I got saved!

There has to be some standards for The Church, they can't simply do whatever it is they want to bypass their own scripture. If it's traditions than it should have some grounding in scripture. I feel like there must be an objective way for when an assembly of people is compromised or not.

RC has a very unfavorable history regarding the bible. If the Pope, relic worship, symbol/statue worship, the divinity of Mary, Eucharist is any indication of counter scripture beliefs than that would be another reason.
Catholicism is also a sort of legalistic religious system similar to the Pharisees. I honestly don't want to offend The Catholics anymore than i already have, but it's sketchy to me, while at the same time, i have wise family asking me not to forget the Virgin Mary. Matthew 12:22-30 brings an interesting point, but there must be a limit to doing something, and placing Christianity on it to void the rest, like being a Christian Freemason, Mormon, Jehovah Witness or Christian Zionist.

I don't think that the bible explicitly contains every answer (one example would be masturbation not being explicitly stated, but generally accepted that it's not christian), but it should be the foundation since it's the religion's scripture.
The bible is the word of God, it's given by God, it's not a man's doctrine. I'll do agree that faith is important to having a good relationship with God.

They take issue with it because they're worried about my soul.

Testing to see if I can post anything here in the first place and it's an issue with the length or whatever with my posts, or if there is some problem with the thread itself. I'm trying to post here ~10th time, still just says "Posting" and nothing else.

Likely a connection problem. Happens to me sometimes.

Infant baptism is unbiblical. If you feel like a new person and want to live your life for Jesus, then go for it, get a real baptism.

Mark 7 PAAV
1 Then came together unto him the Catholics, and certain of the Orthodox, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples baptize, that is to say, with immersion, they found fault.
3 For the Catholics, and all the Orthodox, baptize by sprinkling and of babies, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they sprinkle they baptize not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Catholics and Orthodox asked Pastor Jim, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but only baptize with full imersion?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the baptizing of babies: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Paul said, A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, Not given to wine, One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
11 But ye say, If a man marries they cannot be a bishop, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to marry;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That's literally what non-sola scriptua doctrine is.

Wooooooo!
Congratulations!

If by "bypass" you mean "teach anything contrary to Scripture", of course they can't, it's a thing that is impossible to be "overruled" by the Church (You might ask how is this impossible, considering that e.g. a pope could want to do it - the answer is that God promised it will never happen, and He's omnipotent and faithful to His promises, and we can trust He will, in whatever way He chooses, prevent this from happening), but I never said otherwise. We both agree that "there are God's doctrines revealed in the Bible" and that "everything in the Bible was revealed by God". But in addition to that, you add another claim: "these doctrines, that God revealed through the Bible, are the only doctrines revealed by God" - or, in other words, not only does Sola Scriptura say that God's doctrines are contained in the Bible, but also that every such doctrine is contained in the Bible. In other words, it's a positive claim unidentical, and added to, "there are God's doctrines given through, whether explicitly or implicitly, the Bible," and "everything in the Bible was revealed by God", and if your doctrine is to be coherent (namely your doctrine, which says that all doctrines are founded in the Bible), you must show that it's founded on the Bible. (To use an analogy: suppose you have a glass filled to brim with water; it's true that the glass contains water, as Bible contains God's revelation - but it doesn't follow that all water there is in the world is in the glass; there may be water outside this glass too - for example in lakes, rivers, etc.; and yet the glass remains filled to brim with water.)

(To prevent possible - I'm not saying intentional, this fallacy is a pretty common mistake - red herring fallacy in reply, notice that I haven't yet claimed that "there are real, Divine doctrines that can be found outside the Bible" - currently, I'm not making any claim except "there are God's doctrines in the Bible" and "the Bible's teachings are revealed by God"; you narrow this down by saying that no other doctrines than these exist, and I ask you to explain why you narrowed it down.)

Aaaand now you just gave me another doctrine - that all traditions should have some grounding in scripture. By Sola Scriptura, if such doctrine is genuine, it should have some grounding in the Scripture. Can you provide me with such grounding?

Attached: 753gitj3iiy01.jpg (1600x1071, 300.13K)

Meant for

Of course, I agree with you here - but this claim is a different claim than Sola Scriptura. We also believe there are objective ways to discern which Church is the true one, but we don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Both of us claim that there are such ways, but you add another claim: there is only one such way, and again you don't provide any reason why you narrowed the original claim down.

We don't believe most of these, and the two ones you get right, you probably have very deep, fundamental misconceptions about. We hold that nothing the Church teaches is contrary to the Bible, although some teachings may not be in it, at the same time not being contrary to it. But all of this is irrelevant to this debate, because I'm now not trying to show that this position is true (it's very defensible and provable though - I just don't want to clutter this discussion with topics, which are outside its scope), only that your position is false.

See above, because it's the same topic you are talking about as in the previous paragraph. It's simply outside the scope of this particular discussion.

Attached: All-Saints.jpg (800x538, 181.48K)

First: Sola Scriptura states that every doctrine should be somehow contained in the Bible, explicitly or otherwise - as you put it, according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Bible should be the foundation for any doctrine. Since Sola Scriptura is a doctrine, it should then also, like any doctrine, be founded on the Bible. But it isn't - there is nothing in the Bible that might provide a foundation for "Bible alone", nothing. It was invented hundreds of years after Apostles' deaths by random, fallible men without any Biblical foundation.

A foundation - sure. So far I'm not saying there are other foundations, perhaps there are no such foundations, (so far at least) I'm not claiming there are. But neither am I claiming there aren't any. That's a claim that can't be deduced just from "it's the religion's scripture" alone. The only thing that can be deduced from "it's the religion's scripture" is "it's a foundation". You have yet to prove a second, separate claim - "there are no other foundations". To use another analogy - suppose you have a table. Now I point at one leg of this table (the Bible) and say "it's the table's foundation, because it's the table's leg". and I would be partially right in that, since it indeed holds and supports the table, it is a foundation. But I would have yet to prove there are no other legs, no other foundations.

That's a pretty bizarre accusation, that I believe the Bible to be man's doctrine - of course I agree that it's without error, completely inspired by God, and that everything that follows from it must be true. What I say is that the particular doctrine of "Bible alone" (as opposed to "Bible is definitely a one way through which God deposited His revelation, but there may be other ways too" - Catholics would say there definitely are such other ways, but again, arguing for this, although quite easy, would be arguing about something else than "Is "Bible alone" true?" - to get to the Catholic position, one must first arrive at the general "Bible is definitely a one way through which God deposited His revelation, but there may be other ways too", and then, using different arguments, narrow it down to "Bible is definitely a one way through which God deposited His revelation, and there are other ways too") which is neither taught in nor follows from the Bible (and which was alien to the Church of the times of the Apostles, and hundreds of years after these times), is a man's invention. It's not based in Divine revelation, and especially it's not founded on the Bible. "Bible alone" is absolutely a human tradition.

Attached: Albrecht_Dürer_003.jpg (4234x4658, 7.23M)