The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is heretical. The Church will never except it's practice. The Church has defended her way of life for over 2000 years repudiating heresies all along the way. The Church is the pillar of truth, we all know this. Don't decieve yourselves. Sola Scriptura is only turning Protestants towards the Ancient Faith. There's to much contradictions. If you get three different Protestants who claim they understand the Bible but can't agree on the Bible....well I digress goodnight.
Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You should watch this. I guess this conversion was a big deal in the Protestant world. His dad was a very prominent figure amongst Protestant Evangelicals.
http://youtu.be/RGtQpLmEP14
http://youtu.be/RGtQpLmEP14
M
But that of course is the problem, you use your own definition of infallibility, not the RCC one, then use it to attack RCC
It is called a straw man argument, it is also a logical falacy.
EVERY Christian believes in infallibility in its proper context, they must do to be Christians, or to believe that scripture is inspired.
That some people can act inerrantly in doctrinal matters, that is God acting through people, which is for example the only way scripture can be inerrant and inspired, for the act of authorship of scripture to be infallible, free from error.
It is a mark of an act under inspiration not of a person, and it does not make that person sin free or inerrant in any other way.
So the only question is who has acted or acts infallibly, not whether infallibility exists.
The pope is only deemed infallible in limited matters of statement ofdoctrine which rarely has happened in 2 millenia. He also presides over councils, that for example declared the canon of scripture, so YOU rely on the authority of those catholic councils to believe that the New Testament is inspired. A simple thank you to the pope and councils will do.
But then the pope has scriptural authority to do so having been given the " keys of the kingdom" an unquestionable reference back to the authority of steward in a davidic kingdom, " what you bind on earth is bound in heaven"
It is called a straw man argument, it is also a logical falacy.
EVERY Christian believes in infallibility in its proper context, they must do to be Christians, or to believe that scripture is inspired.
That some people can act inerrantly in doctrinal matters, that is God acting through people, which is for example the only way scripture can be inerrant and inspired, for the act of authorship of scripture to be infallible, free from error.
It is a mark of an act under inspiration not of a person, and it does not make that person sin free or inerrant in any other way.
So the only question is who has acted or acts infallibly, not whether infallibility exists.
The pope is only deemed infallible in limited matters of statement ofdoctrine which rarely has happened in 2 millenia. He also presides over councils, that for example declared the canon of scripture, so YOU rely on the authority of those catholic councils to believe that the New Testament is inspired. A simple thank you to the pope and councils will do.
But then the pope has scriptural authority to do so having been given the " keys of the kingdom" an unquestionable reference back to the authority of steward in a davidic kingdom, " what you bind on earth is bound in heaven"
Last edited:
M
Which is one of the reformationists problems, they cannot agree between themselves what sola scriptura means, let alone find any scriptural or logical basis for it....
There are seemingly as many definitions of sola scriptura as there are post reformation doctrines, and as Luther despaired in gp his later years saying " as many doctrines as heads".
That is what happens when all Protestants claim the right to their own interpretation, so losing the basis of authority that kept constancy for millenia. And also guaranteed the endless fractures and schisms of Protestant denominations ever since. Indeed not content with those, there are a huge number of non denominationals who cannot agree with any of those.
So you are right it is about authority, and the lack of it in any Protestant congregation and lacking that compass they drift apart.
There are seemingly as many definitions of sola scriptura as there are post reformation doctrines, and as Luther despaired in gp his later years saying " as many doctrines as heads".
That is what happens when all Protestants claim the right to their own interpretation, so losing the basis of authority that kept constancy for millenia. And also guaranteed the endless fractures and schisms of Protestant denominations ever since. Indeed not content with those, there are a huge number of non denominationals who cannot agree with any of those.
So you are right it is about authority, and the lack of it in any Protestant congregation and lacking that compass they drift apart.
D
I do have interest in the bizarre which is the reason why I peek in on a catholic heresy thread.
And "because" it is catholic "heresy" is also the reason I am also not interested in being "sold to" any further on it (on their end of things).
Thats just not "the kind" of interest I have here.
The first thought that come to me after the post was, "who cares"?
I said what I thinking (out loud) because sometimes I do that.
Its really not all that bizarre but a very common practice.
And "because" it is catholic "heresy" is also the reason I am also not interested in being "sold to" any further on it (on their end of things).
Thats just not "the kind" of interest I have here.
The first thought that come to me after the post was, "who cares"?
I said what I thinking (out loud) because sometimes I do that.
Its really not all that bizarre but a very common practice.
M
I agree it is common practice to propound a lot of anticatholic rhetoric and myth, then not listen to the obvious answers , which seems to be how you portray your interest!
It is even more disappointing when some of the unjustifiable myth is presented as the OP on a forum like this! For example - no true catholic believes that Mary saves, so why does the OP present it as so? Yet another straw man.
But since you think it is all cut and dried - how can you defend "sola scriptura" the unsupportable doctrine that launched 10000 opposing doctrines, almost all of which have to be wrong because they believe in mutually opposed things, to the despair of Luther in later life. So which then of the 10000 is the only one that is true? since 9999 disagree with the one in mutually exclusive ways.
My suggestion is you study the shaky foundations of your own beliefs, rather than point fingers elsewhere. That is how I went along a circuitous journey, from protestant to evangelical, finally home to RCC, when I started reading history!
For example...is your congregation, liturgical, sacramental, has bishops handing on tradition in succession, real presence and so on? If not whatever your congregation is , is not following the early church as handed to the apostles and handed on by them.,
It is even more disappointing when some of the unjustifiable myth is presented as the OP on a forum like this! For example - no true catholic believes that Mary saves, so why does the OP present it as so? Yet another straw man.
But since you think it is all cut and dried - how can you defend "sola scriptura" the unsupportable doctrine that launched 10000 opposing doctrines, almost all of which have to be wrong because they believe in mutually opposed things, to the despair of Luther in later life. So which then of the 10000 is the only one that is true? since 9999 disagree with the one in mutually exclusive ways.
My suggestion is you study the shaky foundations of your own beliefs, rather than point fingers elsewhere. That is how I went along a circuitous journey, from protestant to evangelical, finally home to RCC, when I started reading history!
For example...is your congregation, liturgical, sacramental, has bishops handing on tradition in succession, real presence and so on? If not whatever your congregation is , is not following the early church as handed to the apostles and handed on by them.,
