Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[ddarko]

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I think by definition of Sola Scriptura, all of the above in your list is automatically denied, no? If Scripture is the sole authority, then it also means that Church and Tradition has no equal authority.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   I think you are spot on that the word of God is sufficient for salvation. But, what you fail to realize is that word of God has to be interpreted properly. For that, you need Tradition and Church.
   
   Otherwise you will have multiple possible interpretations of the same passage. A good example from real life is the fact that every protestant denomination has it’s own spin on part of the Bible that disagrees with the rest.
   
   So this is why in the Bible it-self, there is a mention of the importance of Tradition and Church Authority.
   
   Ironically, now you will mention that you have an alternate way to reconcile those scripture passages in such a way that it safe guards Sola Scriptura. My answer to you is, while you probably can, there is no way to know whose right. Logical consistency does not automatically mean that something is true. So how do you know whose right?
   
   Therefore, to know the true interpretation of any passage, one needs to first accept Tradition, Scripture and Church authority.
   
   So Church, Tradition and Scripture, all have equal authority. If one falls, the entire Christian faith becomes a best guessed interpretation.
   
   God Bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think by definition of Sola Scriptura, all of the above in your list is automatically denied, no? If Scripture is the sole authority, then it also means that Church and Tradition has no equal authority.
.

It depends on the definition. For instance, the Lutheran understanding (or, rather, my understanding of the Lutheran understanding ) is that the Scriptures must be read within the traditions of the church. So while the Bible may be the final authority it is not the only authority. They also accept the historical creeds as authoritative. So if the definition one is using is that the Bible is the only authority, then yes it would, by it’s definition, exclude any and all church authority but if the definition being used is that it is the final authority, this would not, by its definition, exclude the church from taking an authoritative role… so long as that authority didn’t conflict with the Bible’s.

God bless

 

[EricFilmer]

I can’t help but notice that the word “everything” is all inclusive. According to Parker, absolutely everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture.

Therefore, to prove this wrong, it is necessary to show only one essential Christian belief that is not derived from scripture.

Parker, you have already shown us that you believe the 27 books in the New Testament are scripture by quoting them. In fact, you can’t point to what those books say and declare it is the word of God until you have already accepted them as scripture. It is therefore essential to know those books are scripture before you can derive anything in them as infallibly coming from God.

So where in scripture does it tell us those 27 books are scripture? Where can I derive from scripture, for example, that the gospel of Matthew is scripture?

Please quote book, chapter, and verse that tells us we should accept each and every one of those 27 books as scripture.

If you cannot, then you have failed to show that “everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture” for you will not have shown us where you yourself derive the belief that those 27 books are indeed scripture. In other words, where from scripture do you derive this essential belief?

Please do not ignore or refuse to answer my question. Please consider what it says to everyone here that you either cannot or purposely will not answer it.

Parker, when are you going to respond to my question in post 59? I asked you on May 7. It’s been ten days!

This is now my third request.

Kay Cee, I share your frustration because I have been presenting Parker with the same basic challenge in…

Post #21 - See Point #4 therein.

Post #35 - Using the Book of Enoch as an example.

Post #36 - Showing that the only method recorded in Scripture for discerning whether or not a book ought to be in the Bible is to consult a prophet (because Scripture alone cannot answer this question).

Post #69 - See under the heading: “We need an outside source to understand the Scriptures.”

Post #90 - See my response to Parker’s challenge, “You need to prove that Scriptures cannot be sufficient.”

As you know, Kay Cee, you and I have been asking a very reasonable and profound question. Seeing as there were hundreds of ancient texts claiming divine origin which were embraced by certain ancient Jews and Christians, how does one tell whether a particular text is authentic? And if Sola Scriptura was, indeed, a teaching from God, why didn’t he have Scripture tell us what books belong in Scripture? Assuming that the Book of Revelation was the last authentically inspired book of the Bible to be complied, why didn’t Jesus simply instruct John to write down the canons while he was instructing John to write letters to the various churches? As I have pointed out to Parker and other supporters of Sola Scriptura, before a person can practice Sola Scriptura, one must first determine which Scriptures are “sola.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

And yet, in light of such challenging questions, these are the responses that Parker has given:

(Concerning my comments on the Book of Enoch):

“I don’t think the book of Enoch is inspired because Jude is merely quoting it to bring up a point. Just because someone quotes a pagan source does not make the pagan book inspired. Now, of course when Jude quotes a non-inspired source, that does not prove the need for divine tradition.” (Post #64)

(I pointed out that Jude stated that this was the Enoch spoken about in the Book of Genesis, and that Jude declared these words to be prophecy. In light of that I questioned why Parker denounced the Book of Enoch as being “pagan”, and I am still waiting for his reply on this. Likewise, I am still waiting for him to give me a clear explanation why he does not believe the Book of Enoch ought to be considered divinely inspired.)

“But the Magisterium never compiled the Old Testament in the first place. The canon was closed.” (Post #64)

(But, as I pointed out, the ancient debates over the Deuterocanon alone show that the OT canon was never considered closed by the Jews until the end of the 1st Century, and ancient Christians continued to use it and debate over it until the canon was closed by an act of an ecumenical council. Plus, even if the OT canon was closed before the Councils of Hippo & Carthage, Parker still has to address the fact that an authority outside of Scripture did the closing).

“Ahhh…the Golden Index syndrome. So what standard did the Magisterium used that Protestants couldn’t use? Did the Holy Spirit appear with the sacred list?” (Post #65)

(This, of course, doesn’t actually answer the question: “How does one determine what books belong in the Bible?” In this thread Parker acts like he is answering a question without actually answering it, which is why I have repeatedly declared him to be dodging.)

Finally, here is the latest exchange between Parker and myself after I have repeatedly asked him to clearly demonstrate how one determines what is and is not supposed to be in the Bible. By extension, Kay Cee, this can be considered a response to your repeated question as well…

Me: “The Scriptures do not tell us what books belong in the Bible.” (Post #69)

Parker: “That doesn’t prove insufficiency; SS says we look to Scriptures for faith and practice. If we wanted to determine what is and what’s not part of the canon, we often let the Scriptures authenticate itself. It’s known to do that.” (Post #82)

Me: “…I would like to see an example of the Scriptures authenticating itself. I’m not denying this (nor confirming it), I just want a clearer understanding of what you are describing here.” (Post #91)

Parker: “What I mean by self-authenticating is that scripture quotes other sources that consider it the word. I could be more specific if you want.” (Post #111)

Me: “I’m afraid I have to ask you to please be more specific. I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to convey here (at least not yet).” (Post #115)

(The ball is now in Parker’s court regarding this.)

Kay Cee, the reason I took the time to reiterate all this is to demonstrate Parker’s attempts to address the point you have brought up three times. It would be nice if he responded to you directly, and I have no idea why he hasn’t. But seeing as he is attempting examine your challenge in the context of my material (where it was also presented), feel free to monitor Parker’s exchanges with me and comment accordingly. In reading this post as well as Post #120, you will hopefully be sufficiently “caught up” regarding my conversation with Parker regarding the question at hand.

 

[haparker321]

And yet the ECFs are extensively quoted in the Catechism.

And yet it’s not an infallible piece of history.

I think it is worth noting that we have an absolute definition for every doctrine in the Catholic Faith.

I beg to differ.

Protestants do not have an absolute definition for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

You have yet to prove this is the case. All you keep doing here is citing one personal experience after another. I keep saying, why don’t you cite a few sources that prove your case. Still I don’t see any proof.

Your definition seems to see it as a principle rather than a doctrine, and that was the stance also made by the OP.

Principle/Doctrine/Belief, I use these terms synonymously.

Here is a guy (SDA) who claimed that transferring observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday was in violation of his concept of Sola Scriptura.

But he’s not defining what Sola Scriptura is; he’s arguing against the concept of the Sabbath. This is quite different.

Also consider this exchange between me and a person who was critiquing Sacred Tradition according to his notion of Sola Scriptura (which eventually leads to a “that’s not what Sola Scriptura means” type of comment):

Again, this is irrelevant to SS.

And here is a statement from a former Evangelical on the subject of Sola Scriptura (responding to a criticism that he had not represented what Sola Scriptura actually teaches):

Nearly all of these debates you’re having don’t even prove your point because you didn’t ask them to define what Sola Scriptura means. Even in the topic you mention in post #97 is not an absolute proof whatsoever. You keep putting him on the defensive demanding for us to prove X, but your problem here is this: you don’t have a definition to work with. You didn’t let him come up with a definition but demanded he should come up with proof.

Well, the people I just linked are Protestant sources, but I don’t see why they have to be considered “official” Protestant sources in order for me to prove that Protestants do not have a universally agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura.

Well in this case, I don’t think we need to cite the CCC as the official source of Catholic doctrine. In fact, by interviewing dozens of liberal Catholics, I can come to my own conclusion what I think the Catholic Church means by its doctrines. I’m quite sure no Catholic would mind me interpreting the CCC my own way because there’s no infallible interpreter to interpret the book for me.

Quite frankly, I’m not sure what you mean by an “official” Protestant source.

Protestant Confessions i.e., Savoy Declaration, London & Philadelphia Confessions, Augsburg & Heidelberg Confessions etc.

So far you have only cited a handful of Bible verses that basically say that the Word of God is important. I remind you that awhile ago I refuted their application to your definition of Sola Scriptura, and you have not yet attempted a defense of them against my rebuttal.

I’ve been looking around to find them. Cite the number again?

Parker

 

[haparker321]

According to the teaching of the Catholic Faith, the veneration of Mary is a special form of dulia, which is the Greek word meaning the kind of honor that a human can bestow on another human. The special kind of *dulia *that Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) give Mary is called hyper-dulia.

Look, don’t give me the ‘dulias’ here; I know what you mean by them. So far there are no special exceptions that allow these forms of worship to be considered acceptable. I think I posted on another thread about the additional Marian titles. These go way beyond the idea of ‘honor’.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

I can’t help but notice that the word “everything” is all inclusive. According to Parker, absolutely everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture.

That’s right!

In fact, you can’t point to what those books say and declare it is the word of God until you have already accepted them as scripture.

This of course would imply that I would have to start with an a priori assumption. What you say here is true. However, it is not true that I need an infallible interpreter to determine which books belong and do not belong as shown below.

So where in scripture does it tell us those 27 books are scripture? Where can I derive from scripture, for example, that the gospel of Matthew is scripture?

Scripture is self-authenticating; this is part of hermeneutics. Pastors, Preachers, Laymen, and (yes) even the Magisterium uses the same rule. It’s not like the Holy Spirit decided to drop by and deliver the ‘sacred index’ of the Holy Canon.

The reason why I don’t answer some of these posts are either because I’m writing in haste i.e., ‘I’m in a rush to take care of something else’ or because I tend to think your argument is not worth repeating.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

I would also like to add, that some of these questions are off topic.

Parker

 

[pablope]

Look, don’t give me the ‘dulias’ here; I know what you mean by them. So far there are no special exceptions that allow these forms of worship to be considered acceptable. I think I posted on another thread about the additional Marian titles. These go way beyond the idea of ‘honor’.

Parker

Again, you are mistaking praying to Mary and the saints as worship…it is not. If you had not or been explained to you, worshipping and praying are two different things for a Catholic. For a Catholic, worship is during the Mass. Praying is pleading, asking for intercession, private devotions…in our own time, and sometimes, as a community.

To a protestant who had not been taught about Mary, they seem beyond honor, but not to a Catholic. The mind and heart of a Catholic operates differently to that of a Protestant, and what you are seeing is the external and that is what you are doing in judging catholics, instead of seeking what is in our hearts and minds.

Why don’t you pray the rosary, to see what catholics experience, instead of judging using only what you see.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Protestants do not have an absolute definition for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

You have yet to prove this is the case. All you keep doing here is citing one personal experience after another. I keep saying, why don’t you cite a few sources that prove your case. Still I don’t see any proof.

This quote wasn’t directed at me but I will give it a shot anyways. I have always considered it a given that SS means different things to different people but since you won’t accept people’s experiences here is Keith Mathison, a protestant, for you:

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

He compares and contrasts the “reformation doctrine” with the “Revisionist doctrine”. Two separate and distinct definitions of SS. He labels the revisionist doctrine as “solo” scriptura in order to differentiate between the two schools of thought. He has no authority to do this (though it makes it very simple to remember) and those adherents to the revisionist doctrine certainly wouldn’t call it “solo” scriptura… have you ever heard someone say they believed in solo scriptura? I haven’t. I understand why he uses the two different terrms because they are two different definitions and are completely different in practice, but in the end they are both a form of SS. Furthermore you are the first protestant I have ever seen argue that there is only one definition of SS.

God bless

 

[EricFilmer]

And yet it’s not an infallible piece of history.

Not everything in the Catechism is doctrinal, but the doctrines outlined within are infallible.

I beg to differ.

Name one.

You have yet to prove this is the case. All you keep doing here is citing one personal experience after another. I keep saying, why don’t you cite a few sources that prove your case. Still I don’t see any proof.

Proof of what, exactly? That Protestants have different interpretations and applications of Sola Scriptura? Are you seriously contesting this??? Moreover, I provided you with the statement from Keith A. Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura, as found in Post #114 (and even highlighted in purple text), but you made no comment on this in your response to that post. Basically, you ignored it and then went ahead and made your comments as if I never even brought Mathison up. So once again, you are cherry picking.

Principle/Doctrine/Belief, I use these terms synonymously.

And yet, as I have shown, certain other adherents of Sola Scriptura don’t use the terms synonymously. So who’s right? Who has what you call the “official Protestant” definition of SS? And by what authority can it be declared to be the official Protestant definition?

But he’s not defining what Sola Scriptura is; he’s arguing against the concept of the Sabbath. This is quite different.

He has stated (as all SDAs do) that transferring the observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is a violation of the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath. The SDA argument is that such a transferal is unbliblical. This is an application of their concept of SS.

Again, this is irrelevant to SS.

In Post #111 you said to me, “…you might be creating a straw man, which I wouldn’t disagree if they made those kinds of objections.” So I am simply giving documentation that people did, indeed, “make those kinds of objections.” Hence, no straw man.

Nearly all of these debates you’re having don’t even prove your point because you didn’t ask them to define what Sola Scriptura means. Even in the topic you mention in post #97 is not an absolute proof whatsoever. You keep putting him on the defensive demanding for us to prove X, but your problem here is this: you don’t have a definition to work with. You didn’t let him come up with a definition but demanded he should come up with proof.

Yes, he did define it. Go back to that post and read what he said in the section that begins with, “Sola scriptura is an axiom or theological starting point…” Moreover, he and I hashed this out in great detail in this thread, which I pointed out to you in Post #114.

Well in this case, I don’t think we need to cite the CCC as the official source of Catholic doctrine. In fact, by interviewing dozens of liberal Catholics, I can come to my own conclusion what I think the Catholic Church means by its doctrines.

Quite frankly, I think you have been doing exactly that for quite some time. Your recent comments concerning the Catholic veneration of Mary is just one example.

I’m quite sure no Catholic would mind me interpreting the CCC my own way because there’s no infallible interpreter to interpret the book for me.

The same can be said of any Christian doctrines you draw from the Bible based on your process of Sola Scriptura. And, as far as Catholics are concerned, the Magisterium is an infallible interpreter of everything in the Catechism which is an official teaching pertaining to faith and morals.

Protestant Confessions i.e., Savoy Declaration, London & Philadelphia Confessions, Augsburg & Heidelberg Confessions etc.

And do all Protestant adherents of Sola Scriptura adhere to these official Protestant sources? I don’t know for certain, but I am willing to bet that the non-denominationalists don’t, and probably a few others don’t as well. Protestants are known for debating doctrine among one another just as much as they are known for debating doctrine with Catholics, which is why there are thousands of Protestant denominations out there.

 

[EricFilmer]

EricFilmer;7877661:

So far you have only cited a handful of Bible verses that basically say that the Word of God is important. I remind you that awhile ago I refuted their application to your definition of Sola Scriptura, and you have not yet attempted a defense of them against my rebuttal.

I’ve been looking around to find them. Cite the number again?

My refutation of the Bible passages you cited (to support your definition of SS) can be found in…
Post #29
Post #30
And, by extension, I refuted the defense of SS using 2Tim 3:16 a second time (and in a different way) when SyCarl brought it up. My response to him is found in Post #101

And, FWIW, PatrickSebast’s refutation of them is found in:
Post #12

And MarcoPolo’s refutation of them can be found in:
Post #22

And wmscott’s list of Scripture passages which demonstrate Sacred Tradition and teach contrary to the premise of Sola Scriptura is found in:
Post #41

And Ana V’s rebuttal specifically to the use of 2Tim 3:16 as a defense of Sola Scriptura can be found in:
Post #51

And GreggAlvarez’s refutation of your application of your cited Bible passages can be seen here:
Post #54

And The_Scott’s brief but eloquent rebuttal of them can be found here:
Post #93

And vwtaylorii’s treatment of your biblical citations was presented in:
Post #104

Unless I missed seeing it, you have not attempted to defend your SS-oriented application of the list of Bible passages against ANY of these rebuttals.

 

[EricFilmer]

Look, don’t give me the ‘dulias’ here; I know what you mean by them. So far there are no special exceptions that allow these forms of worship to be considered acceptable.

They are not special forms of “worship.” This is, rather, the concept of honor. As Christians we are supposed to honor one another, because we are all made in the image and likeness of God. In the Ten Commandments, God singled out a special duty we have to honor our fathers and mothers. Therefore, our mothers are owed a greater deal of honor from us than we are expected to give to, say, the cashier at the grocery store. To use your terminology, our parents get a “special exception” when the question of honoring one another comes up. This greater deal of honor pertains to our biological mothers as well as our Mother Mary. But I will elaborate more on all this in a moment…

I think I posted on another thread about the additional Marian titles. These go way beyond the idea of ‘honor’.

Whenever people accuse Catholic of going too far in our honor of Mary, I turn it around and ask them to explain how far a person ought to go instead. More specifically, I ask them (if they are Christian) what they do to honor Mary. So now I will present this elaboration and question to you:

1) The Ten Commandments tell us to honor our mothers.

2) Jesus gave Mary perfect honor, at least in terms of the honor a son is to give his mother. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus did not perfectly follow the Ten Commandments.

3) According to the Bible, the Church is composed of a head: Jesus, and a body: Christians.

4) The head of the Church has a mother, and that mother is Mary. The mother of the head of the Church is likewise the mother of the body. To say otherwise is to say that the head and the body are not truly united.

5) Therefore, Mary is not only the mother of Jesus, but also the mother of the Church, including all the Christians who make up the body (and that includes you).

6) Because Jesus gave his mother perfect honor, Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) honor Mary in imitation of Jesus. Although we are unable to do anything perfectly, we can strive to give Mary as high degree of honor as we can (so long as we do not cross the line in doing acts of worship). Hence, the various Marian devotions that we do (as officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church) are manifestations of the term hyper-dulia.

My question for you, Parker, is what do you do to give Mary the honor she is owed, seeing as she is your mother? I have presented this material and question to a number of people in CAF and I am still waiting for someone to give me a straight answer. So I am hoping that you will be the first.

 

[EricFilmer]

This quote wasn’t directed at me but I will give it a shot anyways. I have always considered it a given that SS means different things to different people but since you won’t accept people’s experiences here is Keith Mathison, a protestant, for you:

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main…

RC, as the person that Parker’s comment was directed at, I very much appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. As you can see from Post #114 (note the text therein highlighted in purple) I also gave him a Keith Mathison quote to ponder (from a different book), but in his response to that post Parker didn’t even mention it. I have since reminded him of it, and maybe between that and your post Parker will address this.

 

[Sonny69]

As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   It is the written Word of God that brought the “Light” into view of the lay people when translated into the venacular; so that ordinary people could understand and thus the reformation and out of the “dark ages”. May God’s grace of speech and peace be upon you as journey into a doctrine that is dispised by many, present company excluded.
   
   Read Romans 8:19 and ask yourself "who are the “sons of God” and then take it to it’s logical conclusion, which is what is the collective body of Christians called and then further to; has it been revealed, then take it further by asking: "what do you make of the religions that claim to be the true church, such as the Mormons or JW’s as two examples of many.

 

[DrPiano]

And do all Protestant adherents of Sola Scriptura adhere to these official Protestant sources? I don’t know for certain, but I am willing to bet that the non-denominationalists don’t, and probably a few others don’t as well. Protestants are known for debating doctrine among one another just as much as they are known for debating doctrine with Catholics, which is why there are thousands of Protestant denominations out there.

Answering from personal experience (as an ex-Protestant): NO not all Protestants adhere to those “official Protestant sources.” As a Methodist, I’d never heard of ANY of them. We had/used NONE of the “historic confessions” that I was introduced to when I chose to go to a Christian Reformed College.

And I can also say from personal experience that my (Protestant) Mother’s definition of Sola Scriptura (and my own before becoming Catholic) is MUCH different than the one presented in the OP. And both are fairly different from the definition I was taught at my Protestant College (see above).

As a few examples from Protestant Church sources on the web:

The Bible has authority over all human life. It teaches the truth about God, His creation, His people, His one and only Son, and the destiny of humankind. It also teaches the way of salvation and the life of faith. Whatever is not found in the Bible nor can be proved by it is not to be required as an article of belief or as necessary to salvation. Free Methodist Church

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally inspired Word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writing, infallible and God-breathed. a Bible Church (Nondenominational)

(note that its a bit sparser than the one from the FMC.

We believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. It contains all that people in any age need to know for their salvation. We call the Bible God’s Word, believing that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, God speaks to us through this book. Christian Reformed Church

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp

As Lutherans, ELCA members believe that the Bible is the written Word of God. It creates and nurtures faith through the work of the Holy Spirit and points us to Jesus Christ, the living Word and center of our faith. And in reading the Bible, we are invited into a relationship with God that both challenges us and promises us new life. ECLA

The Bible is God’s inerrant and infallible Word, in which He reveals His Law and His Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the sole rule and norm for Christian doctrine. Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod

Note that each of these are slightly different, some emphasizing some things, others emphasizing others. None of them are what was quoted in the OP.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

RC, as the person that Parker’s comment was directed at, I very much appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. As you can see from Post #114 (note the text therein highlighted in purple) I also gave him a Keith Mathison quote to ponder (from a different book), but in his response to that post Parker didn’t even mention it. I have since reminded him of it, and maybe between that and your post Parker will address this.

Ah I see. It’s kind of an odd request by the OP as it is, “prove that there are different definitions of SS”… just go talk to some adherents of it

God bless

 

[pablope]

Whenever people accuse Catholic of going too far in our honor of Mary, I turn it around and ask them to explain how far a person ought to go instead. More specifically, I ask them (if they are Christian) what they do to honor Mary. So now I will present this elaboration and question to you:

[My question for you, Parker, is what do *you

do to give Mary the honor she is owed, seeing as she is your mother? I have presented this material and question to a number of people in CAF and I am still waiting for someone to give me a straight answer. So I am hoping that you will be the first.

I hope Parker will be one of the protestants who can answer this. I too have asked this of protestants who question Mary and the honor we give her. They will say she is due honor, but when I asked them what honor they have given Mary in their lifetime, even a simple thank you, it is usually silence and they are just playing lip service that they have given her honor. They have not and are just hypocritical about it.

Here is an interesting quote from an exorcist:

And the most powerful intercessor of all?

“Of course, the Madonna is even more effective. Ah, when you invoke Mary!”

“And, once I also asked Satan, ‘but why are you more scared when I invoke Our Lady than when I invoke Jesus Christ?’ He answered me, ‘Because I am more humiliated to be defeated by a human creature than being defeated by him.”

Here is the link:catholicnewsagency.com/news/romes-exorcist-finding-bl.-john-paul-ii-effective-against-satan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews-vatican+%28CNA+Daily+News±+Vatican%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

 

[EricFilmer]

Answering from personal experience (as an ex-Protestant): NO not all Protestants adhere to those “official Protestant sources.” As a Methodist, I’d never heard of ANY of them. We had/used NONE of the “historic confessions” that I was introduced to when I chose to go to a Christian Reformed College.

Thank you for digging up and posting all that information, DrPiano!

And speaking as a former Anglican, I never heard of those “official Protestant sources”, either. But, of course, asking an Anglican what is “official” within the confines of Christianity can be a frustrating endeavor.

 

[EricFilmer]

I hope Parker will be one of the protestants who can answer this. I too have asked this of protestants who question Mary and the honor we give her. They will say she is due honor, but when I asked them what honor they have given Mary in their lifetime, even a simple thank you, it is usually silence and they are just playing lip service that they have given her honor. They have not and are just hypocritical about it.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, pablope. Once I heard a debate between Fr. Mich Pacwa and someone else on the John Ankerberg Show. The topic was Mary and Ankerberg (as the host of the debate) began by making a blanket statement that all Christians agree that Mary ought to be honored because she is the mother of the Messiah (but of course, the question is how far does one go). At that moment it occurred to me that “honored” is a verb, so it is something that Christians are to be doing. But how many Protestants actually do it? If they simply make statements such as Ankerberg’s without actually doing anything to honor Mary then the concept becomes, as you said, “lip service.”

I used to be Anglican, which, as you probably know, is the Protestant denomination closest to Catholicism. And yet in all the many years as an Anglican, in all the many churches I attended, the concept of honoring Mary was limited to getting a school girl to dress up like her once a year for the Christmas pageant and then ignoring her until the next Christmas pageant rolls around.