That's correct. Is it biblically based.
ECT NOTABLE HERETICS THROUGHOUT CHRISTIAN HISTORY HAVE BASED HERESIES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
That's correct. Is it biblically based.
Cruciform
New member
Please cite the biblical text which states that "Everything believed by Christians must be explicitly stated in the Bible."
2 Timothy 3:15-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Cruciform
New member
Yes, Scripture is "profitable." Where in this passage does it state that "Everything believed by Christians must be explicitly stated in the Bible"?
Ok, so its not inside the bible as written by the holy spirit himself. More empty words invented by man authorized by another chief
Cruciform
New member
Right back at you. :yawn:
What takes authority over the bible?
Cruciform
New member
The written texts are not all of Divine Revelation (God's Word). Sacred Tradition is also the Word of God.
In any case, 2 Tim. 3:16 certainly does not state that "Everything believed by Christians must be explicitly stated in the Bible." :nono:
So much for your unbiblical assumption.
Doesn't the verse say ALL scripture is inspired by God?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Note the Romanist's tactic in claiming that the ecumenical councils are their own doing.
Actually, the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea (325 AD), demonstrates that Rome did not hold the place of preeminence amongst the bishops (overseers, presbyters). The church condemning the heresies dealt with at Nicea is nothing in resemblance to what Romanism became and is today. They just want to co-opt history and claim they have existed since the time of the Apostles. This is the typical use of anachronistic apologetics Romanists are guilty of using time and again.
Do not buy into the Romanists “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric.
The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of Rome, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Rome uses tradition to usurp Scripture.
Even Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” From Unity Faith and Order - Dialogues - Anglican Roman Catholic Authority in the Church II (Anglican/Roman Catholic Joint Preparatory Commission), paragraph 2, 6.).
So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even Ratzinger acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
Gregory the Great expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
In other words, Rome's claims today are their own mythologies, not the reality of history. Sadly, many Protestants and Romanists swallow Rome's public relations machine outputs without careful scrutiny. Don't take the bait.
AMR
Actually, the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea (325 AD), demonstrates that Rome did not hold the place of preeminence amongst the bishops (overseers, presbyters). The church condemning the heresies dealt with at Nicea is nothing in resemblance to what Romanism became and is today. They just want to co-opt history and claim they have existed since the time of the Apostles. This is the typical use of anachronistic apologetics Romanists are guilty of using time and again.
Do not buy into the Romanists “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric.
The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of Rome, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Rome uses tradition to usurp Scripture.
Even Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” From Unity Faith and Order - Dialogues - Anglican Roman Catholic Authority in the Church II (Anglican/Roman Catholic Joint Preparatory Commission), paragraph 2, 6.).
So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even Ratzinger acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
Gregory the Great expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
In other words, Rome's claims today are their own mythologies, not the reality of history. Sadly, many Protestants and Romanists swallow Rome's public relations machine outputs without careful scrutiny. Don't take the bait.
AMR
Cruciform
New member
Yes. And...? How exactly does this supposedly lead to your assumption that "Everything believed by Christians must be explicitly stated in the Bible"?
Cruciform
New member
All of this has already been answered by Catholics on this forum more than once. Don't bother. :yawn:
Lon
Well-known member
Er, Indulgences? From the beginning of what? I find a disturbing lack of paying for your sin up front, in cold hard cash, so you can do it later, a little less than compelling or biblical. (Yeah, I know, a link on it's way, just saying I'm not particularly persuaded).
Thanks. It does a VERY good job of 1) saying why they were allowed 2) saying that those pesky semi-pelagian Jesuits (from France no less) gained the very political upperhand and 3) that the Pope caved to Cardinal opinion rather than coming up with something 'better.' You'll call that progress and I call it blunder. They either should have done way at the get rather than several hundred years later, or should not have been so hasty as to be pressured by Jesuits over a matter of days, what took years to come to a head. In short: Bad advice.
Bet me. Proof: John 14:6 Can Tradition or Magisterium ever change that verse? Yes or no? Next: Can scripture countermand tradition? Yep, that was the Reformation. Can scripture countermand the Magisterium? Yep, EOC, Vatican 1,2 etc. Now, before you get into a defense, note only this: The scripture is the ONLY thing uncontested between us, and really, between yourselves.
But my point was that it hasn't served you, when any one of those trumps the other EXCEPT scripture as given above. That, for us, is what Sola Scriptura means.
This link only matters to a Catholic. 500 years is a long time AND you have Vatican 1,2 problems within AND jettisoned Jansenists, so I've no hope of ever being convinced of anything Catholic at the outset (not that I desire it, just saying you don't either). This one was a long one. I may read it all one day, but a particular section?
Well, back to circular reasoning: "We were/are the ONLY church!" "No they were part of another church, not us." If you want to win a war over semantics, then you can go ahead and claim there are no fragments. There is no church but Rome (interesting to read AMR's post on the heels, they tie together). The problem is your own Popes have cut-off that escape. We are fellows in err. I don't know what Catholic Apologetics is really 'supposed' to accomplish. Perhaps that'd be a good thread one day. They don't make me want to run to the RC walls. I actually think they strengthen Protestant resolve. I'm not sure if that was/is the intention of Catholic Apologetics.
Another non answer from our Romanist champion.
Lon
Well-known member
Yowch, not when he cited his sources. If you did answer prior, it'd be a good time to cart out the rebuttal link. AMR is using your sources (Catholic quotes).
bsmitts
New member
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
bsmitts
New member
yes! 2 Timothy 3:16-17
and also this: 2 Timothy 2:18-19 2 Peter 2:18 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 2Corinthians 7:1
Dona Bate
New member
Not just here!!! AMR has been boring many others with this same tired old copy and paste spam on many other internet forums for years.
Don't take the bait!
He will of course receive the ultimate answer in good time. Lord have mercy on his poor deluded soul.
:yawn:
God Bless!