Big Problems with Sola Scriptura | A Drive-Time Monologue

[@KennyBurchard]

I block trolls. Irenic or serious comments and questions are 100% welcome. One strike rule. You troll, you magically and instantly disappear as soon as I see the comment.

[@cristeromoderno-apologetic112]

Well said

[@lois2997]

I love that about you.

[@southpawhammer8644]

Former AG, making my way back to the Catholic Church.

[@KennyBurchard]

Glad you're here! Have you found us at chnetwork.org ??

[@darlameeks]

I am an Episcopalian, and worship in the Anglican tradition. I was baptized in the Southern Baptist Church at age 11, but left when I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit in a tiny non-denominational charismatic church at age 18. I later came to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist when I first took Communion at an Episcopal Church in the early 1980's. The Lord revealed Himself to me in Eucharist at a time when I was vehemently opposed to any notion of Transubstantiation. I can only describe it as a Eucharistic miracle! We Episcopalians also do not subscribe to "Sola Scriptura", but rather the "3-Legged Stool" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason...though we do not have any established dogma, per se. As you may know, the Episcopal Church has in recent years undergone several schisms over the gay marriage issue. It is accepted nationally, but is not required within every diocese. Our diocese has "opted out" of that, and we do not currently marry gay couples. We do welcome them, however. My Priest is conservatively Protestant, and preaches "Sola Fide". He is a wonderful pastor, but I have come to disagree with that position, as I have seen Evangelicalism spin out of control, almost embracing antinomianism as a result of that thinking. Long story long, I'm considering and discerning whether to convert to Roman Catholicism. Thank you for sharing your journey here! It's of great help to me.

[@KennyBurchard]

Great to hear from you, and you are very welcome here. You may be interested in the stories of these folks: chnetwork.org/converts/anglican/ Stay in touch, and if you want to have a "conversation partner" with a Catholic who was a former Anglican, please let me know and I would be more than happy to make connections.

[@darlameeks]

@@KennyBurchard Thanks, brother. Btw, I heard you say that you were influenced by Keith Green's "The Catholic Chronicles" when he was still alive. I was, too. I absolutely believed that Eucharist, as practiced by Catholics and Anglo-Catholics (as well as Lutherans), is idolatry if people think that is really the Lord's flesh and blood. How could He possibly be sacrificed over and over again in the mass? I believed this when I took Communion in that Episcopal Church in Lexington, KY while still in college...I thought I would take it as a symbol only, and in remembrance of Christ. However, when I drank from the cup, I *tasted salty blood*…anyone who has cut their finger an reflexively put it to their mouths knows what blood tastes like. I am NOT kidding! As far as I knew, there was not one drop of wine in that cup...only blood. I was never the same after that. I will never be the same. (Also of interest, Melody Green, while still pregnant with her last child with Keith, denounced "The Catholic Chronicles" and apologized publicly to Catholics.)

[@Sheilamarie2]

I like Dr. David Anders view on Luther, he who has studied volumnous works of theology, ect. (host of EWTN Called To Communion): "Luther was a one-off, very neurotic man".... : ) Great talk, Kenny; Protestant converts are the best Catholic Evangelists!

[@djo-dji6018]

Jewish converts are also extraordinary.

[@aerospace8329]

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."- Socrates

[@charleskramer8995]

Sola Scriptura is a logical impossibility. In the text of the Bible, there is no list of which books belong in the Bible and (by omission from the list) which books do not. Therefore, there must be an infallible authority outside the bible to tell us which books belong in it. But if there is an infallible authority outside the bible, one no longer has "sola." If there is no infallible authority outside the bible to tell us which books do and don't belong in it, one no longer has "scriptura."

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

There is an authority that agrees w/ the Word. The Word is Christ and the Holy Spirit leads us and guides us into all truth. it's always been believed that the Holy Spirit lead the church which books to compile. It was done as he will it for us.

[@charleskramer8995]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 I am not disputing that the Spirit guides the Church to the truth. But that allows the church to pronounce infallibly on matters of faith and morals, like the contents of the canon of scripture. Sola scriptura, however, denies that the church can make an infallible pronouncement of faith and morals.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@charleskramer8995 That can get into all kinds of circular arguments. Why can't the same authority that the RCC claims to be able to declare things in place of God and scripture apply to other Christians, led by the Holy Spirit to declare that we live by the word of God? You can say, well the pope was instituted by Jesus declaring Peter as the Rock to build his church on. Well that's one and only one scripture to build such a weighty dogma on. Plus it comes from the bible that Catholics say can't be the highest authority. So where did the RCC and succession of popes really get this authority? They point to a scripture, that the church overall invalidates as secondary to the ultimate higher authority of the church. I could keep pointing out what a wormhole this gets to be, but you get the general drift.

[@marcfischer114]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Yes but the Church Fathers disagreed about these books and they also held beliefs utterly rejected by modern Evangelicals (such as being born again meaning getting regenerated through baptism). If they were dead-wrong about that, you ought to be open to the possibility that they were wrong about some of the books of the NT Canon as well.

[@cesaraugustoramirezzamora6967]

Acabo de descubrir tu canal. Bienvenido a casa. Dios bendiga tu ministerio. Mi esposa es protestante. Te pido oración por su conversión.

[@ericcarreno]

Pide la intercesión de La Virgen María.

[@matthewoburke7202]

I will pray for you

[@PatrickSteil]

Estoy orando por tu y tu esposa. La mía todavía está también. Oremos por todos los que están cerca de Cristo pero no están en la iglesia de Cristo.

[@patquint3291]

The late R.C. Sproul was the Protestant who said, “The Bible is a FALLIBLE collection of INFALLIBLE books.” Never was there a more illogical statement from an otherwise intelligent guy. Even Martin Luther said Christians have the Bible because of the Catholic Church! But then he went and deleted the books he, personally, disagreed with (Hebrews, Revelation, James, 1,2,& 3 John), books that didn’t fit his private exegesis of Scripture. How arrogant! Protestantism is all over the place doctrinally due to their man made dogma of sola scriptura. I enjoy your insights. (St. Francis De Sales’ Catholic Controversies is an excellent read.)

[@KennyBurchard]

Yeah, there is simply no basis for Sproul to make such a claim. It begins with a wholly non-Biblical presupposition of Sola Scriptura before the notion of Sola Scriptura was ever conceived. In that sense, it is both unbiblical (even anti-biblical) and anachronistic. But, those are the hoops one has to create, and then jump through, when creating new doctrines (like Sola Scriptura, which no early Christian ever would have though of).

[@matthewbroderick6287]

I find Protestants quite amusing! Protestants like James White and the other Paul, etc, claim Rome teaches a false Gospel! Yet, these Protestants are fallible in their interpretations of what the True Gospel actually is, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! Protestant Pastors say, "not true!". 🤔 So much for Scripture ALONE! Love your work Kenny! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@KennyBurchard]

Thanks, Matthew! Jesus founded a CHURCH! The Catholic Church. The Church wrote, preserved, preaches, and interprets the inspired word of God -- the Bible.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@KennyBurchard I totally agree! Protestants contradict themselves when they teach Scripture ALONE is infallible and they then place their own fallible interpretations above the infallible Holy Scriptures! How do Protestants know that Rome teaches a false Gospel, if they themselves have no infallible way of being able to interpret what the True Gospel is! You do great work Kenny! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@gch8810]

James white is arrogant and frankly ignorant of Catholicism. The Other Paul is simply a fan of White’s who adopts most of what White believes. The Other Paul can be arrogant, but not as much as White. Both are deeply wrong about Catholicism. Both conflate justification and the gospel. A classic reformed move.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@gch8810 yes, the other Paul and James White, place their own fallible interpretations above the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle Paul warned us about false teachers such as these! Even though they preach another Gospel, I pray for them as they journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@ryanskol83]

1 Timothy 3:15 New American Bible (Revised Edition) 15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

[@paulericn.mouafo6610]

There's also Ephesian 3:21 21 to him be glory, in the Church and in Christ Jesus, throughout every generation, forever and ever. Amen. Amen here stand for perpetual no matter what some can object. it's a closing and binding seal !!

[@trailrvs]

Sola Scriptura can only be correct if the following statement is also true: “If we all just study our Bible harder, we will come to the same conclusions and achieve unity.” That statement has been demonstrated thousands of times to be false. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is unworkable and counter to reality.

[@KennyBurchard]

Yep. The number of caveats necessary to make SS a workable solution to sorting through error, disputes, or disparate conclusions is simply ridiculous. At the grassroots level (brother Jim, back there in the 3rd row, with his Bible open) -- sola scriptura actually means "Sola my interpretations of the scriptura." It's a dead-end epistemology and the reason for all the division in Protestantism.

[@trailrvs]

@@KennyBurchard it makes my personal opinion about what my imperfect brain thinks the Bible is saying the final authority!

[@flintymcduff5417]

@Trail Reeves yep. Basically making every sola scripfura protestant their own pope.

[@flintymcduff5417]

Sola scriptura can be shown to work as soon as you can determine the canon of scripture from scripture alone.

[@KennyBurchard]

Boom!

[@paulericn.mouafo6610]

Bingo !! Never consider this one it's so nailed and logic !! moreover i can't figure out how shallow this prots doctrine of sola scriptura is. thanks for the tips

[@paulericn.mouafo6610]

Very spot on statement !!! couldn't be much precise. Thanks and God bless You

[@raymalbrough9631]

Well, I would not make a good member of a 'sola scriptura' church. The reason is I believe that these 'sola scriptura' pastors, should take St. Paul's example in 1 Cointhians 2:2 and get a job to support themselves as Paul worked as a tentmaker, they can preach for free.

[@ucheodozor4147]

Who else notices that the same Bible passage Luther and his friends thought proved Sola Scriptura (2 Timothy 3, 16-17) actually contains the same exact phrase they fully exerted themselves fighting against in one of the major themes of the protestant movement, namely "good works"? Let me explain: Martin Luther tried to scratch the Letter of James from the Bible because it contains the idea of "good works" in James 2, 24. Yet here we find Luther using a passage of scripture containing the exact same expression ("good works") (2 Timothy 3, 16f.) for which he hated James (2, 24) to prove Sola Scriptura. So, after the dust settles, Luther did actually use his own antithesis in an attempt to prove another one of the theses he had aimed to establish. Talk about introducing the locusts into one's farm in order to get rid of army worms, even if, in the end, the entire farm gets consumed in the process!😅🤣

[@KennyBurchard]

Good point. I like that!!

[@oneperson5760]

That never made sense to me, fighting among what all the letters say about works. Simply refer to all the times Jesus himself says in the gospels to follow the commandments and to do the will of God, and in the paranle of sheep and goats to clothe and to feed and to give drink and to visit, and that ee must forgive 7x70 times, and we must love each other, and we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and we must be baptised, etc etc, over and over and over Jesus says we must DO, not only simply believe.

[@fultoneth9869]

Non applogistic insight . Am convinced the sola things are created teachings .🔴🔴🔴

[@PolymorphicPenguin]

I have to admit, you made some very strong arguments against the concept of sola scriptura. The early teaching of the Apostles was definitely important back before the New Testament existed as such. If there were teachings of the Apostles that got handed down from one person to another I suppose we should believe those too. The problem there, though, is knowing what truly dates back to Jesus' earliest followers and what got added in later. Of course, Catholics could utilize the Pope's infallibility to sort these questions out. I've heard that Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption of the Virgin Mary infallibly. Thus, Catholics can be assured that this event occurred even though it was not mentioned in the New Testament. Of course, we Protestants are still skeptical about the Catholic Church's teachings on the Virgin Mary precisely because we think that according to sola scriptura we won't believe anything about the Blessed Virgin unless it's in the Bible. We should remember that Catholics just don't think about things that way, for the reasons you've outlined.

[@tim_w]

A+ show Kenny! Love the drive time format too. I’d love to see a re-creation of the timeline you laid out … maybe something to share broadly at coming home network

[@commercialrealestatephilos605]

The schism of 500 years ago against authority has become the schism of today against authority and reality. Both are rooted in pride and utter lack of humility.

[@charliewhon6548]

I just pray the RCC doesn’t again start lopping off the heads, burning alive, eviscerating and destroy/colonize/force worship those that choose to believe something contrary to its decrees like it did in the past. 1800 years.

[@commercialrealestatephilos605]

@@charliewhon6548 silly argument.

[@charliewhon6548]

@@commercialrealestatephilos605 why? Millions of people are persecuted in the name of religion. My ancestors had to flee because of it in the 1600s, and scripture says it’s going to happen and happen again. Jesus even said it would happen. Do you think what’s going on in the RCC with many not agreeing with vat.2 and the current pope could escalate into something like that? Plus it wasn’t an argument, it was a prayer. Hence the : “I pray,” part. Have a good day.

[@PatrickSteil]

Amen CREP: I believe Protestantism gives people who suffer from pride and selfish control issues to find a place to indulge those issues. Christianity at its core is about surrendering yourself to the Authority of Jesus. Which he plainly from Scripture gave to the Church so that we could be united and FREE to worship him deeply without fear of going astray.

[@commercialrealestatephilos605]

@@PatrickSteil Pride truly is the root of so much that reeks havoc in the world

[@jaspersparents6947]

This is great stuff Kenny!!

[@KennyBurchard]

Aw thanks!!! Pass it on!

[@paulericn.mouafo6610]

Thanks so much Kenny for sharing your experience and vue... as a craddle catholic i've never spot the issue untill my wife converted to evangelical and i saw the change of the view and doctrine and confronting the issue i noticed so much differences and decide to go back to school and train my cathechesis which needed some upgrade. God bless you abundantly for this committment and ministry.

[@KennyBurchard]

Wonderful! Thanks for the encouragement. I pray that you can have fruitful discussions with your dear wife. ONWARD!!!

[@vintage53-coversandorigina37]

One thing that rarely gets mentioned is that for centuries only hand written copies were available and in addition the vast majority of people were illiterate. So it’s no coincidence that Sola Scriptura coincided with the advent of the printing press in the 15th century. Even then the illiteracy problem continued let alone the problem of translating the Bible into hundreds of different languages around the world. Therefore for centuries the written Word was only “heard” in a liturgical setting.

[@truthsayer6414]

Can I humbly suggest there are more than 50 fatal flaws relating to the 16th century doctrine of sola Scriptura (s.S) * While God gave us intellects and reason, unfortunately the Bible could not be described as perspicuous (sorry Dr Luther) anymore than the challenge of someone trying to understand the many works of Shakespeare, or a book on physical chemistry, by personal study alone. * The Bible just didn't suddenly appear. In order of events, God is the ultimate source of Revelation and authority, not scripture. God created and chose holy human voices whom he inspired. Through their minds and hearts and a deep reflection on that inspiration,they then preached God's truths to their followers. Eventually unguided by any divine instructions to do so, these truths were written down for prosperity some decades later. Every holy book we have, followed this same timeline * If someone is needed to tell what a passage means that someone else would have ultimate authority. not scripture. * Sola Scriptura's primary goal is to straight out deny the authority Jesus gave to Peter and his Church to bind, loose law and preach Scripture. *if every doctrine must be provable from the Bible, then sola scriptura if it is to be a doctrine, must also be so provable. If it isn’t, then sola scriptura is self defeating. *To infer or imply that Scripture is somehow the direct "Word of God" is to claim the writers were mere stenographers. It denies the important role of all those holy men and the human contributions, through whom it was handed down. * By reducing the definition of sS to "the only infallible rule of faith", the easier it would be to defend. Instead of needing to produce verses of Scripture that state or imply sola scriptura, the proponent can simply say, “Name another infallible rule of faith,” thus putting the burden of proof back on the critic. * But the London Baptist Confession is much broader: “ Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” (1:1). *Even if Scripture were our sole infallible source of authoritative information about the Faith, that doesn’t require it to contain everything God wants us to know. Such a restrictive belief denies any future role for God's Church, his heavenly kingdom, or future discoveries of His natural revelation. * "A rule of faith” is something that is authoritative for faith, and we have two infallible authorities for the Faith in addition to Scripture. Apostolic Tradition is an infallible source of information regarding it, and the Magisterium is an infallible interpretive authority. * It denies the role of God's messengers, the angels and saints in his heavenly kingdom: It is not a heresy but a scriptural doctrine that we all, including Protestant Christians, have a personal Guardian angel to protect and guide us against the snares of the devil 😈. In fact praying to and for us and each other (1 Cor 3:9) is also the role of God's heavenly Kingdom. Said the Lord's Prayer recently? That we should also pray for those souls who die in a temporally "unclean" state "until the last debt is paid" should be a given. That the church should have used it as a means to raise funds in poor economic times is certainly debatable however. That the Church has overcome far more troublesome crises in its 2000 yrs is part of Dr. David Anders' PhD thesis. But then Jesus vowed to be with us to the end of days, right?

[@truthsayer6414]

Continued * Sola S may be "sufficient for every good work", it could not be God's "complete" Revelation in the sense that a) only a tiny fraction of what Jesus preached from age 12, was actually recorded some decades later (just 1500 words, about a day's worth in his life) cf. John 21:25 *. Jesus never wrote anything himself or told his mostly illiterate followers to, he instituted a Church telling his followers to carry his message into the world teaching and preaching. Most of them assumed he would return in their lifetime . *. Paul's referral to Scripture in 2Tim 3:16 was all the OT, plus what he learnt orally from a few disciples which was the oral tradition. Paul died circa 62AD before little of the NT was put to parchment. *. Jesus gave authority to his Church to identify, compile (Canon), interpret and preach his Word. *. S/S denies the existence of our creative right brain, the role of natural theology, the beauty, joy and inspiration of nature, of God's glory revealed in the heavens, the rational intelligibility of the universe, in the inspiration and joy of art and music, the role of guardian angels (his messengers) and God's promise and pledge to be with His Church to reveal His doctrines, to bind and loose the Gospel, to forgive sin, to the end of days. ---- Continued * Sola Scriptura is anarchic. This is evident from the endless multiplication of divergent theologies, doctrines and 1000s of competing denominations all with their own fallible biblical 'experts' within Protestantism. * It is the freedom of all and sundry to assume the right of private judgment that has resulted in over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia. 1* Sola Scriptura is culturally and historically impractical if not impossible.. Not only was ILLITERACY RIFE (>90%) for some 15 or more centuries but also there simply was no such thing as the New Testament aka. it took years to transcribe one Bible to parchment. *.The church fathers inspired by the Spirit at the Councils had to sort through some 80 gospels and many letters to discern which were inspired. *. If God's Revelation is only contained in the written word then it denies the work of the angels and Saints in bringing forth God's Kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven. "We don't pray to dead people" is about as dishonest and dumb as some Protestants get. * It ignores, if not denies natural and personal revelation, such as the many miraculous visitations claimed by saints, the many appearances of Our Lady in Europe and Mexico. * God has used Angels as his messengers throughout the Bible and even gives each one of us our own personal guardian angel to protect and guide us against the snares of the Devil. 😈 prowls around like a ravenous mind putting all kinds of false ideas in your head 😜 *. We read God's glory is defined in the heavens but Scripture doesn't tell us how. All the pioneering scientists expected law in nature because they believed in a inLaw Giver. As Galileo said "advanced mathematics is the language God used to write the universe". * Historically, the reformation could only proceed from the mass availability of the Bible and the supporting documents of the reformation itself. ("Hey, I read the Scriptures, and this is what it says to me!"). * universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular by the invention of the printing press *The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Must works necessarily follow what Jesus achieved on the cross? Do we have freewill to accept or decline God's gift of Grace and salvation? Can a righteous person lose his salvation? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Are we saved before the creation of the world or only by an act of repentance, can a righteous person fall away, be redeemed again? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination, limited atonement, eternal security, genuine free will etc etc.

[@cristeromoderno-apologetic112]

Two christians cannot dispute the divinity of Christ or if he is only human. If you do not believe in the3 divinity of Christ you are not reallychristian

[@KennyBurchard]

True

[@arlypaulmigueldamuy5221]

I believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Synoptic Gospels) do not know each other when writing down the Gospels.

[@KennyBurchard]

It is possible that Luke knew Mark as both were, at various times (not sure if at the same time for any duration) missionary companions of St. Paul. In Luke's Gospel, he notes that he made his account based on "eye witness testimony," which may mean that he interviewed some of the Apostles, but I am not sure. It is almost 100% sure that he interviewed Mary, the Mother of Jesus (since the infancy narratives in Luke are more robust than Matthew, and are non-existent in Mark and John). But, again, these men were *never* thinking, "Well, the Church is ultimately going to be *Sola Scriptura* so we better get all this written down so there will be an infallible rule of faith (since there isn't one without the Bible). Such and idea, I believe, would have made them all laugh. It's about the most unfeasible idea anyone ever could have dreamed up (and, to be sure, it is a dreamed up idea -- taught nowhere in the Bible).

[@juliobarragan2356]

Thanks kenny blessings , I love your monologues thanks to share your our Faith

[@caseycampbell1386]

Thanks for this one. Pivotal

[@dennisd3926]

Great job, Kenny!

[@KennyBurchard]

Thanks!!

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Just reading the NT, esp. the latter epistles, you can see those letters were widely read in congregations and we know from history they were circulated among the churches. We also know from so many copies and fragments that have been found that there were many many copies. The NT canon wasn't compiled yet, true enough. Just as the concept of sola scriptura wasn't around yet back then, there also wasn't an RCC. History shows it really evolved as an entity over hundreds of years.

[@mmbtalk]

Well presented case against Sola scriptura. I will however respond with an illustration. As scientists, we do a lot of measurements and some measurements will be more trusted because of the reliability of instrument that was used. So both Catholics and Protestants share same confidence in the scriptures, but I cannot say I can truly rely equally on Pope Pius IX self declaration of being infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra. In other words, a Protestant will stand like a bouncer at the entrance scrutinising those who come in and if he is not convinced of a particular guest he will not let him in. Same for a lot of Catholic teachings that have failed to match our guest list. Note that it is biblical to prove everything and try them out and to cling to what is good and reject what is evil.

[@KennyBurchard]

In your analogy the individual protestant begins from a position of infalibility. He has the power and insight to know when all others are in error. He is the arbiter and magisterial authority. He is the bouncer; the one with teaching authority. He generally cannot be wrong and generally cannot know when he is wrong (if he can, tell me how). Thus you have articulated the default protestant worldview in a rather typical way. I already understand this position. From a Catholic perspective this move is a fundamenatal error of putting the subject and the object in the place that belongs to the other. That is... Protestant Epistemology: Object (objective position) is the protestant with his Bible to which the Catholic Church and her teaching and biblical interpretations are subject to scrutiny and must submit. Catholic Epistemology: Object (in the objective position) is the Deposit of Faith in the custodial and interpretive hands of the Magisterium. The protestant and his manifiold and ever increasing and disparate conclusions and interpretations are subject to scrutiny and must submit. The Bible and Church history give us an authoritative Church that writes, canonizes, and interprets scripture and defines dogma in disputed perspectives. Protestantism relies on access to the Bible, but because of sola scriptura makes every individual person (and his conclusions) the magisterial authority. Ironically, this cannot be found to e anywhere IN the Bible. In the Bible, the apostles and their successors are stewards of the mystries of God. They have (and do to this day) serve as the bouncer. And thank God! Without this proper order and understanding of object and subject the Jerusalem council in Acts could not have happened, and neither could Nicaea over 300 years later; for Bishop Arius' ideas were dripping with Bible verses. But he and his errors are subject to the object.

[@mmbtalk]

@@KennyBurchard Please note that to seek to hear God speak to you is not Protestant arrogancy, even Old Testament Saints would pray, " help me to behold wondrous things from your word!" The Lord also says, "my sheep will hear my voice". Unless you are telling me that only the magisterial sheep are equipped to hear Christ's voice! May I also remind you that all those who received Him, gave He the right to become children of God! Some children can be sharper than others but any parent will know how to communicate with each child. If we who are evil know how to communicate with our own children, how much more our righteous heavenly father who is super aboundant in wisdom. Thus, a child like Samuel could respond to God's voice, " Master, speak thy servant is listening. In short, Magisterium is a Catholic development designed to keep a stranglehold on the faith. They even go to the extent of twisting 2 Peter 1:20,21, that individuals are not to privately interpret scripture when in fact Peter was referring to the Prophets' utterances being not their own private concoctions, but were as moved by the Spirit of God.

[@canibezeroun1988]

Why do you believe the magisterium is incorrect? I know you did not come to this interpretation on 2 Peter 1:18-21. Why is the case you presented correct?

[@mmbtalk]

@@canibezeroun1988 please read the passage using any Bible version, including the Greek version and decide whether it has anything to do with people being forbidden to interpret scripture. The Catholic system assumes that God's Spirit is only operating among some special class of people and I would like to know on what basis.

[@StringofPearls55]

@@mmbtalk If you read the preceding passages, you'll see that that it's prefaced by referencing his authority. He was there and heard the voice of God. Also, Jesus gave him authority to loose and bind. Your argument is cherry picking verses out of context and, by your own authority, interpretating them by supplying your own context. It's literally the opposite of what the scripture conveys. This is more of an argument of why SS doesn't hold water.

[@sedevacante966]

Do you run into any problems with the post-Vatican II church? Like they don't believe in proselytism/apologetics so I wonder if you get into quarrels with them.

[@lebohangmoramotse9828]

That's not true. We still have laymen and priests who are Catholic apologetics such as Scott Hahn and Fr. Mike. Lemmen know if I misinterpreted your statements.

[@patquint3291]

The “post Vatican Church” IS the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC Church Jesus founded 2000 years ago. I’d like to understand why you don’t acknowledge Vatican II as a valid continuation of Vatican I? Have you actually READ the documents of Vatican II? Catholics are encouraged to explain and defend the Church’s 2000 year Tradition, just like our first Pope infallibility wrote in 2 Peter! Maybe you didn’t read his book?

[@ThomasMcEvoy]

@alliebethstuckey