To the Catholics visiting the Baptist forum.

[Walpole]

Eusebius said Linus was the first bishop of Rome. Ordained by Peter and Paul.

He also said this...

"The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years." - Eusebius, The Chronicle

 

[Reformed1689]

Sure you've read them...wink, wink.

This post convinces me that you have not read them in their entirety, rather, you have likely only read the parts that are taken out of context to call Luther Anti-Semitic.

 

[Reformed1689]

He also said this...

"The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years." - Eusebius, The Chronicle

Yes, and since he wouldn't be a first hand witness that doesn't make it necessarily true.

 

[Walpole]

This is a flat lie.

And here comes the, "You're a liar!" schtick.


---> Sola Scriptura is a tradition / doctrine NOT found in Scripture. This is a fact, not a lie.

 

[Walpole]

2 Timothy 3:14-17 NLT
But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. [15] You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. [17] God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.

Sola Scriptura = Only Scripture


ALL Scripture ≠ ONLY Scripture

 

[Walpole]

This post convinces me that you have not read them in their entirety, rather, you have likely only read the parts that are taken out of context to call Luther Anti-Semitic.

Clearly you are talking out of your hat. I don't believe for a minute that you have read either work.

If you won't read the primary source material from Luther himself, there are voluminous works written by historians about Luther's anti-semitism.

 

[Reformed1689]

Sola Scriptura = Only Scripture


ALL Scripture ≠ ONLY Scripture

Wow you can't get more distorted in thinking than this.

 

[Reformed1689]

Clearly you are talking out of your hat. I don't believe for a minute that you have read either work.

I don't care what you believe about what I have or have not done.

 

[Reformed1689]

And here comes the, "You're a liar!" schtick.


---> Sola Scriptura is a tradition / doctrine NOT found in Scripture. This is a fact, not a lie.

Really? Don't add to these words.

 

[MartyF]

Allow me to rephrase Martin Luther Comment.

I don't believe in most of what Luther wrote primarily because what he wrote was written with political motives. Everything he did right down to communion and the rest was a split down the middle between Catholicism and the Bible. He heavily favored the middle ground and political expediency. Although, this may have been helpful at the time, the result is that the theology he came up with is worthless outside the 16th century.

His focus was not on spreading the Gospel, but rather on reforming a Church. This is why Lutherans are not known for their massive evangelical efforts. I don't think that he is evil, but he was a man of the time, not a man meant to spread a message that would last throughout time like Paul.

In his time, Martin Luther was needed, but after his time, his writings are basically worthless.

 

[Walpole]

Yes, and since he wouldn't be a first hand witness that doesn't make it necessarily true.

Throw his testimony out the window. We have the countless others and the bones.

History is Protestant kryptonite.

 

[Walpole]

Really? Don't add to these words.

Is that your argument for sola Scriptura? If so, you must toss out the entire New Testament!

 

[MartyF]

Sola Scriptura = Only Scripture


ALL Scripture ≠ ONLY Scripture

2 Timothy 3:14-15 NLT
But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. [15] You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.

 

[MartyF]

Sola Scriptura = Only Scripture


ALL Scripture ≠ ONLY Scripture

Acts 17:10-12 NLT
That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. [11] And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. [12] As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men.

 

[Walpole]

2 Timothy 3:14-15 NLT
But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. [15] You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.

This poses a couple of major problems for Protestants.

First, nowhere does St. Paul mention sola Scriptura. Secondly, St. Timothy was the uncircumcised son of Greek gentile father and Greek-speaking Jewish mother. The scriptures that St. Timothy studied had to be the Septuagint, which contains books Protestants reject!

 

[MarysSon]

Here's one:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

Here's another:

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

And then, there's this gem:

Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."


There are more, but that's more than enough to show that Catholicism condemns anyone who believes we're saved by Christ's death and resurrection without works on our part.

I did back them up but quoting scripture and your own cult's sources.

Just as I thought.

NOWHERE does it deem “anathema” anybody who preaches Christ crucified nor does is condemn the idea that that trough His death and resurrection we have salvation.

This was just another historically-bankrupt, anti-Catholic claim.

 

[MartyF]

Is that your argument for sola Scriptura? If so, you must toss out the entire New Testament!

Matthew 5:17-19 NLT
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. [18] I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. [19] So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[MarysSon]

The Via Labicana Augustus is a sculpture of the Roman emperor Augustus as Pontifex Maximus.
The Roman Emperor's went by that title.
Wake up and smell the State power take over of the church at Rome. Then study history, because the church at Rome is the least Christian exhibit over the past 2000 years that you can find in the world of Christendom. Such evil and power mongering is only equaled by power hungry nations.
Why would you ever try to defend its evil actions?

And, as I told you before - the Pope was called "Pontifex Maximus" - LONG before Christianity was ever made legal in the Roman Empire - while the Church was STILL being persecuted showing that this was not a title bestowed by Rome - but by fellow Christians.

STUDY your history . . .

 

[Walpole]

Acts 17:10-12 NLT
That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. [11] And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. [12] As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men.

This poses another problem for Protestants. What Scriptures would the Bereans have found that confirmed what St. Paul was telling them - that a man named Jesus, who had died and rose from the dead and is the Christ - was true? Please be specific.

Things to consider when answering...

- The Bereans were Greek-speaking Jews

- St. Paul was telling them that Christ suffered, died and rose again (Acts 17:3)

- What prophesy in the Old Testament matches this, stating a man who claims to be the actual Son of God would suffer, be put to death and in the end be triumphant?

- What verse from Scripture do the Jewish rulers quote to Jesus at the foot of the cross?


Hint: It's not in the Protestant Bible

 

[MartyF]

This poses a couple of major problems for Protestants.

First, nowhere does St. Paul mention sola Scriptura. Secondly, St. Timothy was the uncircumcised son of Greek gentile father and Greek-speaking Jewish mother. The scriptures that St. Timothy studied had to be the Septuagint, which contains books Protestants reject!

The concept of Scripture being the sole basis for belief is repeated as a motif throughout the New Testament. You have to be obstinate to miss it.

Septuagint argument is lame. It has been refuted elsewhere. The Jews at the time, including Timothy, did not consider the second temple writings to be scripture. They were beneficial to read but of lesser importance. Regardless, I rarely see Catholics quoting the missing books of the Septuagint. You always seem to have to quote people far after the Septuagint.

If quoting the books missing from in the Protestant Bible helps your case, I would be glad to hear about it. After all, the NLT does have a Catholic Edition translated by evangelicals.