Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up

Frank,

It is a dumb argument.

The word "papacy" is not in the Bible. Neither is transsubstantiation. Or Co-Redemptrix.

 

Bible-Belted:
The argument is a valid argument. Furthermore, I am not suggesting the concept it is not in the scriptures. However, the understanding of the term was provided by a source outside the inspired text. Therefore, to use a term a non-biblical term and use a secular source as the AUTHORITY is a waste of time.It is simply stating a man's opinion. it is foolish to argue objective truth with the subjectivity of a man as an authority.Of course, denominationalist do it every day. So, to them it is a normal course of study for them. Now, if it is a biblical term from the original language one can search a greek lexicon to find the english translation, if he does not speak the origianl language of the Bible.( New Testament).Or, he can study all related pasages of the term and find it's meaning from context of use.
Jesus said he had all authority. Exousia for the greek speaking crowd. Mat. 28:18. It is his word that completes and makes us perfect for every good work or all sufficient in the english translation. II Tim. 3:16,17. This was and is my argument. It was not and cannot be refuted. However, I can say so and so said Sola scriptura means this or that and be justified because it is a man's opinion of a non-bilical term. Surely, you can see the inherant danger in this type exegesis of scripture. Of course, as I said before, if you are a denominationalist,it is SOP for you!
The question was referenced by a non-bibical term OUTSIDE THE INSPIRED LANGUAGE OF THE TEXT. Therefore, the defintion posted was from outside of the inspired text. The same could be said for dispensationalism. The term is not found in the Bible.
Furthermore, I speak english, not greek. I use an english bible to understand BIBLICAL TERMS. I am sure the person that speaks greek uses a greek version. The line of thinking that trinity is not in the Bible and therefore justifies the use of Sola Scriptura escapes me! I guess using one non-biblical term justiifes using the other. That is a new one on me!!! Furthermore, Godhead does refer to the deity of God. The term declares such. It also refers to the nature of God consisting of God the Father, God the Son, And God the Holy Spirit. Mat. 28:19. That was my point. I use Bible names for Bible things.
Unfortunately, denominationalist do not. This is one reason they cannot decide on what various terms mean. They use a SUBJECTIVE SOURCE.
Sola Scriptura is a term from man. The attempt to define it came form outside the inspired text. READ THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD!!! Dispensationalism is a term from man. However, Godhead the term and concept are from God. Col. 2:9. I can read and understand the term as God would have me to by my study of his word. I do not need a secular book to know the origin or meaning of the term. With the others, sir you do!
If you disagree, please show me in the Bible the term Sola Scriptura. From the Bible, show me premilennial dispensationalism, historic dispensationalism, or trinity. The original greek would do just fine. I have a Strong's I will look them up. However, I will not hold my breath until you find them because you can search today, tomorrow and a thousand years and you willl NEVER find those things in the Bible,not one of them.
Furthermore, I do not use papcy, coredemptrix in teaching the truth. These concepts and terms are foreign to the inspired text. I do not know who you are arguing that point with. I do not ascribe to Roman Catholicim or any other ist or ism. These are man made concepts. Therefore, I do not teach them either.

 

It is a dumb argument Frank.

That you use an english dictionary to learn about the meaning of texts written originally in greek is telling indeed.

The dictionary will only help you so much. And oh my, isn't that a text outside the inspired text?

Ridiculous argumentation.

And break up your posts with paragraphs please.

 

Thessalonian,

Notice how quickly your thread has deteriorated to the point that your question was never really addressed!

In about 20 years of Catholic apologetics, I have yet to see a total and complete consensus of exactly what Sola Scriptura really means and do you know why? It is the very nature of the fruit of this insidious doctrine that a concise definition of this doctrine cannot be made!

The Church existed before the New Testament was written.

Therefore that very same Church, with the awesome authority of Matthew 16:18-19, made the determination of exactly what the New Testament consisted of in several councils in the latter part of the 4th century, formalized, finally by the Council of Trent.

But the Fundamentalist/Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura would have you believe that such authority of the Church who did this very defining of scripture went "poof" and disappeared when the canon of scripture was finalized!

"I sat upon a limb of a great big tree (Holy Church) and sawed it off, with me sitting on it."

Take it from there................

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

Bible:
Your rebuttal is without objective substance. Therefore, Go in peace! And, when you find those terms in the Bible, let me know! I can't wait to see them. This would refute the argument.
It is easy to pass personal subjective judgement or dismiss and arguement because we do not like it. It is quite another to use objective standards to do so. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. I Thes. 5:21. Again, I am not holding my breath until you do so!

 

WPutnam,

You said:

Let me show you how it was addressed on the first page of this thread:

The above link goes into depth as to what SS is and isn't.

And I'm still waiting for someone to enlighten us to the inspired revelations not given in Scripture. What exactly are the (T)raditions that hold equal authority to Scripture?

So. What does this prove? Scripture had already been established as God's way of revealing His commandments to us.

That is such a joke, and I'm afraid God's probably not laughing.

No. The source of that Authority didn't go *poof*. He (Jesus) ascended to Heaven and sent the Holy Spirit to preside on His church.

 

Thess,

Not crying foul, Thess. To quote you, I believe in calling a spade a spade. Just letting you know you fool nobody.

I sure do!! I've dealt with many, many such RCs over the last two years. It's a good thing I've ran into just as many, if not more, RCs who are gracious examples of what christians should be. Therefore, I refuse to lable all RCs based upon my insights on you and others like you.

I haven't wrote the book--yet. But, I've got enough information on the workings of guys like you to at least start a book. Hmmmmmmm? Thanks for the idea . . .

What is your point?

Well, I'd like to know who's drawing the royalties on all of these so-called books I've written. BTW, can you tell me what childhood experience I endured that set me off on this so-called vendetta I'm on?

Saying it, don't make it so. It's clear to anybody who does have a grasp on it that you don't.

Another thing history clearly reveals is that SS is not what instilled christians with the courage to step out from under the tyrany of the RCC.

You are such a loving christian . . . So, you call your separated brethren "cancerous sores?"

I have to say, you're not a winning example to the RC faith.

Not, hiding. Just dodging, avoiding.

No. He's just suffering from those damnable "delusions of grandeur." If you can't handle the truth when it slaps you between the eyes, you squeeze 'em shut tight, slap your hands over your ears, and yell, "WALL!!!!!!!!"

You should read my posts, then you would know. Can you not carry on a simple conversation without the Pope and Magisterium interpreting for you?

I don't have to ask if you read my post where I showed you that those supposed differences were yet another delusion you have added to your many, many, many . . .

Once again, I have shown you how there is no conflict. And for anyone who can and does read on this web site, I did deal with the issue . . . feigning ignorance fools nobody but yourself.

 

Lisa, I sure that you would agree that the Holy Spirit works through men, and that the Holy Spirit used men to recognize what which writings were/were not inspired and therefore which writings were/were not Scripture.

Could you tell me:

how you think this was done,

which men the Holy Spirit used to do that,

when it was accomplished by the Holy Spirit through men,

what is your historical evidence to support your understanding of that working of the Spirit?

I really am interested in what you have to say.

Ron

 

Thess,

Thanks for the prayers! You have been remembered also. I never leave out my floundering brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

Thess,

Uhhuh.

Well, if you are so strapped for time, how 'bout you resolve current issues before starting new threads. Just a thought, you might want to consider.

I answered your question, you could have at least acknowledged that.

No, you don't.

Yet, impossible for you to grasp. Gee . . . Thess, says a lot for your intelligence level.

Who said it had to be hard? Um . . . that would be the RCC, who in addition to the Bible, has the Catechism ranging in the 1000s in pages, the Code of Canon Law, etc . . . .

Didn't you just say that you DO know what SS is? Yes, you diiiidddddddd.

Not all catholics, only you and others like you.

How have I refused to deal? Please explain.

Well can you give me an example of one of God's thoughts or commandments that are not written down? Convince me.

I agree, and those would be the minor details that God left out for the sake of space.

You're not helping your case.

You're an expert on what other denominations believe in regards to SS? HA!! You're not even an expert on your own faith.

During biblical and apostolic times, teachings were mostly spread orally, due to lack of writing materials, literacy, etc . . . However, that doesn't mean that what was written was different than what was spoken. There still had to be a source for the Gospel that was being taught? What was it and how do you confirm it?

 

There are.

You're not looking.

You know the argument you make about the verses which forbid adding to the word? The one in revelations was supposedly only speaking on that particular book. The author of John was speaking for himself. There are four (4) Gospels that are almost identical. Why would the Holy Spirit have been so seemingly repetitive if there were other commandments or teachings that were imparative for us to know, when space was such an issue?

Who says that? Scripture says different, explicitly.

Yes.

Such as?????????

So, what are they? Name some.

Look at the first verse in Acts:

Act 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

How was Jesus identity verified? How was He recognized and found to be the Messiah?

So, what's missing?

Sola Scriptura an be defined from Scripture just as the Trinity can. The Papacy or infallibility isn't even implied.

Says you.

Get over yourself. Puhleeezzz.

Address the issues on their appropriate threads, and people won't feel compelled to bring them onto threads that you are gracing with your esteemed wisdom.

Boy, for a person who is so busy, you sure spent a lot of time addressing nothing but your own demeaning sarcasm. Would have been nice if you would have taken a minute to answer at least one question.

 

Frank,

The proof is given, and I am not concerned that you dont' recognise it. It is rhetoricvally convenient to accuse someone of the shortcomings of your own position. I note ou use the tactic often.

That's your problem.

Since Paul admonishes us not to get into useless talk with people who arent; interested in anything else, I leave you to continue.

 

T2U,

Yes.

You want me to explain how the Holy Spirit works? I can't.

There were many different men involved in the process.

You mean a specific date?

It's called the New Testament.

Suuuuuuuure you are. If you have a point, why don't you just make it? That would be such a refreshing change from the loaded questions asked for the mere chance to scoff at something someone says because they word their beliefs differently than someone else.

If you want to discuss this, make your point openly, and I'll gladly oblige.

 

Yes.

You want me to explain how the Holy Spirit works? I can't.

There were many different men involved in the process.

You mean a specific date?

It's called the New Testament.

Suuuuuuuure you are. If you have a point, why don't you just make it? That would be such a refreshing change from the loaded questions asked for the mere chance to scoff at something someone says because they word their beliefs differently than someone else.

If you want to discuss this, make your point openly, and I'll gladly oblige. </font>[/QUOTE]Lisa,we agree that the Holy spirit used men to recognize which writings were inspired and therefore Scripture. Good.

My question to you is which men did the Holy Spirit use, what did these men do, when did they do it, and how do we know this?

If one is unable to answer these questions, then I do not understand why one would accept the particular books of the Bible as Scripture.

As I said before, I really am interested in your answer to these questions.

Ron

 

Thess,

Glad to see my prayers are being answered. You haven't called me a biggot or banging cymbal, yet. It is still early, tho . . . . . So, I'll keep up the prayers for you.

 

T2U,

So, basically, you are wanting to discuss how the RCC is soley responsible for providing us with the NT text? Am I right? If so, maybe we should start another thread. Thess, get's upset when his threads are hijacked.

Why? It all boils down to faith in God . . . how or why He chose to reveal to us the way He did doesn't really matter to me.

Well, if you really want to discuss who is responsible for compiling all the NT text, how about you start another thread.

God Bless!!!

 

Lisa,

Nice post.

Now as to HOW the NT Christians NEW in the NT (the first 100 years) WHICH letter from Paul to "believe" or WHICH letter from Peter to "accept" or WHICH letter from James to accept.

Well - they had "no need" to wait a few centuries for the Catholic church to come along and "tell them".

Of course you already knew that - but it seems to come as a "bit of a surprise" to those you are discussing this with.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, since you seem to have a handle on it, could you answer my questions then?