Circular Reasoning

Denial is more than a river in Egypt...



Don't you just love how you can misrepresent the ECF's, and they aren't around to rebuke you for it?
The ECF's weren't random people. They were Bishops of the established Church in it's earliest form. They taught from the writings they had with authority and collaboration across the centuries. Most of those you cited didn't have a Canon of Scripture that they were pointing to. It seems when you read their writings you are assuming that they do. So how is it possible that are referring to a canon set apart from the living tradition of the Church they were part of? They just weren't.
 
Well no because Jesus wasn't claiming sola scriptura. Judaism was a living faith from the beginning. A tradition of prophets, Priests and scribes who documented that tradition in the Jewish Scriptures. But the Scriptures were never set apart from the living tradition of the Jews.
And what tradition(s) would that (those) be? Would that include all those "traditions" Jesus spoke against the Jewish leaders added that were not based on scripture?
 
And what tradition(s) would that (those) be? Would that include all those "traditions" Jesus spoke against the Jewish leaders added that were not based on scripture?
That is in essence my point. The doctrine of sola scripture is not defined by Scripture. It is a man made addition.
 
The ECF's weren't random people. They were Bishops of the established Church in it's earliest form. They taught from the writings they had with authority and collaboration across the centuries.

Thank you for admitting they held to sola Scriptura.

Most of those you cited didn't have a Canon of Scripture that they were pointing to.

You are ignorant of church history.
They had the 66-book (not 73) canon.

It seems when you read their writings you are assuming that they do.

Nope.

So how is it possible that are referring to a canon set apart from the living tradition of the Church they were part of? They just weren't.

You truly have no clue what you're talking about.
Btw, do you know what Paul taught about women teaching?
 
That is in essence my point. The doctrine of sola scripture is not defined by Scripture. It is a man made addition.
The essence of your point is that the Jews made up/added traditions. Jesus didn't. He used SCRIPTURE. Ever read the Luke account of the temptation of Jesus by Satan? How did Jesus answer each situation? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't "tradition". It was SCRIPTURE. Jesus defined it by example.
 
HEY! Roman Catholics! Suppose your authoritarian "Vicar of Jesus Christ," Pope Francis, stood before an audience of millions and proclaimed: "The Book of Mormon is the Word of God!" Then Pope Francis proceeded to explain that such claims are made by Mormon missionaries every single day. And when the Mormon missionaries are asked why they believe this, you'll hear something about how "the Prophet says so."

But this mere assertion does not make the "Book of Mormon" the "Word of God." Nor can the Roman Catholic pope say that "The Roman Catholic canon of the Old Testament is correct because Rome says so." Yet, given the claims of 'ultimate authority' made by ROME, how can it be otherwise? Ultimate authorities, such as the Roman Catholic Pope claims to be, cannot be examined by a higher standard because by definition none could possibly exist. Therefore, once one accepts the claims of ROME regarding authority, everything else falls into place, and all testing of those claims must be suspended. ROME may condescend to offer a proof here or a supporting text there but in reality, how can ROME offer any kind of evidence when she says that in the final analysis only she can properly interpret that evidence? If you find the offered evidence unconvincing, you are told it is only because YOU do not submit to her authority. When you ask why you should submit to her authority, ROME offers you the same evidence once again. It is a hideous vicious circle that traps many an unwary person.
 
The essence of your point is that the Jews made up/added traditions. Jesus didn't. He used SCRIPTURE. Ever read the Luke account of the temptation of Jesus by Satan? How did Jesus answer each situation? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't "tradition". It was SCRIPTURE. Jesus defined it by example.
but the rcc hasn't defined it, therefore it can't be true for catholics. the rcc over-rules God's word for them.
 
What's so obvious is that in Roman Catholicism's mixture of claims they say that they have the final say in interpreting the Bible, yet it circles back and also points to Bible passages as being the basis of its authority. 🙄
Cuz Protestants say "Where is that in the Bible?"
Are we supposed to not answer?
 
Cuz Protestants say "Where is that in the Bible?"
Are we supposed to not answer?
But you don't have anything that really proves your false claim of authority. To make that passage fit, you have to ignore that the other passages about the Rock refer to God or Jesus and never Peter. You have make out the spiritual language of the Jewish people at the time was Aramaic and it wasn't and never has been. You have to do a somersault to make it fit to your false claims.

Peter would have nothing to do with child molesters, rapist or the sexually immoral. Throughout the centuries those are the things your leaders are known for.
 
But you don't have anything that really proves your false claim of authority. To make that passage fit, you have to ignore that the other passages about the Rock refer to God or Jesus and never Peter. You have make out the spiritual language of the Jewish people at the time was Aramaic and it wasn't and never has been. You have to do a somersault to make it fit to your false claims.

Peter would have nothing to do with child molesters, rapist or the sexually immoral. Throughout the centuries those are the things your leaders are known for.
Lineage proves authority. Protestantism has neither.
 
balshan said:
But you don't have anything that really proves your false claim of authority. To make that passage fit, you have to ignore that the other passages about the Rock refer to God or Jesus and never Peter. You have make out the spiritual language of the Jewish people at the time was Aramaic and it wasn't and never has been. You have to do a somersault to make it fit to your false claims.

Peter would have nothing to do with child molesters, rapist or the sexually immoral. Throughout the centuries those are the things your leaders are known for.
Lineage proves authority. Protestantism has neither.
catholicism / rcc has no lineage to Him, but born again believers do. that you label them as protestant doesn't change that. what that shows is that catholics don't know what it is to be born again.

much better to protest the false teachings of the rcc than to protest the truth of God's word - that is what catholics do!
 
HEY! Roman Catholics! Suppose your authoritarian "Vicar of Jesus Christ," Pope Francis, stood before an audience of millions and proclaimed: "The Book of Mormon is the Word of God!" Then Pope Francis proceeded to explain that such claims are made by Mormon missionaries every single day. And when the Mormon missionaries are asked why they believe this, you'll hear something about how "the Prophet says so."

But this mere assertion does not make the "Book of Mormon" the "Word of God." Nor can the Roman Catholic pope say that "The Roman Catholic canon of the Old Testament is correct because Rome says so." Yet, given the claims of 'ultimate authority' made by ROME, how can it be otherwise? Ultimate authorities, such as the Roman Catholic Pope claims to be, cannot be examined by a higher standard because by definition none could possibly exist. Therefore, once one accepts the claims of ROME regarding authority, everything else falls into place, and all testing of those claims must be suspended. ROME may condescend to offer a proof here or a supporting text there but in reality, how can ROME offer any kind of evidence when she says that in the final analysis only she can properly interpret that evidence? If you find the offered evidence unconvincing, you are told it is only because YOU do not submit to her authority. When you ask why you should submit to her authority, ROME offers you the same evidence once again. It is a hideous vicious circle that traps many an unwary person.
The glaring irony is that you aren't offering anything to justify your position other than you determine it so. What are your positions accountable to? Sola scriptura is not in the Scriptures so basically you are citing yourself as your source of authority.
 
I love how this is the "Roman Catholicism" forum, but every time RC is challenged, the Romanists ALWAYS deflect discussion to attack Protestantism.

There couldn't be a clearer admission that they KNOW Romanism is indefensible.
To have a discussion, both sides need to be upfront about their respective claims. As happens many times, only one claim from one side about the other side is put forward, and it is usually without merit, with said "claim" actually being nothing more than something that was made up with no basis in fact.
 
Quoting scripture is never circular since the bible isn't one book but 66 books. God is the author so that's how they came into being. Nothing circular in any of that.
Who decided that it was just 66 books and on what authority did the person doing the deciding have? Saying that God is the author isn't going to cut it. I say God authored 73 books, now what?
 
What's so obvious is that in Roman Catholicism's mixture of claims they say that they have the final say in interpreting the Bible, yet it circles back and also points to Bible passages as being the basis of its authority. 🙄
You forgot "Sacred Tradition" and the "Magesterium" of the Catholic Church, i.e., the whole of the Church.
 
RayneBeau said:
HEY! Roman Catholics! Suppose your authoritarian "Vicar of Jesus Christ," Pope Francis, stood before an audience of millions and proclaimed: "The Book of Mormon is the Word of God!" Then Pope Francis proceeded to explain that such claims are made by Mormon missionaries every single day. And when the Mormon missionaries are asked why they believe this, you'll hear something about how "the Prophet says so."

But this mere assertion does not make the "Book of Mormon" the "Word of God." Nor can the Roman Catholic pope say that "The Roman Catholic canon of the Old Testament is correct because Rome says so." Yet, given the claims of 'ultimate authority' made by ROME, how can it be otherwise? Ultimate authorities, such as the Roman Catholic Pope claims to be, cannot be examined by a higher standard because by definition none could possibly exist. Therefore, once one accepts the claims of ROME regarding authority, everything else falls into place, and all testing of those claims must be suspended. ROME may condescend to offer a proof here or a supporting text there but in reality, how can ROME offer any kind of evidence when she says that in the final analysis only she can properly interpret that evidence? If you find the offered evidence unconvincing, you are told it is only because YOU do not submit to her authority. When you ask why you should submit to her authority, ROME offers you the same evidence once again. It is a hideous vicious circle that traps many an unwary person.
The glaring irony is that you aren't offering anything to justify your position other than you determine it so.
no, that's what catholics do. believers offer scripture - God's word, but catholics reject His word.

What are your positions accountable to? Sola scriptura is not in the Scriptures so basically you are citing yourself as your source of authority.
yes it is, but catholics don't know or understand His word. why do you follow men who don't teach you the truth or teach you how to know and understand His truth? even after 40 some years of bible study and teachings, I still learn something new every day from it. scripture is filled with treasures from God to those who are His and search for it. It is beyond amazing and it could only be of God Himself.

the rcc doesn't want you to search for and find those treasures.
 
The glaring irony is that you aren't offering anything to justify your position other than you determine it so. What are your positions accountable to? Sola scriptura is not in the Scriptures so basically you are citing yourself as your source of authority.

What you can't seem to get, is that Scripture itself has the supreme and final say in all matter's. Your own Rc catechism says...

"In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man" and "The inspired books teach the truth".

Also from the Rc catechism,

Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth "


2 Timothy 3:16 says
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments, meaning the 66 books of the accepted and closed canon; are the final authority in all that they address and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition
, is judged by Scriptures.

Everything we see, hear, or read is to be measured by what Scripture says about what we just saw, heard, or seen. Why? Because Scripture is God speaking to us through His written on all spiritual and behavioral matters. God, Himself is our Creator, in Him, we have life.

And since God is supreme over all, don't you think what He tells us in Scripture outweighs all others? God intended for ALL peoples to understand what He has written, and if we are truly interested in knowing Him, and what Scripture says and means, He will gladly make His meaning and will known to us.
 
Back
Top