Sola Scriptura

[balshan]

Then what Church IS the Church and which Church DOES have the authority?

Why is this question so difficult? Why can I not get a simple straight answer to the question? Let me answer my own question: you either are unable or unwilling to answer because you know exactly what I am getting at when I ask the question.

It has been answered over and over again. You cannot see it because you only see the RCC and its false teachings and claims. You ignore the fact that you are to discern the fruit and justify the evil fruit of your institution by saying we are in a fallen world.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Do you think that the issue of Scripture and Scripture Alone (sola Scriptura) is a matter that divides professing Christians as to the foundation of their faith and what defines their faith?

The Bible IS, and always WILL BE the final word on things of a spiritual nature. Since Roman Catholic "TRADITION", leads often in a NON-Biblical direction, it's religious system is obviously in error. THE "Church of Jesus Christ" was, IS, and always will be that collection of BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS, physically LIVING< and Physically dead, who have been Cleansed from their SIN by FAITH in the perfect SIN OFFEING of Jesus on the cross Eph 2:8,9. THERE IS NO PERFECT VISIBLE CHURCH SYSTEM in existence in 2021.

 

[balshan]

If you define an answer as "Posters have responded by typing words in response to the query" then I guess it has been answered.

I define an answer as not just the typing of words in response to a query. An answer for me is an actual intelligent and meaningful reply to the query that makes sense and responds to the actual issue or issues that have been raised without changing the subject, question begging, straw men, or other logical fallacies.


I did. Here it is again: the biblical basis for the office of the papacy is in the person of Peter and the role he played in the New Testament Church. If the papacy isn't biblical, then how to you explain Peter and the role he played in the New Testament?

And I cited the person of Peter. You seriously want me to give you a list of all the Bible verses where he appears? That would be quite tedious. I presume we both agree that there was a Peter in the New Testament and that he played a prominent role in leading the Apostolic Church. If we cannot agree on even that much, then any future correspondence is pointless.


It tells you plenty. Read your Bible. Look at what Peter said and did. Look at his role. That is the papacy.
[/QUOTE]

As I have pointed out Peter would vomit out your institution, he would have nothing to do with such evil. Your institution as I have pointed out with supporting verses ignores Peter's writings.

To be honest I have also pointed out that if anyone should have been the first pope that would be Paul. He was the apostle to the gentiles and your institution is very gentile. But Paul would not touch your institution and your institution ignores his writings as well. In fact, your institution is nothing like the apostles in any way, shape or form.

You pretend your questions aren't answered why? I believe this shows why you do not understand scripture. If you cannot understand the simple posts posted here and you think scripture is complex then no wonder there is a lack of comprehension.

 

[balshan]

Pope Alexander VI is probably the most calumniated person in history.

All the allegations made against him came from enemies of the Borgia family, of which he was a member.

Oh you wish. Prove that claim.

 

[balshan]

Yes, but actually he was making things up as he went along. He exhibited no objection of the sacrament of penance until he discovered that many priests were telling many of their penitents to not read his writings.

Luther was a debauched individual.

Prove those claims provide the evidence.

 

[RayneBeau]

It is a Protestant concoction. It denies many of the traditions that were established during the first 1500 years of Christianity and relegates the authority of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church to being a minor player in the Christian faith.

Why do Roman Catholics prove their doctrines or sola Scriptura by going to the 'concoction' they claim as the Roman Catholic Catechism, instead of to the Bible?

The Bible IS, and always WILL BE the final word on things of a spiritual nature. Since Roman Catholic "TRADITION", leads often in a NON-Biblical direction, it's religious system is obviously in error. THE "Church of Jesus Christ" was, IS, and always will be that collection of BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS, physically LIVING< and Physically dead, who have been Cleansed from their SIN by FAITH in the perfect SIN OFFEING of Jesus on the cross Eph 2:8,9. THERE IS NO PERFECT VISIBLE CHURCH SYSTEM in existence in 2021.

In defense of the doctrine of sola Scriptura, I believe that it is necessary to the health of the Church of born-again Believers in Jesus Christ. If we give up sola Scriptura, we will inevitably give up sola Gratia as well. Because giving up the principle of sola Scriptura, would simply open the door for other avenues that are not based upon His own revelation. And, it's a very short step from thinking that man can follow a religious tradition that cannot be verified objectively by the Word of God to the idea that I can please God by something that He has not provided. It is a very, very short step from the denial of sola Scriptura to the denial of sola Gratia when it comes to salvation.

 

[RayneBeau]

I didn't bring up the CCC. Why did you? When have I ever referenced the CCC on this site as proof of a doctrine? Since you do not accept the authority of the CCC, why would you think I would be stupid enough to cite it as an authority?


Peter didn't. Christ claimed that when he gave Peter the keys. In the Pentecostal Church, Peter certainly played a central role in leading the apostolic community.


He didn't claim to be infallible. What he taught was what was infallible because God guided his teaching.


Ultimately, everything the apostles taught, as far as I am aware, they got from God--whether it be from the Old Testament Scriptures, the Jewish Tradition in which they were apart and or what Jesus taught them.


When they dispensed with the Old Testament requirement of circumcision. That would be one example. The Bible nowhere abrogated that practice. The apostles, however, felt quite free to dispense with the requirement. They seemed to believe they had the authority to do that.

The concept of Mortal or deadly sin, that is, sin unto death was introduced in the writings of John. "All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death." First John 5:17.

Follow the bouncing ball:

All wrongdoing is sin
There is sin that does not lead to death
If there is sin that does not lead to death, it follows from the statement that there are sins that lead to death.

If some sins do not lead to death, then there are Venial Sins. Venial Sins, very simply, is a term that refers to sins that do not lead to death. If there are some sins, or one sin that does lead to death, it follow that some sins are Mortal. Mortal Sin is just a term used to describe sins that are deadly; that is, some sins, or sin that lead to death.



In the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath. Sabbath worship is part of what it means to honor that commandment.


When he breathed on the apostles gave them the Holy Spirit and empowered them to forgive sins. How can one follow the command to forgive sins--if people do not tell them their sins?

To say "Well, you know, like, you know, like he was referring to preaching the Gospel, man." Is no answer. That is not what is said when he gives the apostles the Holy Spirit. He does not say "Receive the Holy Spirit so you can preach the Gospel and through preaching the Gospel forgive men's sins."

What does the Bible itself tell about the authority for our doctrinal convictions?
What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about the authority for their doctrinal convictions?
When a Roman Catholic and a born-again believer in Christ Jesus, who both profess to be Christians, disagree with each other over some premise or dogma, how does the Bible tell us these disagreements should be adjudicated?

 

[Nondenom40]

Pope Alexander VI is probably the most calumniated person in history.

All the allegations made against him came from enemies of the Borgia family, of which he was a member.

Read Schaff's history of the christian church. He details alex's life pretty well. Its well done historical research.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

What does the Bible itself tell about the authority for our doctrinal convictions?

Scripture, as far as I am aware, lays down the principle that a teaching must be apostolic. The teaching must have the authority of the apostles behind it.

What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about the authority for their doctrinal convictions?

The same thing

When a Roman Catholic and a born-again believer in Christ Jesus, who both profess to be Christians, disagree with each other over some premise or dogma, how does the Bible tell us these disagreements should be adjudicated?

A Roman Catholic and a "born again believer?" I do not accept the premise that you are attempting to set up here. In your mind, a Roman Catholic is not a "born again believer." Thus, you have framed the question in way that it cannot be answered any way except the way you want. The question is like the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" No matter how you answer the question, the premise of the question is affirmed.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

It has been answered over and over again. You cannot see it because you only see the RCC and its false teachings and claims. You ignore the fact that you are to discern the fruit and justify the evil fruit of your institution by saying we are in a fallen world.

If you call non-answers, answers, then, yes, I guess the question has been answered.

 

[mica]

Scripture, as far as I am aware, lays down the principle that a teaching must be apostolic. The teaching must have the authority of the apostles behind it.

The same thing

A Roman Catholic and a "born again believer?" I do not accept the premise that you are attempting to set up here. In your mind, a Roman Catholic is not a "born again believer." Thus, you have framed
mica said:
then he has the same want as the RCC!
the question in way that it cannot be answered any way except the way you want. The question is like the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" No matter how you answer the question, the premise of the question is affirmed.

the only 'catholics' that are born again cease to be a 'catholic' when they have the rebirth experience, they just don't know it yet. They will know it within a short period of time and actively leave the RCC and its teachings.

catholics pretend to straddle the 'fence' between the 2. the problem with that is - they only know and believe the catholic side of the fence. They have no idea what or where the other side of the fence is. They are blind to it.


we can not serve 2 masters.

 

[mica]

If you call non-answers, answers, then, yes, I guess the question has been answered.

they aren't 'non answers'. that you can't see them or understand them is scriptural.

that happens when one doesn't have the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[mica]

Scripture, as far as I am aware, lays down the principle that a teaching must be apostolic. The teaching must have the authority of the apostles behind it.

The same thing

A Roman Catholic and a "born again believer?" I do not accept the premise that you are attempting to set up here. In your mind, a Roman Catholic is not a "born again believer." Thus, you have framed the question in way that it cannot be answered any way except the way you want. The question is like the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" No matter how you answer the question, the premise of the question is affirmed.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

have you stopped believing the lies of the RCC?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

have you stopped believing the lies of the RCC?

This is a text book example of begging the question. The conclusion is in the premises of your statement.

If I say "Yes" I have proven the premise of your question. If I say "No" I still prove the premise of your question. There is no way I can answer the question in the way it is framed without also proving the premise.

The RCC isn't lying.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

the only 'catholics' that are born again cease to be a 'catholic' when they have the rebirth experience, they just don't know it yet. They will know it within a short period of time and actively leave the RCC and its teachings.

catholics pretend to straddle the 'fence' between the 2. the problem with that is - they only know and believe the catholic side of the fence. They have no idea what or where the other side of the fence is. They are blind to it.


we can not serve 2 masters.

Right: we cannot serve two masters.

This is why I am not Protestant. I cannot serve Satan.

 

[mica]

This is a text book example of begging the question. The conclusion is in the premises of your statement.

If I say "Yes" I have proven the premise of your question. If I say "No" I still prove the premise of your question. There is no way I can answer the question in the way it is framed without also proving the premise.

The RCC isn't lying.

Yes it is.

 

[mica]

Right: we cannot serve two masters.

This is why I am not Protestant. I cannot serve Satan.

catholics pretend they do.

not all prots are believers. what they believe is just as false as what catholics believe.

anyone who has a master other than Christ serves satan. catholics have the RCC.

you never address those who aren't catholic or protestant.

 

[mica]

Scripture, as far as I am aware, lays down the principle that a teaching must be apostolic. The teaching must have the authority of the apostles behind it.

The same thing
A Roman Catholic and a "born again believer?" I do not accept the premise that you are attempting to set up here. In your mind, a Roman Catholic is not a "born again believer." Thus, you have framed the question in way that it cannot be answered any way except the way you want. The question is like the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" No matter how you answer the question, the premise of the question is affirmed.

very few are. those who are will leave the RCC.

catholics don't know how one is born again - it isn't by water baptism, believing/following the RCC, it isn't by submitting to a man (pope) or Mary. it isn't by reciting words said by someone else. It happens when God changes the heart.

most catholics don't know the gospel. i've asked you several times. you never answer by posting the gospel.

catholics are taught and believe that they have to help Christ, they have to DO something. He did it ALL.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Right: we cannot serve two masters.

So then you do not serve the Pope and his decrees.

This is why I am not Protestant. I cannot serve Satan.

 

[balshan]

If you call non-answers, answers, then, yes, I guess the question has been answered.

You received real answers not non-answers.