N.T. Scriptures), for they are just as important as the O.T. Scriptures which the Jews regarded so highly.
Either way, the Scriptures, both Old and New were to be the believer's guide book, his authority, his sole rule of faith and order. Thus sola scriptura. The hatred of the RCC against this doctrine used by the believers in the New Testament and early believers is obvious. Using sola scriptura we devastate the unscriptural doctrines of the RCC. The doctrines of the RCC cannot be found in Scripture. Thus SS is so hated by the RCC. When the challenge of: demonstrate it through Scripture comes to the Catholic Church, they can't. They have to rely on "Tradition." Thus SS is hated. The evangelical demands that God's Word be the only authority, not Tradition or any other authority. God alone is our authority, and he has set down his words in a Book that we call the Bible.
DHK

 

Thank you for proving my case. Everyone of the above quoted verses support SS. They don't work against, but for it. Your understanding of them is greatly misconstrued. Let's go through them, for your sake.

Then what did you read when you read my post, or did you even read it. Every thing I posted demonstrated that SS is a Biblical doctrine, and totally refutes a teaching authority such as the Magesterium or Tradition. There is nothing in the Scripture that is taught to rely on but the Scripture itself. Let me reiterate this again:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This is the premise of SS. If what you say is not according to the Word of God, then it is the very proof that that you do not have the light of God in you but remain in spiritual darkness.

Now for the Scripture that you provided:
1. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
--First let us define "tradition according to RCC theology. I read this definition in a Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The unwritten precepts and doctrines, or any one of them, held to have been received from Jesus and his apostles and handed down orally since then from generation throughout the centuries."

Now in the light of this accepted definition by the RCC, I ask you: What tradition?? Christ died 29 A.D. The epistle to the Thessalonians was written in 53 A.D., one of his earlier epistles. Now I ask you: How much "tradition" was able to be gathered in the 24 intervening years between the death of Christ and the writing of this letter. I'll answer it for you. None! Your very definition defines tradition as those precepts which are passed on from generation to generation throughout the centuries. How many centuries had passed? How many generations had passed? Your definition of traditin contradits the definition of this verse. Your definition of tradition does not fit the context of this verse. What does it mean then?
"Tradition" as defined by Paul, simply means the truth of the Word of God, as taught by Paul, whether orally or written. Paul taught the Word of God. That is all that he taught them--SS. He expounded to him the Scriptures, even as Ezra the Scribe did in the Old Testament. The tradition is the truth that he taught, and nothing more. It is truth, not tradition passed on from generation to generation to generation. That obviously doesn't fit the context.

2. "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
--The meaning: "Maintain the 'truth of the Word of God' even as I have delivered them to you." What did Paul deliver unto them--the Word of God. What did he teach them? The Word of God. These were the so-called traditions, and that which he taught them. There were no other traditions that expired in simply 24 years.

3. 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--Of course your translation is not the best one here. The word "ordinance" as used in the KJV is more of a command. In the first part of the 11th chapter he is referring to the command of wearing headcoverings, and in the second part of the 11th chapter he refers to commands relating to the Lord's Supper. Ordinances are commands; laws to keep.

4. "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).
--Follow the pattern of sound words is obviously follow the Word of God, and nothing else. It is SS, and nothing else. Guard the truth. Guard the Word of God. Again more SS.

5. "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).
--The interpretaion of Scripture comes from God, not from men. No organization has a monopoly on the Word of God, including the Catholci Church. That is the meaning of this verse. This passage the RCC continues to flaunt and carelessly disobey. It advocates SS. It puts personal responsibility upon every person to study the Scripture on their own--that is SS, and come to their own conclusions. Why? Because no organization can have a monopoly on Scripture--that is no Scripture if of private interpretation. Every believer is illumined of God, as they are led by the Spirit of God, not the Magesterium. What you espouse here is just pure heresy.

6. "‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12)
--This was a desire by the Apostle John. But he did use paper and ink that did become the Word of God. Whether his desire was ever fulfilled we don't know, and it is not important to us. What is important to us, is what he wrote, what became Scripture--what became the infallible Word of God. It is that Scripture from which we take our doctrine, SS, a doctrine that rings true througout every book of the Bible. It cannot be avoided.
DHK

 

You still don't understand the sense in which the word "tradition" is used here, do you? It is used in the sense of truth. Paul was explaining to him the truth of the Word of God, which in turm did become the Word of God in written form. Paul, himself, used SS with Timothy. This was ont age-old tradition that was being passed down. There was none, and it is ludicrous to think there was. What tradition could be gathered in a period of just 24 years? Your not making sense. Look at all the examples I have given you. The appeal was to Scripture every single time. There was no appeal to any other authority but Scripture. Scripture remained supreme in every case. SS was the only way of interpreting the Word of God. There was no tradition to follow. The Catholic Church invented tradtion for their heretical doctrines which cannot be substantiated through Scripture.
DHK

 

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--The Jews had to appeal to the Scriptures at all times for their authority. The only time they did not was in the intertestamental period with the rise of the Pharisees and Saducees who then began to refer to the Talmud, which Jesus condemned in Matthew 23, and in other passages.

Ezra, a ready scribe in the hand of God, preached from the Word of God, and expounded it to the people so that they could understand it. The Word of God was the basis of his teaching. It was his only authority. He had no other authority but God's Word. It was that Word that he caused the people to understand.

The mark of a prophet (whether he was true or false), was whether he spoke accroding to the Word of God. If he spoke contrary to the Word of God, he was a false prophet. The authority in all cases was the Word of God. All of the above are examples of SS, and it carried on right into the New Testament.

After Jesus rose from the dead what did he do on the road to Emmaus? He went through all the Scriptures explaining to them all things concerning himself. He opened their eyes using the Sciptures only--SS. This is the method that Christ used.

Every where in Scripture SS is used; there is no other method that was used.
DHK