When martin Luther say sola scriptura, the word scriptura mean protestan bible
Where apocrypha not include
So If one agree sola scriptura doctrine, one must agree with only
Bible source of doctrine apocrypha is eclude
Catholicism vs Protestantism
- Thread starter Roughsoul1991
- 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.
When martin Luther say sola scriptura, the word scriptura mean protestan bible
Where apocrypha not include
So If one agree sola scriptura doctrine, one must agree with only
Bible source of doctrine apocrypha is eclude
Did Martin Luther have the authority to decide what books should be called scripture?
Early protestant bibles had the apocrypha included in them. It was later that upon examination it was concluded that the apocrypha had numerous errors and conflicts with much of the rest of scripture.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
That is faith brother.
I have a faith this is the word of God, than up to other if they not agree.
Catholic believe apocrypha is the word of God. And modern Protestant not, that's up to them.
But I believe for Protestant sola scriptura mean scripture alone and modern Protestant define scriptura as Protestant bible
Yep, do you believestatement that catholic accept the doctrine of sola scriptura?
Well, I think that Catholics believe that Catholic teaching is all based on proper interpretation of the "scriptures only". Is that what you're asking?
It was a catholic member say that catholic accept sola scriptura doctrine, and I don't believe, that is the beground of my question.
Many Christians and Catholics have never read the apocrypha. Many have not even read the bible for that matter. The apocrypha has been subjects to much scholarly study by men with a greater education than I and many of the laity.
I have a copy of the apocrypha for study purposes in a protestant bible in my collection. There are a number of specific things that I have found in the apocrypha that are clearly indirect conflict with the OT and NT scriptures.
Only the word of God claims to be inspired by its Author.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The bible tells us not to say who is or isn't going to hell, only God knows and judges. We can assume because of their fruits, but we can't know and should say we do. We can say all those under the blood will be ion Heaven, but we don't know Billy Bob's PRIVATE LIFESTYLE if you catch my drift.
The Protestants, of course, broke off of what they saw as a Domineering, evil Church {which they were} and the Church of England was also evil, however. They tortured people also. The problem was not the Church per se but the Governments creeping into the Church, which is why then US Constitution forbid Church and State involvement, and that simply meant that the State could not have an official Church per se as a State Church. It did not mean what the Robed Bandits tried to infer at the Supreme Court, that people involved with Gov. couldn't profess their faith.
The RCC is not the Beast and the Popes, not the False Prophet, that is silly, because I understand the book of Revelation. Likewise, the Islamic angle that the Beast will be a Muslim is wrong also. So Satan is just doing work, deceiving both sides, as he does.
Most Catholics don't accept the common understanding of "scripture only".
But in practice, no one actually lives by scripture only.
Here's an example
Do you have a list of books that are scripture? If so, did that list come from the scriptures?
What I'm hearing is that you personally looked at the books of the Apocrypha and decided that they were not God's word.
And that's fine.
Following that same method, each individual person would look at different books and decide for themselves which ones they will believe are scripture.
Am I understanding you correctly?
So basically Catholic not agree sola scriptura and that is very foundation of Protestant believe.
The logic of is the list of scripture in the scripture?
If the answere is not, is that prove that sola scriptura wrong?
Let say there are 3 manual book in the world, A B C and I believe A
In A doesn't say B and C wrong, but .i believe it is, than up to me
the Bible say test every teaching for example if apocrypha not consisten with the whole picture of bible teaching than I am not consider it as scripture
The criteria is much more stringent than my opinion. The necessity that the apocrypha not conflict or contradict the other books of the bible being one criteria.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
What you are saying makes sense. But one of the things that I am saying is that it turns out that Protestants don't actually practice "scripture only". What Protestants actually practice is "scripture mostly", which is also what Catholics practice, using a Catholic interpretation of the scriptures.
Does A say that it is the only manual? If not, and if you choose to believe that A is the only manual, then you are believing something outside of A.
So in the example, you are not living by "A only", or to use the Latin, "sola A".
Right!
and would that same standard also apply to the books of the old testament and New testament?
That is, if a person believes there is a contradiction between 2 books in the New testament, then it would follow that one of them must not be scripture?
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
or maybe they are misinterpreting one book
the apocrypha has apparant huge contradictions, for those who have studied them. Thats why they are rejected as true scripture.
The contradiction they build their faith on necromancy. is when comparing the the two different source of law. They make the laws of men called the law of the fathers and combine it with their written law.Making make the word of God God's law to no effect ,
No man can serve two what they call sacred Divine teaching authorities. The word of God and what they call sacred tradition of their fathers. Blasphemy.
They even call these oral traditions sacred and place them in their book of law before the actual sacred divine tradition .
They have no use for sola scriptura (their nemesis) .It as it is written makes their sacred oral tradition of sinful men without effect. A carbon copy of the first century reformation .The word of God reforming the government of God. after no man
That is where we can find the difference . Comparing one written law to another. Another Christ another God. Those who glory in the corrupted flesh of men
catholic Book of the law. . . verse #80. . . Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. Each of then makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ. They both flow out of the same divine well-spring, and together make up one sacred deposit of faith from which the Church derives her certainty about revelation.
Or in other words .Your will surely not die. Just seek after those who have a familiar spirit called patron saints (3500 and rising) They will bring new kind of life after the wrong manner of dead spirit .
This has been the excuse for some to proclaim that the bible contains the word of God but is not the word of God. Men have been critical of the bible for many years but I have noticed that it is not what the bible says that is the problem but that they do not like what it says.
I do not believe there are any contradictions in the bible.
For the cause of Christ
Roger