It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Jimzz12]

I would much appreciate it if someone one, (especially you who are n-Cs) would display and clarify for me just precisely where it is in the Word of God that it specifically states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages.

This also is for some of you Catholics that come in here and all but demand to know where some Catholic teaching or practice is found in the Bible.

The reason I am posting this is because I have read the Bible (all 73 books of it!) many times and have yet to find anything that supports this idea. I have concluded that the Catholic Church is correct in teaching that the Bible does not say this and therefore it is error.

I want all of us Catholics to understand that this is a fundamental doctrinal error of some communities of n-C Christianity and so there is no reason to get distressed when someone comes at you with this stuff, because the fact of the matter is …it’s NOT in the Bible itself.

To answer this question quickly; there are two men worth noting. The first is a man named John Darby, an disenchanted Church of Ireland pastor, circa 1830, who declared that up until him all interpretations of the Bible where incorrect. He is the founder of the Rapture theory as well as a spiritual father or most modern evangelicalism and literalism heresies, and more substantially the prominent influence in Seventh Day Adventism and it’s popular off-shoots. He is also worth noting in his substantial influence in athiestic socialism, in particular feeding Marxism. The second man worthy of note is Schoefield. He is the author of a literalist commentary, perhaps, the most widely distributed in the United States during the 20th century. His legitimacy is proven by his prolific writing, in that, he didn’t have formal education thus proving the Bible as an open book of prophecy which is open to all who approach it with right mind.

Now some will say that Darby was able to usher in the era of correct interpretation through the spiritual visions of a teenage girl named Maggie McDonald. I am unaware of the significance there. I tend to stay away from it for fear my words being misconstrued as mean-spirited. There is actually a very good book on highlighting some of this written by a former evangelical minister named Olson titled ‘Will Catholics be Saved?’ available through Ignatius Publishers.

+++
Alms, Fasting, Prayer.

 

[Jimzz12]

Hmmm,things NCs believe that are not in the Bible. Lets see.

1. Evangelistic appeals.
2. VBS.
3. Youth groups and youth pastors.
4. Church picnics,
5. Praise bands.
6. Bible Colleges.
7. Short hair on men, long hair on women. ( I once knew a preacher who insisted Jesus had a crewcut)
   I’m sure there’s more, but I can’t think of any right now.
   Too much Chinese food for lunch.
   

Indeed, one could make such a laundry list it is almost unfair.

One could say the same thing about Catholics – beliefs not in the Bible. The reality is, a list like this is drawn up with all too frequent regularity.

It is better, perhaps, to limit lists like this to easily proven items; such as, triclavinism. Most non-Catholics believe Christ was afixed to the Cross with three nails, whereas, the Catholic Church teaches that four-nails were used. No where in the Bible does it state how many nails were used, yet most non-Catholics hold fast to the three nail theory in much the same way that the United Kingdom refused to adopt the Gregorian Calendar, implementing the leap year, until as of fairly late because it was a ‘papist device’. In a similar way, triclavanism has become a ‘just because I said so’ argument.

The Church basis for four nails is rooted in tradition, whereas, triclavinism is rooted in Albigensianism (a gnostic heresy) and the preaching of a man named Peter Waldo. Now what I find particularly disturbing is that Biblical literalism has led many numbers of Christians into the heresy of unitarianism. This development is, as of late, because more serious, from my own observation. It is not uncommon now to find, say a Southern Baptist, who confidently states that there is no Trinity of God, because Scripture doesn’t obviously and literally state that there is one. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to another. For instance, I can see the Trinity in manner passages. Psalm 95 is pregnant with hints and shadows pointing as the Trinity. Now, it wasn’t until the Annunciation that the Trinity was fully proclaimed.

P.S. If someone here could fetch me a copy of the promulgation by Pope Innocent III on this matter I would be indebted.

+++
Alms, Fasting, Prayer.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

It is not uncommon now to find, say a Southern Baptist, who confidently states that there is no Trinity of God, because Scripture doesn’t obviously and literally state that there is one. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to another. For instance, I can see the Trinity in manner passages. Psalm 95 is pregnant with hints and shadows pointing as the Trinity. Now, it wasn’t until the Annunciation that the Trinity was fully proclaimed.

P.S. If someone here could fetch me a copy of the promulgation by Pope Innocent III on this matter I would be indebted.

Goes on for a few pages!

Pope innocent III (1198-1216)
The Council of Florence (1441) gave a summarized, comprehensive exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, which can be regarded as the keystone of the dogmatic development:
“…the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son. None proceeds the other in eternity, none exceeds the other in greatness, nor excels the other in power. For it is from eternity and without beginning that the Son has taken His origin from the Father, and from eternity and without beginning that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

In the Old Testament there is no clear communication of the Mystery of the Trinity but merely indications.
The Mystery of the Trinity is most clearly manifested in the mandate of Jesus to go and baptise (Mt 28:19)
The Tri-personality and the unity of essence in God is most perfectly expressed in 1 Jn 5:7

 

[Jimzz12]

Jimzz12;5884850:

It is not uncommon now to find, say a Southern Baptist, who confidently states that there is no Trinity of God, because Scripture doesn’t obviously and literally state that there is one. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to another. For instance, I can see the Trinity in manner passages. Psalm 95 is pregnant with hints and shadows pointing as the Trinity. Now, it wasn’t until the Annunciation that the Trinity was fully proclaimed.

P.S. If someone here could fetch me a copy of the promulgation by Pope Innocent III on this matter I would be indebted.

Goes on for a few pages!

Pope innocent III (1198-1216)
The Council of Florence (1441) gave a summarized, comprehensive exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, which can be regarded as the keystone of the dogmatic development:
“…the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son. None proceeds the other in eternity, none exceeds the other in greatness, nor excels the other in power. For it is from eternity and without beginning that the Son has taken His origin from the Father, and from eternity and without beginning that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

In the Old Testament there is no clear communication of the Mystery of the Trinity but merely indications.
The Mystery of the Trinity is most clearly manifested in the mandate of Jesus to go and baptise (Mt 28:19)
The Tri-personality and the unity of essence in God is most perfectly expressed in 1 Jn 5:7

Thank you kindly.

I perhaps mis-typed… I was speaking of the promulgation in regards to the four nails versus three.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX;5884980:

Thank you kindly.

I perhaps mis-typed… I was speaking of the promulgation in regards to the four nails versus three.

3 nails vrs. 4. As if it would make suffering easier.
Up until the Middle Ages in art 4 was common.
After that, 3.

The theives were tied to the cross by rope. Was Jesus, and then nailed?
Nailed through the hands or the wrists? If no rope, nailed through the hands the flesh would tear.
Anatomy may include wrists as part of the hand.
The Gospels records have him nailed (Post-Resurrection.)

When Helena collected the remnants of the True Cross, she found 3 (She may have missed one)
There are reputed to be 10,000 True Nails. Enough Wood to make a forest.

Now how many angels can balance on the head of a pin?

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Again, please remain on topic, which is the search for scriptural proof that the Bible teaches “that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Bible”.

***4 more posts have been pruned.

 

[sandyelder]

Again, please remain on topic, which is the search for scriptural proof that the Bible teaches “that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Bible”.

I will offer Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:18 as a scriptural foundation for Sola Scriptura.

I believe the burden of proof lies with those espousing the position that doctrine, tradition, etc, not found in the Bible is ok. Amos 3:7 indicates that God does nothing without revealing it to a prophet. If God reveals His will only to prophets, and there are none; and the scriptures warn against adding to or diminishing from the given Word; it would seem that a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe.

 

[RedBert]

I would much appreciate it if someone one, (especially you who are n-Cs) would display and clarify for me just precisely where it is in the Word of God that it specifically states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages.

.

The correct application of the concept of sola scriptura is that everything you NEED to know regarding salvation can be found in Scripture alone.

The correct application of the concept of sola scriptura is that tradition can not be in conflict with Scripture.

It is incorrect to state that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages.

I 100% agree that no where in the Bible does it say everthing I **must **believe is in the Bible
ex: I believe St. Thomas went to India.

I understand that is not the definition (or an application of a concept*) that you want to use, but that is how it IS applied for the MAJORITY of protestants.

sola scriptura is **just one of the components **for a larger doctrine consisting of 4 other “solas”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

Honestly, none of these debates can continue until there is an agreement on what a word or phrase means.

(* I am sure you can think of other “concepts” where a a single sentence definition cannot fully explain **all **that is involved; example; Trinity or the Greek word "logos " from John 1:1)

 

[Church_Militant]

I will offer Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:18 as a scriptural foundation for Sola Scriptura.

I believe the burden of proof lies with those espousing the position that doctrine, tradition, etc, not found in the Bible is ok. Amos 3:7 indicates that God does nothing without revealing it to a prophet. If God reveals His will only to prophets, and there are none; and the scriptures warn against adding to or diminishing from the given Word; it would seem that a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

The context of this shows that it applies to the law and commandments in the Old Testament and therefore cannot be used for Sola Scriptura because it would categorically eliminate the New Testament as inspired canon.

Revelations 22:18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.

The context of this shows that it applies specifically to the writings in the book of Revelation and therefore cannot be used for Sola Scriptura because it speaks to that single specific book of New Testament scripture.

Amos 3:7 has no relevance at all to Sola Scriptura largely because it is addressed to His chosen people at a particular place and time.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

I will offer Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:18 as a scriptural foundation for Sola Scriptura.

I believe the burden of proof lies with those espousing the position that doctrine, tradition, etc, not found in the Bible is ok.

Logically speaking, if you claim something, such as sola scriptura, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim and not the other side.

Amos 3:7 indicates that God does nothing without revealing it to a prophet. If God reveals His will only to prophets, and there are none; and the scriptures warn against adding to or diminishing from the given Word; it would seem that a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe.

Amos 3:7 says nothing about “Bible Alone.” The Word of God does not automatically entail what is literally written down. Would you agree that when Jesus spoke to the crowds, He was preaching the Word of God? And yet nothing would be written till after He ascended into heaven. The apostles continued to spread God’s Word in Acts but they were not handing out leaflets with God’s Word on it. They spoke and preached by word of mouth.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Well, that isn’t my fight. I don’t practice Sola Scriptura. I don’t believe that anyone actually does,

It doesn’t particularly bother me that Catholics place the stock they do in their understanding of a co-existing oral and written tradition apart from the scriptures, for I find that the other writings of Christians from the NT era speak to me as well. Where I part with Catholics is what seems to me to be an ability on the part of Catholics to claim something to be true merely because the teaching magestrium says it alone. And to deny the possiblity that others might have to come apart from the magesterium.

My dear freind in Christ,

One ought to be careful in making such broad statements. I and others have numerious times pointed out that Infallibility applies only to Defined Dogma, and Doctrine and then ONLY on the matters of Faith and Morals.

While Catholic are obligated to accept with assent of will teachings and Traditions in addition to the above, that is a commitemnt of Faith and beleif, called for by the Church, and authorized by God Himself.

The Magisterium NEVER speaks “ALONE” but with and through the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore with the personal assurance of its truth by Christ Himself. Code of Canon Law: 751-754. This is in fact proveable by a multitude of Bibical evidence.

Love and prayers,

 

[Church_Militant]

The correct application of the concept of sola scriptura is that everything you NEED to know regarding salvation can be found in Scripture alone.

Okay, where does it specifically say that?

The correct application of the concept of sola scriptura is that tradition can not be in conflict with Scripture.

Irrelevant since we have not yet seen irrefutable proof in scripture that everything that we believe must be found in the Bible.

It is incorrect to state that everything that Christians believe and practice must

be found within its pages.I think that is what I have asserted all along.

I 100% agree that no where in the Bible does it say everthing I **must **

believe is in the Bible
ex: I believe St. Thomas went to India.Well, that’s good.

I understand that is not the definition (or an application of a concept*) that you want to use, but that is how it IS applied for the MAJORITY of protestants.

The concept and application still has no basis in the Bible and in fact contradicts other scripture. That being the case, does that not mean that it epic fails by its own standard?

sola scriptura is **just one of the components **

for a larger doctrine consisting of 4 other “solas”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solasAlso irrelevant, since we are here concerned with the one fundamental and foundational belief from which virtually everything else from the Reformation on has cascaded down.

Honestly, none of these debates can continue until there is an agreement on what a word or phrase means.

Until such time as we are shown that the doctrinal concept is in the Bible texts then I maintain that it contradicts the plainly stated passages of other scripture and is therefore in error based upon its own doctrinal mandates.

(* I am sure you can think of other “concepts” where a a single sentence definition cannot fully explain **all **

that is involved; example; Trinity or the Greek word "logos " from John 1:1)The “concept” still requires that it have a basis in the Bible. Lacking that, by its own standards it is contradictory and wrong.

 

[RedBert]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBert
The correct application of the concept of sola scriptura is that everything you NEED to know regarding salvation can be found in Scripture alone.

Okay, where does it specifically say that?​

We all have the ability to google and copy n paste, examples have been presented.

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Five-Solas/Sola-Scriptura/

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.–Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.–Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.–Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

What part of the below queote do you not agree with?

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which **we yield assent in all matters **of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. St. Agustine

 

[Randy_Carson]

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.–Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

Always?

Please show me where the scriptures state that it was okay for the early Church to determine that Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised.

Conversely, if the Bible did not give the Church permission to do this, then it was on the basis of its own authority that this decision was made.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.–Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

Wrong. You are confusing the Bereans with the Thessalonians who REJECTED the Messiah based on the Scriptures Alone. The Bereans accepted Paul’s ORAL preaching and his authority, and they verified that what he told them was true by searching the scriptures; however, they could have searched forever and never discovered that Jesus from Nazareth, nailed to a cross and raised from the dead, was the Messiah foretold in the OT. TRADITION - that is, that which was handed on, told them the truth.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.–Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their HUMAN traditions which nullified the Word of God. Jesus did not command us to ignore everything that is handed down by word of mouth, and in fact, the Word of God commands us to hold fast to the traditions handed on by word of mouth or by letter.

What part of the below quote do you not agree with?

“This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which **we yield assent in all matters **of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. - St. Agustine”

None.

St. Augustine rightly states that we have the message of Christ from:

1. the prophets
2. from Christ Himself
3. from the Apostles
4. from scripture

Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

 

[RedBert]

St. Augustine rightly states that we have the message of Christ from:

1. the prophets
2. from Christ Himself
3. from the Apostles
4. from scripture

Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

did not the St. Augustine quote just say that we yield to the paramount authority of scripture?

Description of paramount - American Heritage® Dictionary
ADJECTIVE: 1. Of chief concern or importance

sounds like sola scriptura to me.

Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”

 

[nuntym]

Hello RedBert.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBert
The correct application of the concept of sola scriptura is that everything you NEED to know regarding salvation can be found in Scripture alone.

OK, let us test this.

Okay, where does it specifically say that?​

We all have the ability to google and copy n paste, examples have been presented.

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Five-Solas/Sola-Scriptura/

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

Command faith and obedience to whom? And through whom?

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:6

Hmm…

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.–Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

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

Hmmm…

[23] The same day Sad’ducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question,
[24] saying, “Teacher, Moses said, If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.' [25] Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. [26] So too the second and third, down to the seventh. [27] After them all, the woman died. [28] In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her." [29] But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know **neither** the scriptures **nor the power of God.** [30] For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, **but are like angels in heaven.** [31] And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, [32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”
Matthew 22:23:32

Why did Jesus say “the power of God” as well as scriptures to what they have to know? Where in scripture did Jesus get the information that in the resurrection the dead become like angels?

Or do you suppose it is in vain that the scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us”?
James 4:5

Where in the OId Testament canon is this found?

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.–Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

And even sola scriptura?

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.–Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

And how about removing from the Scriptures? Luther removed 7 books from the Bible being used by the Catholic Church for more than a thousand years then, and wanted to remove four more.

Shouldn’t that be damning evidence by itself?

What part of the below queote do you not agree with?

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which **we yield assent in all matters **of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. St. Agustine

Of course I agree with all of this.

But do you agree with these:

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.” Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.” Augustine, To Januarius, Epistle 54:1 (A.D. 400).

 

[Randy_Carson]

did not the St. Augustine quote just say that we yield to the paramount authority of scripture?

Description of paramount - American Heritage® Dictionary
ADJECTIVE: 1. Of chief concern or importance

sounds like sola scriptura to me.

Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”

Some Catholics, Scott Hahn for example, adhere to the idea of prima scriptura, but this is not the same as sola scriptura.

Do you believe that Augustine held the idea that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer as many modern non-Catholics do?

 

[RedBert]

Some Catholics, Scott Hahn for example, adhere to the idea of prima scriptura, but this is not the same as sola scriptura.

Do you believe that Augustine held the idea that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer as many modern non-Catholics do?

I think that Augustine meant that the Scripture is the paramount authority—**above **councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.

From catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized"

 

[MariaG]

I think that Augustine meant that the Scripture is the paramount authority—**above **councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.

From catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized"

Yet again, where is that belief, that scripture is ABOVE and the ultimate authority reside in scripture. We can see multiple places where scripture tells us to take it to the Church and let the Church settle it, but where does scripture say it stands above? And whose interpretation of scripture? Where is that belief contained in scripture?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[clmowry]

I will offer Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:18 as a scriptural foundation for Sola Scriptura.

I believe the burden of proof lies with those espousing the position that doctrine, tradition, etc, not found in the Bible is ok. Amos 3:7 indicates that God does nothing without revealing it to a prophet. If God reveals His will only to prophets, and there are none; and the scriptures warn against adding to or diminishing from the given Word; it would seem that a Biblical foundation is required for everything we teach and believe.

Deuteronomy 4:2 “In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it.”

Amen.

This verse is very much in alignment with the Catholic Churches mission of protecting the apostolic deposit of faith.

I don’t see, however, where it says anything like “only found in scripture.”

Revelation Chapter 22 “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book”

Though this verse was obviously only meant to originally apply to “Revelation” itself, I would think the great care the Catholic Church took in preserving accurate copies of Sacred Scripture would be right in alignment with a broader interpretation of this verse.

Again, it does not come anywhere close to saying something like “everything I want you to know has been written in these 73 (66) books.”

But thanks for the attempt!

Chuck