Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Ignatius]

No, Sola Scriptura is a false, man made doctrine. For Sola Scriptura to be true, it must be found in the Bible Alone; the most the bible says of itself is that it is
profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training, it doesn’t even claim to be (and is not) the only thing that is profitable for teaching, etc.

 

[onenow1]

[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 denies 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.

1. 1. I really don’t think Joshua read God’s command.
   2. However here is what God says to Moses: Numbers 11: 23-25 And the LORD said to Moses, “Is the LORD’s hand shortened? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not.”
   So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and placed them round about the tent.
   
   Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the spirit that was upon him and put it upon the seventy elders; and when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did so no more
   
   Keep in mind Parker, Moses was God’s instrument, for relaying His Word.
   
   Read more: ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz1Mf3MhtRX
   
   Is it the Bible or is it the Church?
   It appears to be a question of either/or, which means one or the other for some Christians; since they rejected the Church which Jesus Christ founded.
   
   Well, now in regards to itself, just what does the Bible have to say about the Church that Jesus Christ founded?
   
   Did Jesus Christ found the Bible or the Church?
   Actually it says He founded His Church, Matthew 16:18.
   
   What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?
   It says it is the Church, 1Timothy 3:15.
   
   Who or what is the final authority?
   It says it is the Church, Matthew 18:15-18.
   
   Who is the teacher of all the wisdom of GOD?
   It says it is the Church, Ephesians 3:10.
   
   Who is to be saved?
   Does the Bible say that all who believe in Sola Scriptura, will be saved?
   No, it says those who are attached to His Church will be saved.
   “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved”, Acts 2:47, King James Bible.
   
   Note the singular, “CHURCH”.
   
   What are we commanded to edify?
   Does the Bible say that we are to edify the Bible?
   It says we are to edify the Church, 1Corinthians 14:12.
   
   Who rules the Church of GOD?
   
   The Bible says it is the Bishops that the Holy Spirit has appointed that rule the Church of GOD, Acts 20:28.
   
   What did Jesus purchase for us ?
   
   Jesus purchased the Church of GOD with His own blood, Acts 20:28, King James Bible.
   
   What are we commanded not to offend?
   
   Does the Bible say it is the Bible?
   
   No, the Bible says we are to give no offense to the Church of GOD, 1Corinthians 10:32.
   
   Throughout Biblical history God has chosen a Representative to spread the word.
   
   Peace,onenow1

 

[ESMDHokie77]

So what books does the Bible say should be in the Bible???

 

[haparker321]

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.

But here’s the problem: you’re not just pleading to Mary. Like I said earlier, there’s more to the issue than that. I know there’s sincerity to what you’re explaining and believe me I understand. However, that doesn’t mean I won’t have this negative opinion. I call this worship because of the following:

• Marian Titles: When does the Bible make her a ‘Refuge of Sinners’?
• Festivals: Processions, Feast Days, Hymns, etc.
• Statues: I understand the intent is to evoke her memory, but it’s different if one were to put candles there and constantly ask for her name.
• Marian Preeminence: She somehow comes as a pre-existing figure, like Christ
• Marian Omnipresence: She is capable of hearing prayers both here on earth and in heaven.

These as a sum, are the major objections and to take these excuses you put forth, would not make me change my mind. For the most part, Mary doesn’t pre-exist in the Old Testament because it doesn’t talk about her. This would be absurd.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

He compares and contrasts the “reformation doctrine” with the “Revisionist doctrine”. Two separate and distinct definitions of SS.

These are not two ‘separate and distinct’ definitions here; it’s a distinction between what a person “thinks” Sola Scriptura means and what “is” the definition of Sola Scriptura. I own a copy of Keith Mathison’s book, and he makes a point about the watered down definition of the Scriptural Authority and the original intent. His battling of this issue is like someone pointing out the definition of First Amendment (what it meant originally) and what post-modern liberals use it for (what they like to call ‘separation of church and state’).

He has no authority to do this

On what grounds are your basis to say he can’t do that? You’re more upset because he made a clear point.

Have you ever heard someone say they believed in solo scriptura? I haven’t.

Not explicitly stated but in practice they are. Mathison is quite right about how people tend to erase history and conjure up their own understanding of Sola Scriptura, which I must remind you has a historical context. Again, this isn’t different.

Furthermore you are the first protestant I have ever seen argue that there is only one definition of SS.

There is one definition, but there are many different caricatures that give it a bad name.

Parker

 

[Kay_Cee]

Scripture is self-authenticating; this is part of hermeneutics.

Parker

Please quote book, chapter, and verse where scripture says it is self-athenticating.

Also, please make sure you do this for every book in the Bible (that is, I want to know where it says Genesis is self-authenticating and so forth). Otherwise, how can I know that when scripture says “scripture” it means to include Genesis, Exodus, or any other book of the Bible?

After all, surely you don’t expect me to take your word for it that each book of the Bible is self-authenticating without knowing where it says that in the Bible, for that would certainly be using a source (you) outside of scripture.

 

[DCNBILL]

But here’s the problem: you’re not just pleading to Mary. Like I said earlier, there’s more to the issue than that. I know there’s sincerity to what you’re explaining and believe me I understand. However, that doesn’t mean I won’t have this negative opinion. I call this worship because of the following:

• Marian Titles: When does the Bible make her a ‘Refuge of Sinners’?
  Never run to Mom for consolation after a transgression?
• Festivals: Processions, Feast Days, Hymns, etc.
  I celebrate my wife’s birthday and have even written songs and poems to/about her, yet I do not worship her as a diety.
• Statues: I understand the intent is to evoke her memory, but it’s different if one were to put candles there and constantly ask for her name.
  I have pictures of my whole family on a mantel and there are even candels on the mantel as well
• Marian Preeminence: She somehow comes as a pre-existing figure, like Christ
  Foretold is not pre-existance, read your bible (Old Testament esp.) and study a bit you will come to the truth
• Marian Omnipresence: She is capable of hearing prayers both here on earth and in heaven. (Makes sense since she is in heaven.

These as a sum, are the major objections and to take these excuses you put forth, would not make me change my mind. For the most part, Mary doesn’t pre-exist in the Old Testament because it doesn’t talk about her. See comment above This would be absurd. So is it also absurd that the Christ would be foretold in the Hebrew Scripture?

Parker

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

However, that doesn’t mean I won’t have this negative opinion. I call this worship because of the following:

• Marian Titles: When does the Bible make her a ‘Refuge of Sinners’?
• Festivals: Processions, Feast Days, Hymns, etc.
• Statues: I understand the intent is to evoke her memory, but it’s different if one were to put candles there and constantly ask for her name.
• Marian Preeminence: She somehow comes as a pre-existing figure, like Christ
• Marian Omnipresence: She is capable of hearing prayers both here on earth and in heaven.

By your same logic, we worship saints too because we have titles for them, festivals and hymns in their honour, statues as art and veneration and we petition them for aid and assistance. Catholics believe in life after death and we also believe that our connection does not end with their death. When we pray to saints (such as Mary), it’s in recognition of this communion. The communion of saints, as indicated the second clause of the ninth article of the Apostles creed, demonstrates our belief of having a spiritual union of all members of the Church, living and the dead, whether on on Earth or in Heaven.

Worship is defined as having religious devotion to a* diety*, which we categorically do not believe any saint (Mary included) as being. We just accord them a measure of respect, commensurate to their contribution to the Church. It happens to be that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, had a very significant contribution to make. Ironically, I would argue that many Protestants worship the Bible because they show religious devotion towards it. They bow down to it, kiss it, and deem it to be infallable in all things, science and history included. This amounts to idolatry, as it constitutes undue honour towards a physical object.

Obviously, I’m being a little facetious with regards to Protestant bible worship but I now would imagine you understand my point more clearly.

 

[pablope]

But here’s the problem: you’re not just pleading to Mary. Like I said earlier, there’s more to the issue than that. I know there’s sincerity to what you’re explaining and believe me I understand. However, that doesn’t mean I won’t have this negative opinion. I call this worship because of the following:

 

[EricFilmer]

REITERATION OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH CHALLENGE

For Parker and anyone else who is interested…

Here is a reiteration of one of the major topics I have been examining in this thread. Because this thread is getting pretty long, I am presenting this in the hope of maintaining focus and clarity on this particular challenge.

One of my main points in this thread is that Sola Scriptura is not sufficient to teach all Christian doctrines because it is not sufficient to teach us what Scriptures belong in the Bible in the first place. In other words, before a person can practice Sola Scriptura, he must first know what Scriptures are officially considered to be inspired. In the ancient world there were hundreds of text which claimed divine inspiration and were considered Scripture by certain Jews and Christians. It was by action of the Magisterium that the canons of the Old and New Testament were determined. From the Catholic perspective, such an action is a display of the Magisterium’s authority to officially interpret Scripture, and the canons of Scripture are considered part of Sacred Tradition. An adherent of Sola Scriptura is not awarded the luxury of either belief.

In light of all this, if an adherent of Sola Scriptura accepts that the books in his Bible are inspired and books not in the Old & New Testament canons are not inspired, then this places him in an awkward position. Obviously, he does not accept that the Magisterium has the authority to officially interpret Scripture, so the question is how does he know that the books in his Bible belong there, and other books don’t? Moreover, being an adherent of Sola Scriptura, his explanation naturally has to follow the rules of Sola Scriptura.

A while ago in this thread I presented Parker with a specific challenge regarding the Book of Enoch. I could have chosen from among many others (Letter of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, etc.) but I think Enoch makes a very interesting choice because it was actually quoted in the NT (in the Letter of Jude), and some of the ECFs considered it to be divinely inspired. So now I will present the Q&A between myself and Parker regarding this challenge (and I am going through the trouble to do all this so that the exact nature of this challenge will not get lost among the various other posts in this thread engaged in various other topics).

I mentioned the Book of Enoch so let us examine it in more detail. Many of the ancient Jews and the ancient Christians believed that the Book of Enoch was divinely inspired. Therein we see the following:

“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgment upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (Enoch 1:9)

This is actually quoted in the New Testament in the Letter of Jude:

“It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’.” (Jude 1:14-15)

So my question to you is, do you accept the Book of Enoch as divinely inspired? And if so, why, and if not, why not?

As far as I am concerned, the Book of Enoch is not divinely inspired because the Magisterium made this determination when compiling the Canon of the Old Testament. But seeing as you claim that such a notion is "bogus” then I want you to present your own argument for or against the authenticity of 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.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Who said the Book of Enoch was pagan? It is purportedly written by Enoch of the Book of Genesis who “walked with God”. That’s certainly not a description of a pagan. So if you denounce the Book of Enoch as a pagan book then prove it to be so. And how do you know that Jude is “merely quoting it to bring up a point”? Jude said that this was the same Enoch of Genesis and that this quote was actual prophecy.

(Parker did not reply to this specific question)

…all Christians, including you, are reliant upon the Magisterium to tell you what is and is not Sacred Scripture. For example, if you do not believe that the Magisterium has the authority to discern the authenticity of Sacred Scripture then explain why you believe the text within your Bible is a faithful representation of what the original Scriptures say. After all, the original texts for all the books of the Bible have been lost since ancient times, so how can you make a comparison?

Wow, that’s quite a logical leap.

Then give me a straight answer to my Book of Enoch challenge and prove me wrong. Simply saying that it is “pagan” without demonstrating it to be so doesn’t cut it. And besides, did you ever research the history of the Bible and all the hundreds of ancient texts that claim divine origin and determine for yourself which are and are not truly inspired? Or did you take it upon faith that the books contained in your Bible ought to be there? If it is the latter, then you placed your faith in a pronouncement of the Magisterium even if you did not realize that the Magisterium was behind the formulation of the canons.

(Parker did not reply to this specific question)

The Scriptures do not tell us what books belong in the Bible. The table of contents for both the Old and New Testament was determined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. In order to practice Sola Scriptura, one first needs to ask the question: “What are the Scriptures that I should be ‘sola’ about?” In other words, “What is and is not Scripture among the hundreds of ancient writings whose text claims divine origin?” To answer that question, all Christians rely on an outside source: the pronouncement of the councils I mentioned.

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.

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.

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.

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).

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

At this point, Kay Cee gave Parker the following reminder:

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.

Of the material Kay Cee presented in Post #59, the following is relevant to the ongoing “Book of Enoch Challenge” that I have been discussing with Parker:

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?

(Parker’s response to Kay Cee)

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.

At this point, I presume that Parker’s response to Kay Cee is likewise his response to me.

**Parker,
In light of all that has been said, the Book of Enoch Challenge has evolved into the below outlined task for you:

1. Use hermeneutics to explain why the Book of Enoch should not** be in the Old Testament Canon.
2. Your use of hermeneutics must still be in keeping with your definition of Sola Scriptura, as seen in the OP. In other words, such hermeneutics must “be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures.” If you attempt to defend your position with an argument that is not sufficiently derived from the Scriptures, then by that very action you demonstrate that Scripture does not contain “everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs”. In other words, you contradict your own statement concerning Scriptures found in the OP.
3. And just to give you the “heads up,” one of the ways I will double-check the validity of your process will be to use it to examine the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In other words, if the process you use to declare the Book of Enoch to not be inspired can also be used to declare the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity to not be inspired, then your process is invalid.
4. Moreover, I will double-check the process you use to determine that a book in the Bible is inspired by using it to examine certain Marian doctrines. In other words, if your method for proving that the books in the Bible are, indeed, inspired can be used to show that certain Marian doctrines are also inspired, then this demonstrates that you have a double-standard (assuming that you reject the validity of the Marian doctrines).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

These are not two ‘separate and distinct’ definitions here; it’s a distinction between what a person “thinks” Sola Scriptura means and what “is” the definition of Sola Scriptura.

No, he is comparing and contrasting what the reformers taught to what the doctrine has turned into today. He’s not writing about some subjective thought but rather, a real practice that has found its way into the protestant churches which he believes strays from the reformation thought (sorry Alister McGrath, couldn’t resist).

His battling of this issue is like someone pointing out the definition of First Amendment (what it meant originally) and what post-modern liberals use it for (what they like to call ‘separation of church and state’).

Why would someone do this unless there are differing opinions/definitions of it?

On what grounds are your basis to say he can’t do that? You’re more upset because he made a clear point.

Not upset at all. I thoroughly enjoyed Mathison’s article, I linked it to you remember . It was given to me by a very well know Lutheran on these forums awhile ago and helped me understand that there are more than one definition of SS and how believers apply it and therefore I couldn’t lump all adherents of SS into the same boat.

There is one definition, but there are many different caricatures that give it a bad name.

No there are differing opinioins/definitions which take on completely different practices in the adherents faith. The sole authority is quite different than the final authority, and that’s just two different definitions of SS.

God bless

 

[Sonny69]

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:

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

I’ll answer your question concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus. All honor and glory goes to God; for it is God that saved Mary and God that gave her the PRIVEDGE to carry the redeemer of all Christians in her womb. Just as all the saints make up the body of Christ, Jesus made it clear that not one part of the body is more or less important than any other MEMBER. Glory to God! May HIs grace be with you!

 

[Glennonite]

You mean:

HIGHLY IRRATIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF SOLA SCRIPTURA

Apart from your argument begging the question, I would like to add that the basis of Sola Scriptura comes from indirect implications. Hence, your objection is invalid.

This is another re-hash of the same argument above. See my response above.

Re-hash.

Oh, so pharisees had a legit basis to carry the traditions which Christ condemned, right?

This is a non-sequitor.

Paganism has been around for three millenia, does that mean it’s the correct church?

So it’s non-biblical because we don’t accept the Magisterium? Wow, amazing!

That’s quite bogus.

And what standards does the Magisterium use to determine Scripture?

[SIGN]THE SCRIPTURES![/SIGN]

But that revolves around the assumption if the Magisterium does qualify as the authority ordained by God. So far, the Scriptures never instituted such an idea; it’s absent.

How does that disprove Sola Scriptura?

What kind of disputes the essentials or not?

Non-essentials, if we don’t agree doesn’t make us heretics because we don’t think eating or dipping someone the right way it will enhance our salvation.

Issues which result from people not taking Scriptural commands seriously, this by no means shows that Sola Scriptura is inefficient; just because you disobey authority does not mean the Bible is insufficient.

So far, you’ve raised objections and they all are irrelevant to the doctrine.

Parker

You don’t refute; you quip. You quip, but do not back up your broad refutations. Simply stating that an arguement is a Non Sequetur w/o explaining why, is just babling.

Are you used to people simply nodding in agreement when you speak?

Glennonite

 

[ddarko]

With just a book, how do you ever know that you have the correct interpretation?

One needs tradition which tells us how the apostles, enlightened by the holy spirit, taught using these passages.

We need the authority of the church which is the continuation of the role of the apostles today so that we may continually be guided in our interpretations and studies of the word of God.

With Sola Scriptura, there is no guidance left. One wants the very book that they are interpreting to guide them on how to interpret it. That does not work.

There are those in the Sola Scriptura camp who think the holy spirit guides each individual to have the correct interpretation. But as we can see in the acts of the apostles, such is not the case. There were many, even then, who misinterpreted the word of Christ and tried to lead the church to heresy. The church authority, i.e. apostles, had to step in and correct the mistakes.

If Sola Scriptura were indeed true, then there is no point in being a Christian. We are as lost as those of any other religion. All we have is a book with a wider range of possible interpretations and this has been proven by the variety of different faiths among those who hold Sola Scriptura.

I think it is the responsibility of those arguing FOR Sola Scriptura to present how their interpretations of scripture can ever be known to be true. If such a guarantee cannot be given, what use is the faith that they proclaim?

God Bless

 

[Holly3278]

If it is so Biblical, how do you explain this?

Not Everything Is In The Bible:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
(John 21:25 RSV)

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
(John 20:30-31 RSV)
**
Paul Speaks of Tradition as Authoritative:**

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV)

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
(2 Timothy 2:1-2 RSV)

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
(1 Corinthians 11:2 RSV)

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
(1 Thessalonians 2:13 RSV)

Early Christians Followed Apostolic Tradition:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
(Acts 2:42 RSV)

How do you explain all of that?

 

[EricFilmer]

I’ll answer your question concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus. All honor and glory goes to God; for it is God that saved Mary and God that gave her the PRIVEDGE to carry the redeemer of all Christians in her womb.

Catholics agree that God saved Mary (after all, she said, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior” - Luke 1:47) and Catholics agree that being chosen to be the mother of the Messiah was a privilege, seeing as there was nothing she (or anyone else) could have done to earn this.

But when you stated, “All honor and glory goes to God” are you suggesting that humans are not to give honor to other humans?
I hope not because in doing so you would be in clear violation of the Scriptures. For example (and I will be quoting the RSV in this post):

1Peter 2:17
“Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”

So Peter says to honor everyone, including the pagan Roman emperor, but you suggest that we are not to honor the very mother of the Messiah?
An earthly king and non-believer gets honor but the mother of the very King of kings and Lord of lords doesn’t?
How in the world can that possibly make any sense?

Matthew 13:57
And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”

So a prophet is due honor but not the very mother of the Messiah?
A prophet preaches the Word of God, while Mary was the very channel by which the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us.

John 12:26
“If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him.”

So God himself will honor those who serve Jesus.
Let me ask you, does carrying Jesus in her womb for nine months and then raising him from childhood to adulthood count as “serving Jesus?”
If so, then *God himself *honors Mary! So why can’t I?

Exodus 20:12
"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you.”

This, of course, is one of the Ten Commandments.
Jesus obviously did not break one of the Ten Commandments, so he, himself, honored Mary.
If Jesus honored Mary then why can’t I honor Mary in imitation of him?
Isn’t imitating Christ what a Christian is supposed to be doing?

Just as all the saints make up the body of Christ, Jesus made it clear that not one part of the body is more or less important than any other MEMBER.

We do not honor people because they are “more important.” We honor people because they are owed honor. I quoted Peter above which says that we are to honor all people. Moreover, the Bible tells us to single out certain people to honor in a special way. Want proof?

Philippians 2:29-30
(Concerning the treatment of Epaphrodi’tus)
“So receive him in the Lord with all joy; and honor such men,
for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete your service to me.”

So the service that Epaphrodi’tus gave to the Church makes him worthy of honor, but the service the Mary gave as mother of the Messiah does not?

1Timothy 5:17
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (emphasis added)

So elders who preach and teach well are considered not only worthy honor, but double honor, but the mother of the Messiah is not?

Mark 10:19
“You know the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’"

This, as you probably know, was Jesus’ answer to the question about how one inherits eternal life.

Matthew 15:3-4
He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
For God commanded, Honor your father and your mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’.”

Ok, if this does not single out the idea that mothers and fathers are given a greater sense of honor among humans then I don’t know what does!

 

[Newsy]

I pose this question to supporters of SS. How do you determine heresy? I understand some are blatant, but others that the Church struck down as heresy were more complex. For instance, the definition of Jesus being God AND man was disputed for years. So, outside of the Magesterium of the Church, how do you determine heresy?

BTW, as a former presbyterian, I have never seen any “official protestant document” that defines SS. Many denominations have their own documents that are only respected by the denomination that wrote it. It runs into the same problem every time, who has authority to define the faith. This was part of what brought me to the Catholic Church.

As I see it, these problems never solve themselves outside of the Catholic Church. They just lead to more division and more problems. Sola sciptura, sola fide, justification, value of life, definition of marriage, contraception, etc. It all comes back to the same question, “where is the authority?”.

Also, I believe truth is always truth. It cannot change based on the ideas of society, therefore read the ECF’s and you will find some very familiar ideas. I would never read them when I was presbyterian because the ECF’s were Catholic, which made me think…

 

[onenow1]

So what books does the Bible say should be in the Bible???

The bible does not {SAY} anything ! Herein lies the clue !

Peace,