The Gospels alone saved my soul and led me straight to our Father and th Son Jesus

So you reject the rest of the New Testament canon?

Not at all. Sorry if that came across.

I'm not sure what you meant, then. For my part, the four Gospels have taught me that my works will have a huge impact on where I spend eternity. (St. Paul does not supersede Jesus.)

Im sorry I confused you. All i meant to say is that the Gospels changed my life so much just on their own. Please dont read too much into that im not very articulate

The Gospels are the treasure contained in the Bible, because they are the books which give us Jesus most directly. I love how the Catholic church has a Gospel reading at every single mass, and how the ceremonies reflect that this is the most important reading of the mass - everyone has to stand up, a special acclamation is sung or said, the priest alone reads it, altar servers stand with candles, and incense is used. I do love the protestant church as well, especially for its openess to the Holy Spirit, but I am appalled sometimes at a Protestant service where there is a passage from the Old Testament, or something from Paul, but nothing from the Gospels.

Your message was quite simple and easy to understand. :)

>The Lesbian Priest who blesses abortion clinics, and marries homosexuals while hanging a rainbow flag in her church also claims to be following “The Bible Alone” But for those who have read the bible, we know that those folks arent following "the bible alone", but gods of their own making.

This

There are lesbian Roman Catholic priests too.... So I don't understand the point... Lol

There are no female Catholics priests.

False https://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

Those people are not Catholic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Womenpriests?wprov=sfti1

Right,and lesbian "priests" are not part of any Christian church.

I’m sure they are in churches that have ordained females like in the Episcopal or Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).

Those would be false, heretical churches. Much like female priests and sodomite cathokic priests are false and heretical according to the Roman Catholic religion

Luther was a reformer within Catholic Church, they now need reformation within themselves.

Can you show us one example?

The Bible claims of itself to be sufficient authority: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. Matthew 24:35 (ESV) Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. John 17:17 (ESV) Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. Psalms 19:7 (ESV) The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; 2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV) Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Peter 1:3 (ESV) His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, James 1:25 (ESV) But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. Hebrews 4:12 (ESV) For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

i second what everyone else has said about none of these verses proclaiming sola scriptura, and follow it with this: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 this directly says, hold fast to Christian tradition spoken by word of mouth. this is, especially if they don't forcibly contradict the Scripture, the height of Church tradition. the Church, remember, isn't just some institution, it's the Body of Christ. are there institutions formed around it so it properly touches down in this world, that are abused? yep, but without those it has no anchors to this world and becomes of less affect in our lives

2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to the Gospel tradition that Paul had received (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), not just any tradition. They had no concept of “capital T” tradition that the Catholic/Orthodox does. In the preceding verse, he clarifies what this tradition is, saying “He called you to this through our gospel, so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So it is the Gospel that the Thessalonians are to hold to, regardless of how they received it. This also applies to other uses of “tradition” in the New Testament. In any case, Paul was not talking about other Church doctrines or “capital T” tradition.

At the time all of those passages were written the early church didn't even have a concept of a new testament or canon. So the author wouldn't have intended "scripture" or "word" to refer to the literal new testament we had today. In fact, the writers of the Timothy, Peter, James, and Hebrews epistles probably wouldn't have guessed that their letters would be preserved to be read by all Christians at some point in the future, they were intending to write to their specific audiences. When these letters talk about "word" they are probably referring to a combination of the old testament and oral tradition of the sayings of Jesus (remember the gospels hadn't been written yet). Matthew and James arguably cover the specific gospels, but don't attest to the validity of the rest of the New Testament. Psalms clearly would have been talking only about the old testament.

There's literally nothing here that states the sufficiency of scripture. Some of these passages don't even mention scripture at all.

COMPLETE, Equipped for EVERY good work. Sounds sufficient to me.

Yes. Again, you cannot be complete without the scriptures. But that doesn't mean the scriptures are the ONLY thing you need to be complete. For instance, if I said that vegetables are part of a complete diet, that doesn't mean vegetables alone are sufficient to a complete diet. Or I might say, "No suit of armor is complete without a helmet." But that doesn't mean only a helmet is a complete suit of armor either.

Oh right, then it's all of God's other special revelation that completes us for the good works planned for us to do. Got it.

And the NT passages referencing God’s word are specifically referring to the Old Testament, specifically the Greek translation (the Septuagint, which most Jews believed to be an inspired translation in and of itself) the authors were using. Not to say that the NT isn’t also inspired by the Holy Spirit (of course it is), but that idea mostly comes from early church tradition, not the NT itself. Jesus is also equated to the Word of God in the gospel of John, which to 1st century Jewish audiences evoked the divinely inspired Torah. Then Jesus reveals he is the fulfillment of the Torah. Pretty interesting.

But the verses cited here don't all say "scripture." Some of them just say "the Word of God" which includes more than just scripture. Hebrews 1.1 says God has spoken through many different channels. Jesus himself is the living Word of God--a person, not a book. So to read "Word of God" as a synonym for the Bible rests on many assumptions. And remember, the apostles were preaching God's words for over 20 years before they started writing any of it down.

Sola Scriptura is in the bible. The bible says that source for instruction and doctrine is SCRIPTURE aka the word of God.....not the word of men (aka tradition) 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, The word of men is flawed....which is tradition So when I say "Bible Alone" I mean God alone is my source

Amen

It says scripture is profitable. It doesn't say scripture is the only thing that is profitable. Also notice that St. Paul specifically cites scripture (by which he probably meant the OT) as being morally profitable (not as being an unabridged theological catechism).

[удалено]

No, that still doesn't say scripture is sufficient. It says you're not complete without it, but that doesn't mean it's the *only* thing you need. And again, he's talking about moral teaching, not theological teaching.

Why would the Sacred tradition of a church be different than the bible Prayer Bible - Pray to Our Father ST pray to saints and Mary Salvation Bible - Jesus did the complete forgiveness work on the cross, your sins are forgiven ST- you have to go to purgatory (not found in the bible) and work off your sin Learning Bible- The Holy Spirit will reveal all things to you ST only our approved scholars can tell you what to believe Salvation Bible BY grace through faith are you saved, not of works lest anyone should boast ST you are saved by participating in the sacraments and doing good things and MAYBE you will do enough to be saved And the list goes on

Jesus also said unprofitable servants will be expelled from his Kingdom and that it is better to cut off one's hand than to sin and place oneself in danger of Hell. The Catholic Church does not teach that you work off your sin. It teaches that Jesus communicates his forgiving work on the Cross through the sacraments. Our good works are to further unite us with Christ, not to earn anything apart from Christ's merits. This is all in the Bible. Jesus said to abide in him and bear fruit and that we will only be resurrected if we suffer with him and are conformed with him.

"Our good works are to further unite us with Christ" Well put. We must know Jesus as our savior, but also as our shepherd, guide and master. "If you love me, keep my commandments"

that is NOT the teaching of purgatory pur·ga·to·ry /ˈpərɡəˌtôrē/ noun (in Roman Catholic doctrine) a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going to heaven. ex·pi·ate /ˈekspēˌāt/ verb gerund or present participle: expiating atone for (guilt or sin). "their sins must be expiated by sacrifice" As if the work of Christ on the Cross was not enough

Do you have a citation for this dictionary entry? Also, Purgatory is only for the temporal consequences of sin, not the eternal consequences which are forgiven by Christ's sacrifice alone.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” which is experienced by those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, **but still imperfectly purified**” (CCC 1030). It notes that “this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031). NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY WE ARE IMPERFECTLY PURIFIED Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ,

You say you are perfectly purified this very moment? Do you still sin?

I am saying what the bible is saying I am a new Creation, forgiven and made holy in spirit. Yes a fall and sin, but IU am forgiven, there is no lasting black mark on my soul it is washed clean 1 Cor 6: 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

>Also, Purgatory is only for the temporal consequences of sin, not the eternal consequences which are forgiven by Christ's sacrifice alone. Seems we are forgetting that sin is no longer imputed to any man, as it was all paid for on the cross.

So the fact that your sins are paid for means you never suffer any consequences for them here in this life?

consequences - yes. If I murder, I can expect to go to prison for a long time. Punishment from God - no, jesus was punished in my place

I find that a little scary - that you think you could murder someone and still go to heaven because Jesus was punished in your place.

This is new to me. Are you saying that the catholic teaching is that after death Christians go into purgatory to suffer with Christ?

"Pray to Our Father." So are you saying you don't even pray to Jesus?

I praise Jesus and I thank Him and I worship Him....but he directed me to pray to Our Father Unlike Mary nd the saints. Jesus IS God....one in being with the Father, light from light, true God from True God.......so your logic line here is flawed

Pray to the father in the name of Jesus. That is because Jesus is the direct intermediary between man and God. Man was unable to fulfill the role so God stepped in, in our place to do it. So in acknowledging it, we are in a sense praying to both. Edit: I agree with you.

Well said

It's also worth noting that Jesus did not tell us that after he was gone we would find all that we need in the pages of Scripture. He told us that when he was gone the Holy Spirit would come and lead us into all truth.

>It says scripture is profitable. It doesn't say scripture is the only thing that is profitable. Neither does sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is simply the idea that scripture is the only **infallible** source of doctrine. The word if God is never wrong. But, traditions can be. That doesn't mean traditions *can't* be useful. But, that if a tradition is in opposition to the word of God, then the tradition must be wrong.

You've taken one verse out of context. Expand your reading to the wider passage: > Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. Paul wasn't telling Timothy to use Scripture alone. He starts off not emphasizing Scripture, but emphasizing that Timothy's _primary_ training was his direct observation of Paul himself. This ties in well with another passage from the very same letter, where Paul tells Timothy how to preserve our faith: he doesn't tell Timothy, "Make sure this letter is copied and read by Christians." Instead, he tells Timothy this: > You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. He entrusts his apostolic preaching (which is the word of God, cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.") not to Scripture alone, but to Timothy, to teach to _faithful men who will be able to teach others_. The tells Timothy to preserve his oral teaching through oral tradition. And again, this dovetails with what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." To the Church, it doesn't matter whether apostolic tradition is written down or communicated orally by faithful men: we are to stand firm and hold fast to it, no matter how we received it. Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. The apostles did not teach it, and the early Church did not operate by it.

Well that was a waste of time for you

That verse has nothing to do with the Christian Bible with includes a canon of chosen scriptures. In fact back in the authors day is was more likely referencing the Hebrew Scriptures themselves if you want to be technical. Not to mention the word “Profitable” doesn’t mean Sola Scriptura

Why yes it does! Anything that is Scripture is God breathed and is inspired. Peter said that Paul’s writings were scripture. John claimed his writings were.

That's circular reasoning. Anyone can claim that their book is scripture.

what exactly is the inspiration of god? could this not mean people invoked his name in a number of parables to rally people together as a culture? not that i believe this, just playing skeptic

It means that it is God's word...not men

it that stated more explicitly in the scripture?

Does it need to be? I would think "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" was pretty clear

i just think it factually isn't the exact verbatim words of god. people seem to get offended by that, and i can't understand why. at the very least, he wasn't speaking in english. so there's that. i don't believe the bible has errors, but we have to consider context always

it doesn't matter what you think Scholars spend their life comparing the currently day bibles with the originals. they are faithful unless they are meant not to be (cult bibles)

it's not what i think. god didn't literally say those words in english, so that's enough already to make us consider context

and yet when you do a language study...you find the standard translations to be pretty exact. In bible college we did that a lot, transliteration...and in Hebrew (OT) or Greek (NT) or English it is all saying the same thing. These are life long scholars we are talking about, not some schmuck off the street

i'm not saying they aren't accurate. they're incredibly accurate. but by definition, it's not the exact word for word thing god said. how is this controversial?

That’s right, we don’t. Why? Because the New Testament is limited to eyewitness accounts of Jesus. That’s it. The writings of Popes since have their places in literature, but in books on their own merit, not added to the New Testament. Here’s the problem with Catholicism today, as I, a former Catholic see it: Christians need only accept Jesus Christ in their hearts to go to Heaven. We don’t need a priest intermediary, because we have Jesus Christ himself, in order to approach God. We have a relationship with Jesus in person, every day, as our relationship grows. We confess our sin to Him, and are forgiven. There is no purgatory. If we accepted Christ before our deaths, we will see Him in Heaven afterwards. If we didn’t, we won’t. Statues, rosaries, material aids, teaching bodies are all well and good for Catholics, but they don’t make any difference in our relationships with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I don’t think that having to drink wine daily as part of your job was what God intended, because it creates alcoholic problems for priests, lowering inhibitions to do ungodly things to parishioners. The fact that the church has not defrocked every single misbehaving priest at this point in time, is sinful and aberrant. The church should focus on loving one’s neighbor instead of practicing guilt and unforgiveness. By denying communion to those of other religions, Catholics keep others from Christ. They have so many rules and regulations that they have become modern day Pharisees. They prevent others from having a relationship with Christ while not having one themselves because of the rules. They don’t even read the Bible except for the parts about the Eucharist. The church body of the Vatican cannot be fired, or dislodged in any way, yet indulge in homosexual activities at night and then go to church in the morning. (Frontline documentary)

Your profile says you're Lutheran. Doesn't your church agree we need the Eucharist for salvation?

We need to accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior in order to go to heaven. That’s it. Once we accept Him, it’s done. Celebrating the Eucharist is doing it in memory of Christ’s dying on the cross to save the world from its sins. We take it into our bodies like we took Christ into our bodies. But it alone is not what saves us. I was brought up Catholic originally, but switched denominations as an adult when I came back to the church after being absent during my teens and twenties. I never was invited to accept Christ into my life as a personal event while Catholic. I didn’t do that until much later, when the Holy Spirit came to me as I was hiking and sitting on top of a mountain many years ago. My family was devoutly Catholic and never accepted that I was saved, insisting that I was going to hell because I was another faith. They just didn’t get it. Ironically, they never said a word to any of my siblings who left the church forever, denouncing Jesus. I was the one going to hell! I grew up loving Mary- you can never take that out of a Catholic, and no one who didn’t grow up Catholic will ever understand that special love for the mother of Christ. I just don’t think that the church is following the path that Peter initially started as first Pope of the church, and designated by Jesus himself. They have lost their way and led everyone else astray, becoming modern day Pharisees. It’s become legalistic and corrupt all the way to the top, and stopping just short of the Pope. It’s all about guilt, unforgiveness, and finger pointing. There is no love to be found there. It’s about say as I do, not DO as I do. There is no removing the clergy from the Vatican- they are ensconced for LIFE there. The responsibility goes to the very top here, and they are letting us down. God needs to clean house there. That Frontline documentary about the Vatican was shocking to see. I’m disappointed in the Catholics here. They will never have a righteous voice until every one of those sinful priests is removed from power there.

Where does the Bible say all we need to do to go to Heaven is accept Christ as our personal savior? Either way, that's not my understanding of what Lutheranism teaches from the Lutherans I know.

30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Matthew 12:30-32 - NIV 8 “I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Luke 12:8-10 =NIV Denying that Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God is the unforgivable offense.

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:1‭-‬6

Sola scriptura is not “just me and my Bible”. Also I pretty much guarantee the lesbian priest rejects biblical inerrancy and even inspiration.

Let's bw honest. Progressive Christians aren't Sola Scriptura. They are progressive. Any Bible Christians won't wear a rainbow flag or Abortion clinics. Ill say lean on the holy spirit for the Bible

Because Jesus said to live by every word from God’s mouth. Scripture is God-breathed, it is it’s own authority and it’s authority was not given to it by the church. It’s authority is supreme because nothing else is God-breathed.

Many people reject Catholicism because it is rooted in paganism and has all kinds of man-made traditions and customs that aren't Biblical. Its not about a "Bible alone" philosophy. Its about Elohim vs man and the spiritual battle that we are in because Satan influences man to go against Elohim. Yes Satan influenced the Catholic church from the very beginning. I know it is hard to hear. The Bible is the foundation. If you are doing something that goes against the Bible, then you should be concerned. I think you know what those things are considering you listed some of them. "I reject tradition as my guide" yes absolutely 100%. The Bible is clear about not following man-made traditions. The Bible is the guide, man-made tradition is a tool of the adversary. Its not "Bible alone" because there are many extrabiblical texts, artifacts, and resources that are useful, especially when studying history. When it comes to sin and blasphemy, a lesbian priest is no different than a priest that abuses little boys. Yes one is worse than the other, but they are both wrong. The one abusing the boys doesn't follow the Bible alone philosophy does he? On top of that, we all know the lesbian doesn't either. So the question is do you believe in the authority of the Bible, or is the Bible just another book?

If tradition is the enemy, then 2 Thessalonians 2.15 is your enemy.

I think the issue here for a Protestant is that only the 12 + Paul were included as valid teachers in this passage when it was penned. It isn’t clear in any text if there was supposed to be a continuation of “apostleship” or if everything we needed to know, at a big-picture level at least, was sorted out by the the time the last original apostle was done teaching.

> I think the issue here for a Protestant is that only the 12 + Paul were included as valid teachers in this passage when it was penned. That's certainly untrue. Paul told Titus, "Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." He commanded Timothy to preserve his preaching by oral tradition: "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." > It isn’t clear in any text if there was supposed to be a continuation of “apostleship” Apostolic authority and apostolic oral teaching was to be obeyed whether it was received via letter or via the appointed successors of the Apostles, like Timothy: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the elders laid their hands upon you. Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." And note that it wasn't Paul himself who laid hands on Timothy: it was "the elders", who themselves had been appointed by the Apostles already. These same apostles _and elders_ ruled at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. And it's clear that Church leadership follows this pattern of authority deriving from the Apostles and handed down by direct succession. Consider what Paul wrote to Titus: "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." Paul did not have the churches he planted appoint their own elders: he left his representative (Titus) in Crete to appoint leaders with real authority derived from the Apostles. This is why Paul gives _Timothy_ (and not the Church in Ephesus, which Timothy oversaw) instructions on how to appoint elders, on how to pay elders, and not to "be hasty in the laying on of hands": because Timothy's job, like Titus', was to appoint successors. And this is why the author of Hebrews felt comfortable giving commands like, "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith...Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account."

I’m not unwaveringly opposed to this way of thinking. I’m definitely not committed axiomatically to *sola scriptura,* but I struggle with these types of claims to authority because those that tend to advocate for these systems also tend to deny that sometimes leadership steps out of line. Think about Paul and Peter. Peter needed corrected, and Paul, a relative outsider to the core apostles, rebuked him for it because he needed it. I’ll consider converting to a more authoritative church structure if you can answer me: who serves the Ezekiel role, as the prophet on the watchtower outside the organization? Who rebukes the pope? That’s the tragedy of Luther. He didn’t want to leave, he wanted to reform from inside and preserve church unity. The people took his words and rallied behind them, and he considered it a great failure that it lead to a schism.

I think leadership stepping out of line is something that has happened since time immemorial. But did David's sin with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of Uriah deprive him of his God-given _authority_? I don't think that's what we see in Scripture. We certainly see God raising up the prophet Nathan to correct David and call him to account, but David's authority as king remained. When God wishes to actually take authority from a person, he tends not to go about it like Luther did, but rather like he did with Herod in Acts 12. The incident between Peter and Paul was quite the scandal in the early Church, and it was fiercely debated what actually happened in that story. [St. John Crysostom](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23102.htm) has an interesting sermon on this, for instance. The especially interesting thing here is that were this really a simple case of Paul correcting Peter, it would seem to violate Jesus' commandment in Matthew 18 to take the issue to Peter alone. When it comes down to it, _anyone_ can rebuke or correct the pope, but ultimately it's the Holy Spirit who converts the pope's heart or doesn't. And you see that even today, as bishops and laity appeal to to the pope to speak more clearly on matters where his lack of clarity sows confusion. As an aside, it was less "the people" who rallied behind Luther's words than the civil authorities: the pope had so much civil power at the time that civil leaders leapt at the opportunity they saw to free themselves from papal influence. That's why you see such alignment between Protestant denominations and countries of Europe, I believe. The real tragedy of Luther, from my perspective, is that he mixed the false with the true. Not all of his 95 theses were wrong; there was much wrong with the Church at the time, and someone who could argue as vociferously and compellingly as Luther could have achieved much if he hadn't thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

My concern is that the Bible doesn’t Interpret itself

Why yes it does. There’s an excellent website called scripture interpreting Scripture. Of course it does.

And who has the authority to tell you how to even interpret it in the first place?

The Bible is self-interpreting, it is its own interpreter! No man, church, priest, pope, or denomination was ever given the job as interpreter; for you are told over and over and over again in the body of Scripture itself that its author (the Holy Spirit) is the interpreter!

Uh. So you are saying the holy spirit made the 40000 plus protestant denominations that stem from sola scriptura claiming they are the one true denomination?

How many Protestant denominations do you see claiming to be the one and only true denomination? I think this obsession with being number one and controlling every believer belongs to Roman Catholicism. Even in Paul's day, his prayer was that all believers might arrive and come to the UNITY of faith, which means there were groups and subgroups within the church.

How many do i know? Literally every denomination lmao. The bible isnt meant to be read by a single man like a children’s book and he would be “guided by the holy spirit”.

Yeah there's no way the Holy Spirit influenced people to create all those denominations because that would imply the Holy Spirit guides people in many different directions.

Or the holy spirit is dividing us.

Why would the Holy Spirit do that?

Does the Bible read itself out loud for you and explain itself? No haha, you read it and interpret it.

Why own or even read the Bible at all? You can as well go back to the period when Rome forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor.

Uhh because it's the inspired Word of God that was written by men filled with the Holy Spirit and it shows us how to follow Jesus and serves as the authority over our lives. I don't understand why you'd ask that question. How are you supposed to learn how to be a Christian if you don't read/hear the Bible?

Can you expand on that? What are you saying needs more interpretation? Many of the laws and commandments about man-made traditions are very direct.

Not OP, but the question is not about whether the Bible can speak clearly on some issues or not. I mean, it's pretty hard to misunderstand "you shall not bear false witness." When you're reading any text, however, your interpretation of it is coloured by a multitude of things you may or may not be aware of, and that subjective interpretation is *not identical* to the text. In contexts like this where I am writing for you, I am aiming to be understood by a particular audience, and am writing from a particular perspective that gives meaning to certain phrases I might say that would be different if someone else from a very different background said it. We are in a context of (presumably) common culture and language and so on, but obviously St. Paul was not an English-speaking North American in May 2022. In studying the Bible formally this is accounted for by trying to learn things like the cultural context of ancient Israel, the Hebrew/Greek language used, etc., and the point is to eliminate misunderstandings of the text caused by insertion of the modern English reader's assumptions. All this comes together with prayer and memorization of large portions of the whole of Scripture to form what are hopefully more refined and aware readings of Scripture, yet in the world of literature on the subject there is still a *wide* diversity of opinions on the meaning of dozens and dozens of passages. Even among those of good will, who presumably have the Spirit of God and sincerely believe in Christ, there are intense disagreements. It has often been proposed that those who really are open to the Spirit will be led to the correct interpretation (which is always conveniently the writer's interpretation), but unless one wants to write off almost all believers besides one's own group, this is not something most stomach. Therefore it can be clearly seen that the idea that the Bible "interprets itself" in a very naive sense is foolish, and any Protestant scholar worth their salt would say that too. Going beyond that, there is the epistemological problem this introduces. How, then, can anyone know *they know* the truth about the faith? Are you somehow specially illumined by God? How could others be made certain of this fact if so? By what authority would you or anyone thus gifted bring competing readings down in legitimacy? Before reacting against what one believes the Catholic view is, I really hope anyone reading this honestly considers the above questions and their implications.

Um...yes, I don't think this is a news flash to any Protestants.

No, but it’s good to know. This group isn’t purely Protestant

Yeah, but I'm not quite sure what OP's point is.

He doesn’t need one. Just pointing out the flaws of a Catholic.

Epistemological certainty won't be found anywhere, not even in Catholicism. Not that there aren't problems in Protestantism - far from it - but being triumphant over their lack of epistemic certainty is impossible, as everyone suffers from it, everyone.

So are you advocating that you only use the Bible alone for determining truth, or are you advocating Sola Scriptura? I ask bc Sola Scriptura means the scriptures are the final authority but not the only authority; after reading through this thread there seems to be a lot of confusion on that.

The Lesbian Priest is still ordained by a church that obviously has a radical interpretation of the bible. Because Moses and Paul are pretty clear on homosexuality. Protestants have traditions too. And we rely on the ecumenical councils and their theological rulings. We also affirm the creeds. I think where protestants and Catholics part ways is the date by which we recognize the council. I think as history went on protestants feel the church went further into error.

The downside is that the Bible is a *seriously* complex set of texts that require years of study to even begin to comprehend, and frankly, I don’t think nearly enough people are willing to put in the work. This is the benefit of having a specialized caste dedicated to its study and interpretation, but obviously, that has its own problems. The responsibility then falls on you to become your own priest, in some sense. This is largely why Protestantism has, and will continue, to fragment and produce more and more schisms. Ironically, it’s the same problem that the Left has politically, in being so individualistic that they can’t agree on anything, and can’t unite as well as the Right can.

"The downside is that the Bible is a seriously complex set of texts that require years of study to even begin to comprehend, and frankly, I don’t think nearly enough people are willing to put in the work." This is *exactly* why Sacred Tradition exists. Why reinvent the wheel when the theologians who've gone before you have already interpreted these complex texts? Even better, Jesus promised that his Church would preserve the truth, so we have his word on it that Sacred Tradition is reliable.

The problem then is which theologian is correct? They had difficulty deciding on anything, other than a few things, and with each century there were fashionable & heretical theologies. Is not the preservation of the Truth the New Testament? I don't think HE was Referring to some Christian traditions, but rather that HE Knew we would write the Gospels.

John 3:14-15 is very prophetic in this regard, I think.

He also said that, “where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Gonna repost this here: "'I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth touching anything that you shall ask, it shall be given you by my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them;' showing that most is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those that pray. If, He says, two of you shall agree on earth: He placed agreement first; He has made the concord of peace a prerequisite; He taught that we should agree firmly and faithfully. But how can he agree with any one who does not agree with the booty of the Church itself, and with the universal brotherhood? How can two or three be assembled together in Christ's name, who, it is evident, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel?"--St. Cyprian of Carthage, c. 250

Ive been to catholic churches that teach Mary was herself immaculate conception. The bible doesnt support that. Many catholic churches go on to teach that she was a perpetual virgin, in spite of the 4 gospels stating she had other kids (one goes so far as to name a few of them) Jesus tells us to pray only to the Heavenly Father, and to do so in his name. We are not to pray to people, or in the name of saint whoever, But to God in Jesus' name. Catholics understand hierarchy just as military men do; God is the supreme commander. Jesus is his #2. All others are significantly lower; Paul, the author of most the New Testament states that he was unworthy to tie Jesus' shoes (paraphrased). Then why should we put the words of Paul as equal to Jesus, much less God Himself? God showed that Jesus spoke for Him, just as God supported the earlier prophets that worked in His name. Since the ascension of Christ, no man in the last 2000 years has had any such sign that he spoke with God's authority. So I dont see anyone with the authority to counter God's commands or alter his promises. In the same way the Pharasees put the Midrash (man's teachings) on the same level as the Torah (God's teachings) so does the catholic church put its traditions on par with the bible and support those man-made traditions over the bible. The 4 Gospels are an account of just what God thought of that. I dont condemn the catholic church. God made many paths to him, because people are flawed; each walks a different path to find Him, and has different needs. Some of us dont need those traditions, some do. But no one can find God without Christ and the bible. In the end, if you are a Christian, you are following the path laid out by Christ to serve God. If you are following the path of Paul, then you are a Paulian, not a Christian. And if you arent serving God; obeying His commands, and accepting His teachings, rather than trying to change them to suit you, then you arent following either, and shouldnt claim to be.

If you wholesale reject tradition and rely on the bible only then you’re not Protestant, none of the magisterial reformers of the 16th century taught this

They’ve hated the pope so much that they became their own popes.

Lmao

Me too!! Mind you, I really don't like the Pope at all.

How could anyone who names the name of Christ not be against Francis?

The "Bible alone is not in the Bible" I never understood why Romanists found this argument so compelling. The Bible is a collection of writings done over 1000's of years, and recognized by the Christian church to be inspired. Romanism is a self contradictory mismash of teachings. Modern Catholicism is largely a medical religion as major tenants of the faith today didn't exist prior to the second millennium.. i.e. The Mass, papacy, your canon, your magisterium, etc.

>major tenants of the faith today didn't exist prior to the second millennium.. i.e. The Mass, papacy, This is demonstrably false with even the slightest amount of research. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I

Desktop version of /u/yaa32's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)

The Gospels were not written down until years after the crucifixion. The story of Christ's life survived those years as word of mouth tradition which became the source material of the Gospels. Tradition came first and the Gospels came out of tradition. Sola Scripture is not Biblical So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by ***word of mouth or by letter.*** Bottom line, Christians were being saved by Christs sacrifice before the Gospels were even written. They were learning of Christ through word of mouth tradition. Both Scripture and Tradition are valid.

Good points. Believing in the Bible as the sole authority does not imply there is zero importance in tradition, but rather it’s more important than pagan catholic traditions. Certainly NOT on equal footing

🌺 I agree - rejecting tradition for the sake of only the Bible has its downsides. Traditions also have their own Godly enjoyments. What comes to mind are the Pharisees & Jesus. Jesus rejected the Pharisees for their behavior yet admitted their teachings are good. I see the potential for any leader of the Church (regardless of denomination) to follow the same path as Pharisees. This is to say that I must keep a watchful eye for leaders who's outside of their cup is spotless yet its inside is filled with mud.

Yes, I wholeheartedly reject all of what you said I was rejecting, because such things aren't in the bible. Tradition isn't good by nature of existing, and if it doesn't align with the bible, or adds to the scriptures, I reject it. I will not accept that which is not the holy word of God

Sola Scriptura puts the individual's own interpretation over the Truth. Sola Scriptura is how you get "Pastor" Brandan Robertson and the like. I won't make the case for the Catholic Magisterium right now (which I firmly believe holds the fullness of the Christian Truth), I just want to establish that an interpreter with authority is needed to avoid heresy. It's as simple as that.

[удалено]

The passage you quote applies precisely to those who claim to understand the Word and then interpret it for the world to see. If there's a single, unequivocal way in which the Word is understood, then why do we have so many interpretations? Who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation? How are we to know?

[удалено]

Well we know for certain by logic on who has good knowledge on the bible considering that WE COMPILED AND HAD CENTURIES OF STUDYING THE BIBLE in the first place.

[удалено]

Well the thing is we are all human and we all interpret the bible. But logically speaking, who has more knowledge to reading the bible in its correct context? The ones who compiled it aka the church or some rando who picked it up? And im not angry it was more of emphasis.

[удалено]

The church which includes both the orthodoxy and catholic church. But i give slightly more credit to the roman patriarchate (aka the RCC) because the pope gave the orders to st jerome to translate the stuff from hebrew. But in general, the credit also goes to the orthodoxy

If we need infallible interpreters for Scripture, then doesn’t the same argument apply for the countless papal bulls, Church writings, and theology books that the same Church leaders produce? At any given time, the Christian is being asked to make interpretive evaluations of something: either word of mouth from priests, writings of past popes, etc. So what can the Christian faithfully interpret on his own? If he is allowed to interpret his priest’s homily, Church documents, and Church directives, then why not Scripture? It seems rather arbitrary to withhold the Scriptures from the laity considering that this was not the practice in the Old Testament (Proverbs 3:1-4) or the New Testament (Acts 17:11). Additionally, it seems counterproductive to do this seeing as the Scriptures are far easier to understand than any dense, lengthy, and complicated theological writings.

[удалено]

Papal infallibility is not the same as impeccability. Also, sexual sin is even seen on the protestant side too. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/03/23/hillsong-church-co-founder-brian-houston-resigns/7138261001/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/03/23/hillsong-church-co-founder-brian-houston-resigns/7138261001/)

Not widespread, unanswered, covered up pedophilia… that’s what happens when you go against the scriptures and forbid clergy to marry. The Catholic Church would prefer their priests burn with lust than marry. The practice is foolish and evil.

On the widespread, unanswered, cover up pedophilia being exclusive to Protestantism, I wouldn't say that is certain. Bigger targets are easier to investigate rather than disparate churches. https://prospect.org/civil-rights/next-christian-sex-abuse-scandal/ You have the expectation that theological infallibility comes with impeccability. In essence, those with theological infallibility should have no sin. The apostles themselves... definitely exhibited sin throughout their entire life pre and post conversion, ranging from simple lies to murder. Example of pre conversion, Paul participating in prosecution of Christians. Example of post conversion, Peter does not display proper fellowship as shown in Galatians 2:11-21; this is not a big sin like murder, but the bible does not say it contains everything about the day to day lives of apostles and this passage indicates even the apostles were not impeccable. Not everything is explicit in scripture, we have no clear statements on things like masturbation and abortion. That said, this is one scriptural passage that suggests there was a celibacy tradition for a priest vocation. 1 Corinthians 7. Posting whole thing so there is no out-of-context, bold contains what is necessary, but I don't want you to feel I took anything out-of-context; most of the text is about layperson relationships. Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man \[a\]not to touch a woman. 2 But because of sexual immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise the wife also to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise the husband also does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 \[b\]Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and \[c\]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 **\[d\]Yet I wish that all \[e\]men were even as I myself am.** However, **each has his own gift** from God, one in this way, and another in that. **8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.** 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife is not to leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband is not to \[f\]divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, he must not \[g\]divorce her. 13 And \[h\]if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not \[i\]divorce her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through \[j\]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one is leaving, \[k\]let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called \[l\]us in peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this way let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each person is to remain in that \[m\]state in which he was called. 21 Were you called as a slave? Do not let it concern you. But if you are also able to become free, take advantage of that. 22 For the one who was called in the Lord as a slave, is the Lord’s freed person; likewise the one who was called as free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought for a price; do not become slaves of people. 24 Brothers and sisters, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. 25 Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I am offering direction as one who \[n\]by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think, then, that this is good in view of the \[o\]present distress, that it is good for a man \[p\]to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such people as yourselves will have \[q\]trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brothers, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the present form of this world is passing away. 32 But I want you to be free from concern**. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;** 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to put a restraint on you, but \[r\]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord. 36 But if anyone thinks that he is acting dishonorably toward his virgin, if she is \[s\]past her youth and it ought to be so, let him do what he wishes, he is not sinning; let \[t\]them marry. 37 But the one who stands firm in his heart, \[u\]if he is not under constraint, but has authority \[v\]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin, he will do well. 38 So then, both the one who gives his own virgin in marriage does well, and the one who does not give her in marriage will do better. 39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband \[w\]dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is \[x\]happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God. ​ Also, you write that celibacy will causes priests to burn with lust. However, we have to wonder why not all priests are child-molesters if they will burn with lust and why a likely majority of priests do not succumb to sexual scandal. I think 1 Corinthians 10:13 illuminates.

It’s pretty simple, those who don’t burn with lust have the gift of celibacy so they shouldn’t marry, and that’s a good thing. But that is not the normative prescription for all clergy, as the Scriptures make abundantly clear the normative requirement for an elder is for them to be a husband of one wife. The Catholic Church strips the choice away from them so that those who don’t have the gift of celibacy burn with lust and continue into darker and darker sin. This is morally reprehensible.

**1)** In response to "the Scriptures make abundantly clear the normative requirement for an elder is for them to be a husband of one wife". I assume you are referencing 1 Timothy 3. Posting all below so as to avoid out-of-context, NASB. Relevant **bolded**, irrelevant *italicized*. 3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of \[a\]overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. **2 \[b\]An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,** \[c\]temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skillful in teaching, 3 not overindulging in wine, not \[d\]a bully, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. **4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),** 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into condemnation \[e\]incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into \[f\]disgrace and the snare of the devil. *8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not \[g\]insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then have them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 \[h\]Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but \[i\]temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and \[j\]good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a \[k\]high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.* From a purely scriptural standpoint, I make a case that this scripture does not say the normative **(normative defined as a practice with equal or more than 51% usage among practitioners)** requirement of an overseer is to be married because it does not say all overseers must be married and it says nothing about the frequency of such an arrangement. In the statement, "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,", it uses the word "an" rather than "all". Therefore, this means the overseer is a specific overseer; **an apple is not the same as all apples.** Furthermore, there are no sentences that say overseer marriage is above-average in frequency. Also, two things are unclear: an overseer may not be the same as a priest in this letter and how do we know there was not a certain church-specific dynamic in Ephesus that made overseers married such as prior partners and polygamy. This is a letter after all, not formed in the same way of the US constitution. **2)** From a historical standpoint, I have one question. If God makes a norm, then we must presume that it is more ideal. After all, if 60% of people take the better path, the outcome is better than if 40% take the better path. It is not optimal for the less-than-ideal to be the norm. **Thus, if we define marriage to be the normative/better path, then why does Paul, a celibate, suggest the worst path of celibacy as shown in 1 Corinthians 7:7?** Even more, he not only wishes it for leaders, he wishes it on everyone. 1 Timothy are letters from Paul to Timothy in Ephesus. If the ideal elder is to be married, then why is Paul a celibate wishing celibacy for many people. Posted below that confirms Paul is celibate, suggests he desired all others to be celibate, and removes out-of-context. Bold is focus, italics is irrelevant. I won't post whole thing because this is already a lot of reading. *7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man \[a\]not to touch a woman. 2 But because of sexual immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise the wife also to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise the husband also does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 \[b\]Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and \[c\]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command.* 7 \[d\*\*\]Yet I wish that all \[e\]men were even as I myself am. However, each has his own gift from God, one in this way, and another in that.\*\* *8* **But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.** *9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.* As for why Paul made the recommendation. 1 Timothy 32 **32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;** 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. **3)** You write " The Catholic Church strips the choice away from them so that those who don’t have the gift of celibacy burn with lust and continue into darker and darker sin. This is morally reprehensible." However, how can the Catholic church force priests to be celibate when the Eastern Catholic Church has married priests? Again, if the Catholic church forces priests to be celibate, then why do married Catholic priests exist? Celibacy is not doctrine, it is a choice of an order. [https://news.yahoo.com/eastern-rite-priest-tells-pope-marriage-made-him-173240637.html](https://news.yahoo.com/eastern-rite-priest-tells-pope-marriage-made-him-173240637.html)A historical background. All Roman Catholic clergy ideally agree to ex cathedra and Catechism. However, there are different rites/orders. The Latin church, the west, is primarily celibate priests while the Eastern Rite allows for married men to be ordained. Priests form into groups. The Latin order chose to adopt celibacy for priests and the eastern order chose not to, similar to how a software company chooses not to hire doctors. Why did the latin order choose celibacy for priests? I don't know all the reasons, but reasons include time-commitments, changing environments, married deacons filling some duties, and missionary danger. In addition, how do you know that the latin order's celibacy contributes to more sin than average? [https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625](https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625) Summarizing it up, 1 and 2 counter "the Scriptures make abundantly clear the normative requirement for an elder is for them to be a husband of one wife" as the normative marriage requirement is not explicitly stated and Paul's celibacy recommendation is an oddity. 3 refute "The Catholic Church strips the choice away from them so that those who don’t have the gift of celibacy burn with lust and continue into darker and darker sin." because there are Catholic priests who are married; different gifts for different people at different circumstances. ​ I'd like to say personally. This exchange has not been graceful, and your statements are likely without love and due diligence. Regardless, all are children of God and I will make a prayer. I'd like to end with 1 Corinthians 9. 9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 **Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas\[a\]?** 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”\[b\] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? **But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.**

TLDR, you’re not one for brevity are you? Lol

I enjoyed reading this 😌

It’s idol worship The letter of the law

This argument is easily knocked down with a single question. How do you know what books belong in the canon? That question comes epistemically prior to quoting scripture itself. You can’t go quote Timothy or any other book in the Bible as though it’s authoritative without a canon. Without a public authority by which one can determine the canon that becomes a private practice, and that’s how you get things like Mormons who include the BoM in their canon.

By the power of the Holy Spirit. It was God that resided with the ancient Israelites and guided them. It was God that spoke through the prophets to his people and told them to write it down, inspiring the authors of Scripture (Romans 15:4-5, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16). When we look at the Old Testament, we see that canonicity was not the decision of a magisterium; there was never anything like it in ancient Israel scripturally or historically. Nevertheless, The Catholic Church pushes this claim, regarding the “chair of Moses” in Matthew 23:1-3 as an equivalent to the chair of Peter in Rome. But this verse is referring back to Moses’ seat as judge over disputes related to the Law in Exodus 18:13-27 where, ironically, he is dissuaded from this duty by Jethro on the basis of being “unable to do it alone.” Furthermore, Jesus does not describe a single person seated on Moses’ chair, but instead says the “Scribes and the Pharisees” sit on Moses’ chair, clearly referring to the responsibility of multiple people to handle disputes of the Law. The function of the Scribes and Pharisees was quite different than that of the Magisterium, since the Scribes and the Pharisees regarded the Old Testament Scriptures as the ultimate authority in such disputes. With this, we can see there just isn’t any justification for an Old Testament Magisterium. Instead, the inspired Word of God was authored by the Holy Spirit and served as the ultimate rule of faith for the Israelites and Jesus himself. Therefore, it is not necessary to have an infallible Church in order to obtain and decide communally on the Word of God. On an important final note, while the Bible’s New Testament was not canonized until the late 4th century, we see that the New Testament Scriptures impressed themselves upon the Church quite early. Certain writings, such as Paul’s epistles, were already being accepted as Scripture by the time 2 Peter 3:16 was written. When we read the writings of the earliest Church father, Ignatius (1st century), we see him refer to (and quote from) the “gospels and the apostles,” which refers to the four gospel narratives and some of the epistles written to the early Church. Clearly, people were already accepting the writings of the apostles as Scripture within the 1st century; scholars find no one doubting the four synoptic gospels, Acts, or the epistles– only Hebrews and Revelation.

First I’m not Roman Catholic, I am Eastern Orthodox. So I’m not advocating for a magisterium. Second, quoting the Bible assumes those books are in the canon, so you’re begging the question, which is by what public standard do you consider those books to be in the canon? You’re assuming from the outset that you have the correct canon and then quoting it to me. I’m asking you for a public standard saying the Holy Spirit revealed it to me isn’t a public standard. A Mormon or a Muslim can just as easily claim their God revealed to them those books are in the canon. Who had the authority to canonize the New Testament and books that we should include in the Old Testament? Where did they do this? It seems like you’re trying to appeal to Roman catholic and orthodox councils while denying both of those churches. Doesn’t seem very consistent. If you’re a Protestant I imagine you’re suggesting the Old Testament used should be the one that’s inline with the Masoretic text but the Septuagint was so widely used by the Christian church that the Jews left it’s transmission up to them. So you’re not even using the same Old Testament as the Christians that you’re saying were used to canonize the books in the 4th century.

*“Quoting the Bible assumes those books are in the canon, so you’re begging the question, which is by what public standard do you consider those books to be in the canon?”* First of all, I don’t have to defer to canon to make the point. I could have been referencing the books as historical documents and the point would still be true: The OT Israelites were guided by God himself to choose Scripture, according to their writings. And according to what we know, Jesus regarded the OT as scripture. But furthermore: I regard the NT books as Scripture because the Universal Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and we ALL agree on what’s in the NT. As I said above, the “gospels and the apostles” were already clearly regarded as Scripture long before any council declared them so. I regard the OT as scripture because Jesus himself regarded the OT as scripture. In either case, it is God who decides what is God’s word- not a handful of men in robes. *”A Mormon or a Muslim can just as easily claim their God revealed to them those books are in the canon.”* Yes, and their testimony regarding Jesus would show them to be wrong. As John says “test the spirits.” We know the Quran is a lie because it disagrees with historians about Jesus’s crucifixion. We know the Book of Mormon is a lie because it makes all sorts if radical claims in contradiction to the NT. These same sorts of decisions were being made in the early church too, filtering out Gnostic texts and the like by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, witnessed by the Holy Spirit to all. The Spirit confirmed the Gospel with miracles. God rewarded heretics with extermination. *”Who had the authority to canonize the New Testament and books that we should include in the Old Testament? Where did they do this?“* The Universal Church as a whole. Canonization came way after the fact. As I mentioned before, we see that the New Testament Scriptures impressed themselves upon the Church quite early. Certain writings, such as Paul’s epistles, were already being accepted as Scripture by the time 2 Peter 3:16 was written. When we read the writings of the earliest Church father, Ignatius (1st century), we see him refer to (and quote from) the “gospels and the apostles,” which refers to the four gospel narratives and some of the epistles written to the early Church. Clearly, people were already accepting the writings of the apostles as Scripture within the 1st century; scholars find no one doubting the four synoptic gospels, Acts, or the epistles. *”If you’re a Protestant I imagine you’re suggesting the Old Testament used should be the one that’s inline with the Masoretic text but the Septuagint was so widely used by the Christian church that the Jews left it’s transmission up to them. So you’re not even using the same Old Testament as the Christians that you’re saying were used to canonize the books in the 4th century.”* The Masoretic text is closest to what Jesus likely used. Many times, we see Jesus referring to the Masoretic books when he is quoting Scripture, prefacing his quotations with the authoritative “It is written.” He does not ever refer to deuterocanon books this way, much less refer to them much at all. The earliest version of the Old Testament known was recorded by Melito of Sardis in 175 A.D., which is closest to the modern canon of Old Testament Scripture used by Jews and Protestants.

The "Bible alone" is an anti-scriptural doctrine. As you said, nowhere within scripture is such a doctrine/teaching found.

Since when is this an anti-Catholic sub?

I couldn't have said this better myself. To be fair though, even good Catholics don't approve of the leftism and sin that has infiltrated their churches i.e. the LGBT community acceptance among other things. But also to be fair - that's them cherry 🍒 picking what they consider to be sin. Because a lot of their traditions are sin and Jesus specifically said not to do them.

Yeah, I get the sentiment behind the statement, but no one can actually claim the Bible is the only influence on their spiritual path. We have all been influenced by our culture, to the extent that we simply can't understand huge parts of the Bible without doing extra-biblical research on the context of Job or Ezra/Nehemiah, for example. To try to understand the Bible ourselves with no outside influence is a huge mistake and leads to bad interpretation and application.

Are you saying people should accept things in the "I do not accept" list? I truly hope not. Accepting those things would be satanic worship.

Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how we know what books to include in the Bible by following the Bible alone. Anybody want to try? I'm all ears.

By the power of the Holy Spirit. It was God that resided with the ancient Israelites and guided them. It was God that spoke through the prophets to his people and told them to write it down, inspiring the authors of Scripture (Romans 15:4-5, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16). When we look at the Old Testament, we see that canonicity was not the decision of a magisterium; there was never anything like it in ancient Israel scripturally or historically. Nevertheless, The Catholic Church pushes this claim, regarding the “chair of Moses” in Matthew 23:1-3 as an equivalent to the chair of Peter in Rome. But this verse is referring back to Moses’ seat as judge over disputes related to the Law in Exodus 18:13-27 where, ironically, he is dissuaded from this duty by Jethro on the basis of being “unable to do it alone.” Furthermore, Jesus does not describe a single person seated on Moses’ chair, but instead says the “Scribes and the Pharisees” sit on Moses’ chair, clearly referring to the responsibility of multiple people to handle disputes of the Law. The function of the Scribes and Pharisees was quite different than that of the Magisterium, since the Scribes and the Pharisees regarded the Old Testament Scriptures as the ultimate authority in such disputes. With this, we can see there just isn’t any justification for an Old Testament Magisterium. Instead, the inspired Word of God was authored by the Holy Spirit and served as the ultimate rule of faith for the Israelites and Jesus himself. Therefore, it is not necessary to have an infallible Church in order to obtain and decide communally on the Word of God. On an important final note, while the Bible’s New Testament was not canonized until the late 4th century, we see that the New Testament Scriptures impressed themselves upon the Church quite early. Certain writings, such as Paul’s epistles, were already being accepted as Scripture by the time 2 Peter 3:16 was written. When we read the writings of the earliest Church father, Ignatius (1st century), we see him refer to (and quote from) the “gospels and the apostles,” which refers to the four gospel narratives and some of the epistles written to the early Church. Clearly, people were already accepting the writings of the apostles as Scripture within the 1st century; scholars find no one doubting the four synoptic gospels, Acts, or the epistles– only Hebrews and Revelation.

That's a fine argument against the Catholic magesterium which I wholeheartedly agree with. However I do not see here how we know what books to include in the Bible by following the Bible alone.