Jump to content

Is sola scriptura true?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I have the zeal of a convert

the Nazarene come like a stranger in the night

no man nor office between us

Yeah and buffoonery ensues. Good luck to you Dougie you're going to need it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the Papists are confronted by the heresy of a godless atheist Pope

any honest Papist admits that he is lost in a wilderness therein

what Papists defend & uphold the degenerate Papacy now ?

I don't know any

they are all being converted to Protestantism in the face of the Vatican siding with Communists

whether they admit it or not

although most admit it now, since they cannot abide the heresy of Woke Pope.

 

Where did you learn this retro vocabulary about Catholics? These days, people with any education in Scotland would be embarrassed by you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Engage in insightful discussions on the intricate relationship between religion and politics, exploring how faith influences governance, policy-making, and societal norms. Share perspectives on the impact of religious beliefs on political ideologies and practices worldwide.

Insightful, my painful backside, just a bunch of balloons yelling at each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Cite for us someone who came before Luther who believes the things you believe. 

There were many and they were persecuted by the Church of Rome.  It was during the Dark Ages.

Papal Persecutions

2. Persecution of the Waldenses in France

3. Persecutions of the Albigenses

4. The Bartholomew Massacre at Paris

"

CHAPTER 4

Papal Persecutions

Thus far our history of persecution has been confined principally to the pagan world. We come now to a period when persecution, under the guise of Christianity, committed more enormities than ever disgraced the annals of paganism. Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the Gospel, the papal Church, arming herself with the power of the sword, vexed the Church of God and wasted it for several centuries, a period most appropriately termed in history, the "dark ages."

The kings of the earth, gave their power to the "Beast," and submitted to be trodden on by the miserable vermin that often filled the papal chair, as in the case of Henry, emperor of Germany. The storm of papal persecution first burst upon the Waldenses in France."

You can read about it in Fox's Book of Martyrs available online:

Foxes Book of Martyrs : John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Cite for us someone who came before Luther who believes the things you believe. 

There were many before Luther who rejected the apostasy and false dogmas of Rome.  Many of these persecuted Christians believed in sola Scriptura.   One such reformer was Beregarius whom you can read about below.  This was over 500 years before Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the church door at Wittenburg.

"

Persecution of the Waldenses in France

Popery having brought various innovations into the Church, and overspread the Christian world with darkness and superstition, some few, who plainly perceived the pernicious tendency of such errors, determined to show the light of the Gospel in its real purity, and to disperse those clouds which artful priests had raised about it, in order to blind the people, and obscure its real brightness.

The principal among these was Berengarius, who, about the year 1000, boldly preached Gospel truths, according to their primitive purity. Many, from conviction, assented to his doctrine, and were, on that account, called Berengarians. To Berengarius succeeded Peer Bruis, who preached at Toulouse, under the protection of an earl, named Hildephonsus; and the whole tenets of the reformers, with the reasons of their separation from the Church of Rome, were published in a book written by Bruis, under the title of "Antichrist."

By the year of Christ 1140, the number of the reformed was very great, and the probability of its increasing alarmed the pope, who wrote to several princes to banish them from their dominions, and employed many learned men to write against their doctrines.

In A.D. 1147, because of Henry of Toulouse, deemed their most eminent preacher, they were called Henericians; and as they would not admit of any proofs relative to religion, but what could be deduced from the Scriptures themselves, the popish party gave them the name of apostolics. At length, Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a native of Lyons, eminent for his piety and learning, became a strenuous opposer of popery; and from him the reformed, at that time, received the appellation of Waldenses or Waldoys.

Pope Alexander III being informed by the bishop of Lyons of these transactions, excommunicated Waldo and his adherents, and commanded the bishop to exterminate them, if possible, from the face of the earth; hence began the papal persecutions against the Waldenses.

The proceedings of Waldo and the reformed, occasioned the first rise of the inquisitors; for Pope Innocent III authorized certain monks as inquisitors, to inquire for, and deliver over, the reformed to the secular power. The process was short, as an accusation was deemed adequate to guilt, and a candid trial was never granted to the accused.

The pope, finding that these cruel means had not the intended effect, sent several learned monks to preach among the Waldenses, and to endeavor to argue them out of their opinions. Among these monks was one Dominic, who appeared extremely zealous in the cause of popery. This Dominic instituted an order, which, from him, was called the order of Dominican friars; and the members of this order have ever since been the principal inquisitors in the various inquisitions in the world. The power of the inquisitors was unlimited; they proceeded against whom they pleased, without any consideration of age, sex, or rank. Let the accusers be ever so infamous, the accusation was deemed valid; and even anonymous informations, sent by letter, were thought sufficient evidence."

Foxes Book of Martyrs : John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There were many and they were persecuted by the Church of Rome.  It was during the Dark Ages.

Papal Persecutions

2. Persecution of the Waldenses in France

3. Persecutions of the Albigenses

4. The Bartholomew Massacre at Paris

"

CHAPTER 4

Papal Persecutions

Thus far our history of persecution has been confined principally to the pagan world. We come now to a period when persecution, under the guise of Christianity, committed more enormities than ever disgraced the annals of paganism. Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the Gospel, the papal Church, arming herself with the power of the sword, vexed the Church of God and wasted it for several centuries, a period most appropriately termed in history, the "dark ages."

The kings of the earth, gave their power to the "Beast," and submitted to be trodden on by the miserable vermin that often filled the papal chair, as in the case of Henry, emperor of Germany. The storm of papal persecution first burst upon the Waldenses in France."

You can read about it in Fox's Book of Martyrs available online:

Foxes Book of Martyrs : John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

Still quoting something other than scripture I see. So we agree Sola scriptura is a lie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There were many before Luther who rejected the apostasy and false dogmas of Rome.  Many of these persecuted Christians believed in sola Scriptura.   One such reformer was Beregarius whom you can read about below.  This was over 500 years before Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the church door at Wittenburg.

"

Persecution of the Waldenses in France

Popery having brought various innovations into the Church, and overspread the Christian world with darkness and superstition, some few, who plainly perceived the pernicious tendency of such errors, determined to show the light of the Gospel in its real purity, and to disperse those clouds which artful priests had raised about it, in order to blind the people, and obscure its real brightness.

The principal among these was Berengarius, who, about the year 1000, boldly preached Gospel truths, according to their primitive purity. Many, from conviction, assented to his doctrine, and were, on that account, called Berengarians. To Berengarius succeeded Peer Bruis, who preached at Toulouse, under the protection of an earl, named Hildephonsus; and the whole tenets of the reformers, with the reasons of their separation from the Church of Rome, were published in a book written by Bruis, under the title of "Antichrist."

By the year of Christ 1140, the number of the reformed was very great, and the probability of its increasing alarmed the pope, who wrote to several princes to banish them from their dominions, and employed many learned men to write against their doctrines.

In A.D. 1147, because of Henry of Toulouse, deemed their most eminent preacher, they were called Henericians; and as they would not admit of any proofs relative to religion, but what could be deduced from the Scriptures themselves, the popish party gave them the name of apostolics. At length, Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a native of Lyons, eminent for his piety and learning, became a strenuous opposer of popery; and from him the reformed, at that time, received the appellation of Waldenses or Waldoys.

Pope Alexander III being informed by the bishop of Lyons of these transactions, excommunicated Waldo and his adherents, and commanded the bishop to exterminate them, if possible, from the face of the earth; hence began the papal persecutions against the Waldenses.

The proceedings of Waldo and the reformed, occasioned the first rise of the inquisitors; for Pope Innocent III authorized certain monks as inquisitors, to inquire for, and deliver over, the reformed to the secular power. The process was short, as an accusation was deemed adequate to guilt, and a candid trial was never granted to the accused.

The pope, finding that these cruel means had not the intended effect, sent several learned monks to preach among the Waldenses, and to endeavor to argue them out of their opinions. Among these monks was one Dominic, who appeared extremely zealous in the cause of popery. This Dominic instituted an order, which, from him, was called the order of Dominican friars; and the members of this order have ever since been the principal inquisitors in the various inquisitions in the world. The power of the inquisitors was unlimited; they proceeded against whom they pleased, without any consideration of age, sex, or rank. Let the accusers be ever so infamous, the accusation was deemed valid; and even anonymous informations, sent by letter, were thought sufficient evidence."

Foxes Book of Martyrs : John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Yes heretics have always attacked the church. You clearly think you're in good company. The problem for you apostates is the church Jesus found on Peter won't be destroyed just like Jesus said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Yes heretics have always attacked the church. You clearly think you're in good company. The problem for you apostates is the church Jesus found on Peter won't be destroyed just like Jesus said. 

So you think it was ok that the Roman church in the past persecuted and burned at the stake those who they considered as heretics.  No church that did that kind of thing could have been a true church, not to even begin about all the false doctrines.

 

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Yes heretics have always attacked the church.

So rejecting Roman Catholic dogma and the RC church and forming one's own church or group is "attacking the church"?  Many of these so-called heretics in the past centuries believed in sola Scriptura and were persecuted for that.  You sound like a papal extremist from the Dark Ages.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Still quoting something other than scripture I see.

Of course you don't want to hear about the true history.  Scripture was completed 2,000 years ago and of course does not record the history in the past 2,000 years.  But it is an eye-opener to know what happened.  "by their fruits ye shall know them"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So you think it was ok that the Roman church in the past persecuted and burned at the stake those who they considered as heretics.  No church that did that kind of thing could have been a true church, not to even begin about all the false doctrines.

 

So rejecting Roman Catholic dogma and the RC church and forming one's own church or group is "attacking the church"?  Many of these so-called heretics in the past centuries believed in sola Scriptura and were persecuted for that.  You sound like a papal extremist from the Dark Ages.

You reject Jesus. At every turn you tell me Jesus couldn't have meant what he said. You're the problem not the church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

The problem for you apostates is the church Jesus found on Peter won't be destroyed just like Jesus said. 

 It was not founded on Peter.  Peter was an apostle to the Jews;  Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles.  Nothing in the Bible supports the idea the church was founded on Peter.  The Bible clearly teaches it was founded on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.

"19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"   Ephesians 2:19, 20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Of course you don't want to hear about the true history.  Scripture was completed 2,000 years ago and of course does not record the history in the past 2,000 years.  But it is an eye-opener to know what happened.  "by their fruits ye shall know them"

I know the history. Jesus left the church in the hands of imperfect people. You reject Jesus. He said he would build HIS church on the rock of Peter. You deny it. You deny Jesus. Every time Jesus says something you dont like you claim be did not mean what he said. That's a you problem. 

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

 It was not founded on Peter.  Peter was an apostle to the Jews;  Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles.  Nothing in the Bible supports the idea the church was founded on Peter.  The Bible clearly teaches it was founded on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.

"19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"   Ephesians 2:19, 20

But it was built on Peter. Your cashier turned pastor is lying to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You reject Jesus. At every turn you tell me Jesus couldn't have meant what he said. You're the problem not the church. 

Nonsense.   I believe on Jesus Christ, just not your false dogmas.

"32  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34  Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. "  John 6:32-35

When Jesus said this did he mean he was to be physically bread to be eaten?

Of course not.  He was speaking metaphorically or figuratively.   After he said he was the bread of life, the said "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst".   That explains what he mean.  We must come to Jesus in faith and believe on him;  then we will never hunger (spiritually) or thirst (spiritually).   There was nothing literal about him saying he was the bread.   He also said elsewhere that he is the door.  Again he spoke figuratively.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

Nonsense.   I believe on Jesus Christ, just not your false dogmas.

"32  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34  Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. "  John 6:32-35

When Jesus said this did he mean he was to be physically bread to be eaten?

Of course not.  He was speaking metaphorically or figuratively.   After he said he was the bread of life, the said "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst".   That explains what he mean.  We must come to Jesus in faith and believe on him;  then we will never hunger (spiritually) or thirst (spiritually).   There was nothing literal about him saying he was the bread.   He also said elsewhere that he is the door.  Again he spoke figuratively.

 

You reject Jesus all the time 

John 6: 54; 55; 56

Matt 7:21

Mark 16:16 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, it is you that believe in false RC dogmas claiming you can eat Jesus in the host.  Cannibalism and idolatry.

That is not worshiping Jesus in spirit and in truth.

Jesus is clear so Paul 1 Cor 11:29 For a person who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord is eating and drinking judgement on himself". That's you. You reject scripture 

Edited by Yakuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus preached believing in him.  That is by faith.  Not thinking you can eat him physically.  That is false dogma.  

There is nothing more I can say now.  I don't think you listen  to anything.  Your mind is made up.  Let's give it a rest now on that subject.

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

You reject scripture 

Lies.  That is all you have.

I won't waste any more time with you now.  You are not listening to anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

Jesus preached believing in him.  That is by faith.  Not thinking you can eat him physically.  That is false dogma.  

There is nothing more I can say now.  I don't think you listen  to anything.  Your mind is made up.  Let's give it a rest now on that subject.

But Jesus says otherwise. You ignore Jesus 

You've never said anything worth listening to on this subject. Jesus is crystal clear..

I will ask you again, IF Jesus did mean to say you must literally eat his flesh what words would he have used? Please don't say he would never say that. You are not his spokesman. What words would Jesus have used to say you must eat my flesh? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Jesus preached believing in him.  That is by faith.  Not thinking you can eat him physically.  That is false dogma.  

There is nothing more I can say now.  I don't think you listen  to anything.  Your mind is made up.  Let's give it a rest now on that subject.

It's false dogma to all heretics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I will ask you again, IF Jesus did mean to say you must literally eat his flesh what words would he have used? Please don't say he would never say that. You are not his spokesman. What words would Jesus have used to say you must eat my flesh? 

After he talked about eating his flesh, he answered your question.   " 63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. "   John 6:63

He said clearly it is the spirit that quickeneth;  the flesh profiteth nothing.  He was speaking about eating figuratively and meant you must receive him by FAITH.  That is what he meant.  He made it clear he was not speaking about the flesh or literally eating his flesh.  He meant it spiritually only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

After he talked about eating his flesh, he answered your question.   " 63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. "   John 6:63

He said clearly it is the spirit that quickeneth;  the flesh profiteth nothing.  He was speaking about eating figuratively and meant you must receive him by FAITH.  That is what he meant.  He made it clear he was not speaking about the flesh or literally eating his flesh.  He meant it spiritually only.

You people try this nonsense every time. This is why I think you're a trained monkey. You repeat you dont think. 

Jesus says THE flesh not MY flesh. The spirit is dead in you, you reject the words of Jesus. You and your friends have decided what Jesus meant to say because what he actually said is uncomfortable for you. 

If Jesus did mean to say we must eat his flesh and drink his blood what words would he have used? Answer the question. PLEASE try to stop being a trained monkey. THINK! God gave you a brain for goodness sake, use it! 

Edited by Yakuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

After he talked about eating his flesh, he answered your question.   " 63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. "   John 6:63

He said clearly it is the spirit that quickeneth;  the flesh profiteth nothing.  He was speaking about eating figuratively and meant you must receive him by FAITH.  That is what he meant.  He made it clear he was not speaking about the flesh or literally eating his flesh.  He meant it spiritually only.

Paul also tells us 1 Cor 11:23-29

27 Therefore anyone who eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of an offense against the body and blood of the Lord. 

29 For a person who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord is eating and drinking judgement on himself. 

Edited by Yakuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

Paul also tells us 1 Cor 11:23-29

27 Therefore anyone who eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of an offense against the body and blood of the Lord. 

29 For a person who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord is eating and drinking judgement on himself. 

"This doctrine of the mass, of course, is based on the assumption that the words of Christ, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood” (Matthew 6:26-28), must be taken literally. The accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, both in the Gospels and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, make it perfectly clear that He spoke in figurative terms. Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). And Paul quotes Jesus as saying: “This is the new covenant in my blood. ... or as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:25-26). In these words He used a double figure of speech. The cup is put for the wine, and the wine is called the new covenant. The cup was not literally the new covenant, although it is declared to be so as definitely as the bread is declared to be His body. They did not literally drink the cup, nor did they literally drink the new covenant. How ridiculous to say that they did! Nor was the bread literally His body, or the wine His blood. After giving the wine to the disciples Jesus said, “I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” (Luke 22:18). So the wine, even as He gave it to them, and after He had given it to hem, remained “the fruit of the vine”! Paul too says that the bread remains bread: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the pup of the Lord in an unworthy manner. ... But let each man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup” (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). No change had taken place in the elements. This was after the prayer of consecration, when the Church of Rome supposes the change took place, and Jesus and Paul both declare that the elements still are bread and wine.

Another and more important proof that the bread and wine are not changed into the literal and actual flesh and blood of Christ is this: the literal interpretation makes the sacrament a form of cannibalism. For that is precisely what cannibalism is—the eating of human flesh. Rome attempts to deny this, but not with much logic. Clearly there is a contradiction in the Romanist explanation somewhere.

Indeed, how can Christ’s words, “This is my body,” and, “This is my blood,” be taken in a literal sense? At the time those words were spoken, the bread and wine were on the table before Him, and in His body He was sitting at the table a living man. The crucifixion had not taken place. They ate the Lord’s Supper before the crucifixion took place. Furthermore, we do not, and cannot memorialize someone who is present, as the Romanists say Christ is present in the mass. But in the future, in His absence, these things would symbolize His broken body and shed blood. They would then call to mind His sacrifice, and would then be taken in remembrance” of Him (1 Corinthians 11:25)."

--Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Incidentally nowhere does the Bible say we cannot read commentaries written by others.  Loraine Boettner is far more knowledgeable on Roman Catholicism than I am.  He wrote an in depth book on it.  He explains clearly what the verses you mention mean.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,751
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • User went up a rank
      Mentor
    • NakedHunterBiden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...