Rcc has to make traditions equal to scripture, as that is only way their doctrines can be verified!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
. . . Sola Scriptura . . . .
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
37818
Well-Known Member
Nothing is verified without some kind of evidence. An oral tradition only goes back as far as evidenced. How is that evidence evidenced? An earlier written record? And said oral tradition is the word of God based on what?
I see none of the RCs here have tried to answer my queries. I doubt if they can.
That's cuz "oral tradition" is man-made.
All you did is show scripture is right. We agree its scripture is right and true. Nothing there says SCRIPTURE/WRITINGS is the Final and ONLY authority.
Scripture does not teach that false doctrine.
"Speaking of Scriptural support, can you RCs show us any for the office of pope, cardinal, or archbishop? Celibacy for clergy ? Perpetual virginity for Mary when she had at least 6 other children after Jesus ? Lent ? Creation of saints by other men ? Rosary repetition & prayer beads ? On & on she goes !"
Yes, we can. Start a new thread and challenge unless you are AFRAID.
The first thing you need to do is deny the scripture that states the church can BIND AND LOOSE and DENY the Church can FORGIVE AND RETAIN SINS.
Because if you DON'T. The Church can effectively declare ALL YOUR SINS FORGIVEN if you eat a DONUT on TUESDAY.
It calls the SHOTS because Jesus says it calls the shots.
Oh we can steamroll over any of your challenges. Start a thread.
This thread is how about how folks lied about the bible teaching sola scriptura.
Jesus asserted it, all of the Prophets and Apostles did, were they all wrong?
You haven't shown one verse that states scripture is the final and only authority.
If we practiced Sola Scriptura we would be Judaisers today. There would have been no grounds for Acts 15 to happen.
24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Verse 25:
25Then Baptist Bob stood up and said it doesn't matter what you say, it says here in the scriptures ye must be circumcised and keep the Law.
Never happened.
You show that you misunderstand or misrepresent and distort the sound view of those whom you try to smear.
It is not claimed that the Scriptures are the only authority so you try to invent and attack a bogus straw man.
The New Testament records the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles concerning the church so that the Scriptures are the correct authority for the doctrine that should be taught in the church after the completion of the giving of the New Testament. Believers are to search and study the Scriptures, and they are not told to search the unreliable, conflicting oral tradition of imperfect Roman Catholics. Believers are to live by the word of God, not by the opinions of men. The Scriptures were given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. The non-scriptural traditions of men were not given directly by inspiration of God. The Scriptures are profitable for doctrine while the non-scriptural traditions of men are not.
Your human reasoning is wrong. Your incorrect opinion does not follow from all the facts. You may have assumed your conclusion, but you failed to prove it to be true.
Perhaps you are ignoring that God gave new and additional revelation in the New Testament Scriptures. What is revealed and taught in the New Testament would not make us Judaisers today.
Last edited:
Your reasoning is the apostles had a king james bible drop out of the sky. They have ZERO scriptural grounds to bypass mosaic law. The reason it was done is because Peter was given revelation by God, Faith apart of works of the Law. Which was not scripture at all at this moment.
That is not at all my reasoning so your allegation is false. You again invent a straw man as you try to put words in my mouth that I do not believe and do not say. You do not answer nor refute what I actually state.
A modern, non-scriptural KJV-only theory would involve some of the same erroneous reasoning that Roman Catholics used for their Latin Vulgate-only theory in the 1500's.
37818
Well-Known Member
Now.
But then when the New Testament was in the process of being written, ". . . Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. . . ." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:15. ". . . by word . . . ," was oral, ". . . epistle . . . ," was written. Then it was directly from the Apostles. What we have now are just their writings.
Was the Church based upon Rock of Christ, or upon Peter, the little stone?
THe. Petros/Petras idea?
An SDA missionary came to our door. In aactuality presenting your very position to the passage in Matthew. to our presenting “In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble.”
In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368
One scholar supposedly admitting what you claim would not equal "scholars" [plural]. You fail to provide sound documentation and convincing evidence for what you claim.
Loraine Boettner wrote: "in the Greek the word Peter is Petros, a person, masculine, while the word 'rock,' petra, is feminine and refers not to a person but to the declaration of Christ's deity that Peter had just uttered--'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'" (Roman Catholicism, p. 105).
Boettner observed: "Had Christ intended to say that the Church would be founded on Peter, it would have been ridiculous for Him to have shifted to the feminine form of the word in the middle of the statement" (p. 106).
Boettner claimed: "It is interesting to notice that some of the church fathers, Augustine and Jerome among them, gave the Protestant explanation of this verse, understanding the 'rock' to mean not Peter but Christ" (p. 108).
Would the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 also conflict with Ephesians 2:20?
Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone
Boettner is your source! Laughable! As you know, Jesus actually said Kephas but let's look again at what you are saying.
Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
“You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Jesus is giving Peter a threefold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority.
To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.”
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4 AM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 4 AM Pacific.
- Status