Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter suzyq_psu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all beliefs must be taught in the Bible.

When I say the Bible is Truth, I’m not saying that it is Truth exhaustively.

**So what is it about Sola Scriptura that you disagree with? **

What greater authority is there than God’s word (which is revealed in Scripture, though not exhaustively)?
This should explain it…the personal true story of a couple who went on a mission and tried and implemented in their work…this details their experience…freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

How I solved the Catholic problem!

Segregation was only one of the problems I observed with the imported evangelicalism of Guatemala. A bigger problem is the disease of dissension, which is endemic to protestantism. When the Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, and the other well-meaning missionaries came to Guatemala, they brought with them all the doctrinal spats that American churches split over. Guatemalan churches, like their American counterparts, are constantly in a state of strife and doctrinal turmoil, splitting into new churches. New denominations spring up in Guatemala at a breathtaking rate. Pastors, (often self-proclaimed, with little or no education) found new churches, taking large portions of their former congregations with them.

In one little Evangelical church the leaders decided to get hymnals (at great expense to the members) and tone down the music on Sundays, so the neighbors wouldn’t think they were Pentecostals. Some members left because they didn’t want to give up swaying and hand-clapping during worship.

Another church split over the election of a female elder. Splinter groups split from splinter groups which had split from other splinter groups. The church was “multiplying,” all right.

But when I came to Guatemala, living in a country of high illiteracy, I was forced to ask the following question for the first time in my life:

“If a person’s knowledge of truth depends to a great measure upon his ability to read and understand and use Scripture, and if that person’s growth in Christ depends upon his being able to do the same, what about the illiterate?”

This realization was earth-shaking. I saw that evangelicalism had become, by its “Bible alone” principle, a religion of the literate elite. As a missionary taking the gospel to illiterate people, I realized I had to be absolutely sure, before God, that what I was telling them was, in fact, the Christian Faith, free from error. It had to be 100 percent Truth with a capital T. The problem was, using the “Bible alone” principle I had been taught, I had no way to be absolutely sure.

I witnessed among Guatemalan Evangelicals a cacophony of conflicting teachings. Pentecostal television preachers railed against the devil and cast out demons right and left. Fundamentalist non-Pentecostal preachers were just as busy railing against the Pentecostals for speaking in tongues, which was, they warned, a sure sign that they were in cahoots with the devil.

Some preachers were teaching a “health and wealth gospel” in one of the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nations. Many preached American-style democracy as the “biblical” government God wanted to see in Guatemala. Baptists preached that infant baptism didn’t count and that those who practice it aren’t “true Christians.” Lutheran missionaries were busy baptizing babies. Quakers told people they didn’t need any outward symbols of Christianity.

Every Evangelical preacher waved his Bible around, claiming it as his authority. “The Bible says . . .” is perhaps the most common phrase heard on the radio in Guatemala these days.

With all the competing voices, how was one to know who was right? What mere man could stand up with a clear conscience before a group of illiterate people and say, “This is what the Bible means?” The sheer arrogance of what was going on made it difficult for me to listen to sermons after a while. All of them were “preaching the gospel.” But whose gospel? I wondered. Around that time, a more fundamental question loomed: What is the gospel?

I remember hearing one day how a Methodist missionary on one side of the mountain made a deal with the Pentecostal missionary on the other side saying, “I won’t tell your people they need to baptize their babies if you won’t tell mine that they need to speak in tongues.”

The more I thought about this, the scarier my conclusions became, because the bottom line for me and for every other individual Protestant Christian was this: Theology for the modern Evangelical is a matter of his own opinion about what Scripture means.

The most astonishing discovery came when it dawned on me through long hours of reading and studying Scripture and conservative Evangelical commentaries on biblical sufficiency that Scripture doesn’t even teach that it alone is sufficient for knowing all Truth about the Faith. Protestants presuppose sola scriptura, without giving the slightest thought to the possibility that the “Bible alone” is an incorrect view. If that presupposition were erroneous, I reasoned, then everything which was built upon it would be dubious as well.

And finally, the Protestant notion of sola scriptura (the Bible alone) fell apart each time I tried to test it. I began to see that Evangelicalism’s insistence on going by the Bible alone led continually into division and problems. Worse yet, claiming to go by the Bible alone didn’t really provide any certitude of belief for believers.
 
Was the Church always infallible? Does an entity have to be infallible in order to know the word of God under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit?

And again, I reference Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8 to stress that Scripture was known before it was written in response to those that assume that that’s impossible.

Truth was known as the justification of Truth (God’s Word). If Scripture justifies Truth as we could expect it to since it is Truth itself, then we know Scripture. And having a knowedge of Truth as a self-authenticating principle, we have a sufficient reason to believe in Scripture (Truth).

How?

You’re welcome, but my ultimate authority is not Calvin or Chrysostom.

Of course not, but you cannot know anything without the Bible as it is foundational.

If I understand you correctly, no, I’m not saying that.

Know it isn’t true. We know what we know in light of the Bible. God’s word is light.

I gotta go. I’ll be back.
Of,

I really feel sad for you. I deny your first principle. You cannot prove that the Bible is true. So much of what you write is gibberish. I feel like I am corresponding with someone that wants to teach me something that I don’t want to learn. Someone that must be deeply troubled with clear thinking. I asked the following.

**The only way to know the attributes and divine nature of God is by direct knowledge or deduction from the Bible. Is that correct? Tell me if this is true for you? **

You respond…

Know it isn’t true. We know what we know in light of the Bible. God’s word is light.

Know…think you meant “no”…it isn’t true. We know what we know…blah blah…

Try this …

would you agree with we know what we know in light of the Bible…God’s word is light and the only way to know the attributes and divine nature of God is by direct knowledge or deduction from the Bible, God’s word that is light.

Do you agree with the above, yes or no?
 
Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all beliefs must be taught in the Bible.

When I say the Bible is Truth, I’m not saying that it is Truth exhaustively.

So what is it about Sola Scriptura that you disagree with?

What greater authority is there than God’s word (which is revealed in Scripture, though not exhaustively)?
The greater authority is proving that your authority is true. You say you cannot prove the Bible to be true.

Hey you…come over here…this book is the ultimate source of all wisdom, knowledge, experience…and if you read and know this book you will find that it answers all questions.

Really…like really…

Yes.

Well let me ask you one question is this book true.

Well I can’t prove it is true but you must accept that it is true as a first principle.

Now look here brother so and so…if you can’t prove it to be true how can you expect me to believe anything in it?
 
Phineas;9191601:
Phin,

You posit that the Bible was written in Hebrew. This is contrary to the fact that God wanted the world to know his Word and the Bible was translated into Greek and that is the Bible that was used long before anyone translated the masoretic text into English. If you believe this then account for the fact that all immediate English Translations included the Deuterocanonicals.

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611).

The Septuagint
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Codes Ephraemi Rescriptus

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

You posit that the Fathers affirmed the Bible as we know it. Time, date, persons that did this please.
Coptic,

The KJV did not use the Septuagint as its main source for OT translation . It used the Hebrew Masoretic text. The King James translated from the Greek Textus Receptus in the N.T.

" Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]

The New Testament was compiled by 400 A.D.
a. by 170 A.D. – 20 N.T. books had been accepted by the early Christians.

b. by 400 A.D. – all 27 books of the N.T. had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

c. the original manuscripts were lost but the Received Text that was produced during this time was considered a faithful reproduction of the original autographs.
d. 452-1453 A.D. – The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time

Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders say that they gave the world the Bible. Well, either one or both of them are in error. It is much more likely that the common acceptance and use by the individual Christian communities determined which books were inspired and worthy of study. There was no NT collection of 27 books until the Council of Hippo in 393 and later ratified by the Council of Carthage in AD 397. At that time the church leaders gave official authority to the 27 books that now make up the present day New Testament . These 27 books were determined, fixed and set not by law, but by usage over the previous 300 years or so. . If anyone is to take credit for the cannon of scripture it is the Lord God.

The idea that the common man needs a church official to interpret scripture for him, and that a Bible in the vernacular of the people is undesirable is just nonsense.

Speaking directly on the subject of the common people being able to understand scripture for themselves Jesus said" I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight". Matt 11:25-26

“Life is bigger than logic. When it comes to the philosophy of life scholarship and science are not the all which counts. It is as true today as in the days of Christ, that “the common people heard Him gladly”. If it be a question of physics, of chemistry, of mathematics, or of mechanics, there scientists can speak with authority. But when it is a question of revelation, or of morality, the common people are as competent judges as are the product of the school. And in great crisis, history has shown that they were safer.”
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p.4- by Benjamin G. Wilkinson
 
Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders say that they gave the world the Bible. Well, either one or both of them are in error. It is much more likely that the common acceptance and use by the individual Christian communities determined which books were inspired and worthy of study. There was no NT collection of 27 books until the Council of Hippo in 393 and later ratified by the Council of Carthage in AD 397. At that time the church leaders gave official authority to the 27 books that now make up the present day New Testament . These 27 books were determined, fixed and set not by law, but by usage over the previous 300 years or so. . If anyone is to take credit for the cannon of scripture it is the Lord God.
There are many beliefs that hold true today that come from extra-Biblical sources. Many traditions that are held to be true by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (which was a united Church in the First Millennium) did not come from those 27 books (they weren’t really books as most of the NT are Epistles and letters).

Yes, it is God who made the canon for scripture, through the Church. As established by Christ, God speaks through the Church. Many of the extra-biblical sources were very much in use until the canonization of the Bible. And even after that, not all that did not make the canon were outlawed. Many were still available for private reading. The canon of Scripture really was to determine what the readings were for Liturgies.
 
Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders say that they gave the world the Bible. Well, either one or both of them are in error. It is much more likely that the common acceptance and use by the individual Christian communities determined which books were inspired and worthy of study.
Logic 👍

Yeah, like the Gnostics! 👍 Or the Marcionite’s
There was no NT collection of 27 books until the Council of Hippo in 393 and later ratified by the Council of Carthage in AD 397. At that time the church leaders gave official authority to the 27 books that now make up the present day New Testament . These 27 books were determined, fixed and set not by law, but by usage over the previous 300 years or so. . If anyone is to take credit for the cannon of scripture it is the Lord God.
Ridiculous! The Catholic Church always gives credit to the Holy Spirit guiding Her!
The idea that the common man needs a church official to interpret scripture for him, and that a Bible in the vernacular of the people is undesirable is just nonsense.
So why go congregate?
You got the scriptures and Holy Sprit to guide you, why so many Pastors?

The bible read in my Parish, is read in English! 👍
Speaking directly on the subject of the common people being able to understand scripture for themselves Jesus said" I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight". Matt 11:25-26
Always good when a single passage of Holy Writ is used. Hey I think I’ll try that

Ephesians 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,
Life is bigger than logic. When it comes to the philosophy of life scholarship and science are not the all which counts. It is as true today as in the days of Christ, that “the common people heard Him gladly”. If it be a question of physics, of chemistry, of mathematics, or of mechanics, there scientists can speak with authority. But when it is a question of revelation, or of morality, the common people are as competent judges as are the product of the school. And in great crisis, history has shown that they were safer.”
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p.4- by Benjamin G. Wilkinson
When all else fails, throw out logic 😉

Sola Scriptura :stretcher:

The Gnostics claimed Revelation lead them to their beliefs, in fact, that seems to be a running theme throughout “Christendom.” Oneness pentecostals origins come out of the same Spirit of revelation!

In April 1913, at the World-Wide Apostolic Camp Meeting held in Arroyo Seco, California and conducted by Maria Woodworth-Etter, organizers promised that God would "deal with them, giving them a unity and power that we have not yet known."

John G. Schaepe, a young minister, was so moved by McAlister’s revelation that, after praying and reading the Bible all night, he ran through the camp the following morning shouting that he’d received a “revelation” on baptism, that the “name” of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was "Lord Jesus Christ"

On April 15, 1914, Frank Ewart and Glenn Cook publicly baptized each other in “the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but as the one name of Jesus, not as a Trinitarian formula.” This is considered to be the historical point when Oneness Pentecostalism emerged as a distinct movement.
 
Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all beliefs must be taught in the Bible.
You JUST said 2 or 3 posts ago that sola scriptura teaches that all doctrine is to be derived from the bible. So yes, it in fact does, ACCORDING TO YOU, teach that all beliefs must be taught in the bible.

Do you really think my attention span is comparable to that of a gold fish? That I wouldn’t notice this blatant contradiction between your own posts?
 
Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all beliefs must be taught in the Bible.

When I say the Bible is Truth, I’m not saying that it is Truth exhaustively.

So what is it about Sola Scriptura that you disagree with?

What greater authority is there than God’s word (which is revealed in Scripture, though not exhaustively)?
ofthesons,
Your definition of Sola Scriptura seems to differ from the mainstream.
Most sola people I know are adament that all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness is in the bible, and when you discuss anything not explicit in the bible, it’s rejected.

Your definition seems to be very open to additional beliefs taught by a magisterium, as long as they don’t contradict scripture.
 
CopticChristian;9191759:
Coptic,

The KJV did not use the Septuagint as its main source for OT translation . It used the Hebrew Masoretic text. The King James translated from the Greek Textus Receptus in the N.T.

" Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]

The New Testament was compiled by 400 A.D.
a. by 170 A.D. – 20 N.T. books had been accepted by the early Christians.

b. by 400 A.D. – all 27 books of the N.T. had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

c. the original manuscripts were lost but the Received Text that was produced during this time was considered a faithful reproduction of the original autographs.
d. 452-1453 A.D. – The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time

Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders say that they gave the world the Bible. Well, either one or both of them are in error. It is much more likely that the common acceptance and use by the individual Christian communities determined which books were inspired and worthy of study. There was no NT collection of 27 books until the Council of Hippo in 393 and later ratified by the Council of Carthage in AD 397. At that time the church leaders gave official authority to the 27 books that now make up the present day New Testament . These 27 books were determined, fixed and set not by law, but by usage over the previous 300 years or so. . If anyone is to take credit for the cannon of scripture it is the Lord God.

The idea that the common man needs a church official to interpret scripture for him, and that a Bible in the vernacular of the people is undesirable is just nonsense.

Speaking directly on the subject of the common people being able to understand scripture for themselves Jesus said" I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed
them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight". Matt 11:25-26
“Life is bigger than logic. When it comes to the philosophy of life scholarship and science are not the all which counts. It is as true today as in the days of Christ, that “the common people heard Him gladly”. If it be a question of physics, of chemistry, of mathematics, or of mechanics, there scientists can speak with authority. But when it is a question of revelation, or of morality, the common people are as competent judges as are the product of the school. And in great crisis, history has shown that they were safer.”
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p.4- by Benjamin G. Wilkinson

Phin,

I disagree with you interpretation. John Chrysostom points out that the common man had things “revealed” to them. They did not interpret.

You error.
**Now by the “wise,” here, He means the Scribes, and the Pharisees. And these things He says, to make the disciples more earnest, and to show what had been vouchsafed to the fishermen, when all those others had missed of it. And in calling them “wise,” He means not the true and commendable wisdom, but this which they seemed to have through natural shrewdness. Wherefore neither did He say, “you have **revealed ****
it to fools,” but “to babes;” to unsophisticated, that is, to simple-minded men; and He implies that so far from their missing these privileges contrary to their desert, it was just what might be expected. And He instructs us throughout, to be free from pride, and to follow after simplicity. For this cause Paul also expressed it with more exceeding earnestness, writing on this wise: “If any man among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.” 1 Corinthians 3:18 For thus is God’s grace manifested.
 
Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all beliefs must be taught in the Bible.

When I say the Bible is Truth, I’m not saying that it is Truth exhaustively.

So what is it about Sola Scriptura that you disagree with?

What greater authority is there than God’s word (which is revealed in Scripture, though not exhaustively)?
And where kindly show us where God teaches His Word is binded strictly to written words?
 
CopticChristian;9191759:
Coptic,

The KJV did not use the Septuagint as its main source for OT translation . It used the Hebrew Masoretic text. The King James translated from the Greek Textus Receptus in the N.T.

" Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]

The New Testament was compiled by 400 A.D.
a. by 170 A.D. – 20 N.T. books had been accepted by the early Christians.

b. by 400 A.D. – all 27 books of the N.T. had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

c. the original manuscripts were lost but the Received Text that was produced during this time was considered a faithful reproduction of the original autographs.
d. 452-1453 A.D. – The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time

Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders say that they gave the world the Bible. Well, either one or both of them are in error. It is much more likely that the common acceptance and use by the individual Christian communities determined which books were inspired and worthy of study. There was no NT collection of 27 books until the Council of Hippo in 393 and later ratified by the Council of Carthage in AD 397. At that time the church leaders gave official authority to the 27 books that now make up the present day New Testament . These 27 books were determined, fixed and set not by law, but by usage over the previous 300 years or so. . If anyone is to take credit for the cannon of scripture it is the Lord God.
The idea that the common man needs a church official to interpret scripture for him, and that a Bible in the vernacular of the people is undesirable is just nonsense.

Speaking directly on the subject of the common people being able to understand scripture for themselves Jesus said" I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight". Matt 11:25-26

“Life is bigger than logic. When it comes to the philosophy of life scholarship and science are not the all which counts. It is as true today as in the days of Christ, that “the common people heard Him gladly”. If it be a question of physics, of chemistry, of mathematics, or of mechanics, there scientists can speak with authority. But when it is a question of revelation, or of morality, the common people are as competent judges as are the product of the school. And in great crisis, history has shown that they were safer.”
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p.4- by Benjamin G. Wilkinson

First of all, you are in error if you believe the Catholic Church does not believe God was involved in the NT canon process. It is not a question of WHO was involved,but it is a question HOW did God do it? Through the Holy Spirit guiding the bishops of the Catholic Church which includes the Orthodox as well.
 
**
Jesus and the Apostles using Sola Scriptura**
Many on this site have been loudly proclaiming that sola scriptura is nowhere taught in the Bible and that Jesus gave no sanction for it. This is untrue and shows either a failure to know the scriptures or a stubborn attempt to defend tradition that conflicts with scripture.

Jesus said plainly that “scripture cannot be broken”. (John 10:35, and He constantly used the phrases “It is written” or “ye do err in not knowing the scriptures”. In spite of all his miracles and who He said He was, the real proof of His true identity would be the fact that He fulfilled all that the scriptures said about the Messiah to come.

Noble Jews would search the scriptures to see if Jesus matched what the prophecies of old said about Him, and Jesus knew this to be proper for Isaiah, through inspiration, put the stamp of approval on sola scriptura by saying, “to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to these things, there is no light in them” (isa 8:20)

Throughout His ministry, Jesus was careful to remind the people that who He was and what he was doing was a fulfillment of the law and testimonies of the scriptures. He was using sola scriptura to prove he was the Messaih

John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come,** that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he].**

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst

Matt 26:56 But** all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. …**

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 19:36 **For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, **A bone of him shall not be broken. 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced

All the above scriptures, and more , show that any new doctrine must be built upon the inspired word of God and not contradict it. Jesus could be called the true Messiah not by just what He said or did, but because He fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him

Look at the interesting comments of Peter on this very subject.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter was saying we saw what Jesus did and even heard God call Him His son, yet we even have a better proof than that- the word of prophecy that spoke of Him and was fulfilled by Him.

Notice also that the Apostles used sola scriptura in revealing Jesus as the Messiah:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Acts18:28 For he (Apollos) mightily convinced the Jews, [and that]** publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. **

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day **according to the scriptures: **

In preaching Christ the Apostles had to show that Jesus fulfilled all that the scriptures prophesied of Him, for noble men and women would not just accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ without a plain “it is written” .
So, too, should today’s Christian be noble and not accept any doctrine or tradition without confirming it with a “thus saith the Lord”, i.e. Sola Scriptura.
 
**
Jesus and the Apostles using Sola Scriptura**
Many on this site have been loudly proclaiming that sola scriptura is nowhere taught in the Bible and that Jesus gave no sanction for it. This is untrue and shows either a failure to know the scriptures or a stubborn attempt to defend tradition that conflicts with scripture.

Jesus said plainly that “scripture cannot be broken”. (John 10:35, and He constantly used the phrases “It is written” or “ye do err in not knowing the scriptures”. In spite of all his miracles and who He said He was, the real proof of His true identity would be the fact that He fulfilled all that the scriptures said about the Messiah to come.

Noble Jews would search the scriptures to see if Jesus matched what the prophecies of old said about Him, and Jesus knew this to be proper for Isaiah, through inspiration, put the stamp of approval on sola scriptura by saying, “to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to these things, there is no light in them” (isa 8:20)

Throughout His ministry, Jesus was careful to remind the people that who He was and what he was doing was a fulfillment of the law and testimonies of the scriptures. He was using sola scriptura to prove he was the Messaih

John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come,** that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he].**

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst

Matt 26:56 But** all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. …**

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 19:36 **For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, **A bone of him shall not be broken. 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced

All the above scriptures, and more , show that any new doctrine must be built upon the inspired word of God and not contradict it. Jesus could be called the true Messiah not by just what He said or did, but because He fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him

Look at the interesting comments of Peter on this very subject.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter was saying we saw what Jesus did and even heard God call Him His son, yet we even have a better proof than that- the word of prophecy that spoke of Him and was fulfilled by Him.

Notice also that the Apostles used sola scriptura in revealing Jesus as the Messiah:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Acts18:28 For he (Apollos) mightily convinced the Jews, [and that]** publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. **

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day **according to the scriptures: **

In preaching Christ the Apostles had to show that Jesus fulfilled all that the scriptures prophesied of Him, for noble men and women would not just accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ without a plain “it is written” .
So, too, should today’s Christian be noble and not accept any doctrine or tradition without confirming it with a “thus saith the Lord”, i.e. Sola Scriptura.
Not one of those verses even vaguely suggest sola scriptura.
 
**
Jesus and the Apostles using Sola Scriptura**
Many on this site have been loudly proclaiming that sola scriptura is nowhere taught in the Bible and that Jesus gave no sanction for it. This is untrue and shows either a failure to know the scriptures or a stubborn attempt to defend tradition that conflicts with scripture.

Jesus said plainly that “scripture cannot be broken”. (John 10:35, and He constantly used the phrases “It is written” or “ye do err in not knowing the scriptures”. In spite of all his miracles and who He said He was, the real proof of His true identity would be the fact that He fulfilled all that the scriptures said about the Messiah to come.

Noble Jews would search the scriptures to see if Jesus matched what the prophecies of old said about Him, and Jesus knew this to be proper for Isaiah, through inspiration, put the stamp of approval on sola scriptura by saying, “to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to these things, there is no light in them” (isa 8:20)

Throughout His ministry, Jesus was careful to remind the people that who He was and what he was doing was a fulfillment of the law and testimonies of the scriptures. He was using sola scriptura to prove he was the Messaih

John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come,** that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he].**

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst

Matt 26:56 But** all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. …**

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 19:36 **For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, **A bone of him shall not be broken. 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced

All the above scriptures, and more , show that any new doctrine must be built upon the inspired word of God and not contradict it. Jesus could be called the true Messiah not by just what He said or did, but because He fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him

Look at the interesting comments of Peter on this very subject.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter was saying we saw what Jesus did and even heard God call Him His son, yet we even have a better proof than that- the word of prophecy that spoke of Him and was fulfilled by Him.

Notice also that the Apostles used sola scriptura in revealing Jesus as the Messiah:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Acts18:28 For he (Apollos) mightily convinced the Jews, [and that]** publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. **

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day **according to the scriptures: **

In preaching Christ the Apostles had to show that Jesus fulfilled all that the scriptures prophesied of Him, for noble men and women would not just accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ without a plain “it is written” .
So, too, should today’s Christian be noble and not accept any doctrine or tradition without confirming it with a “thus saith the Lord”, i.e. Sola Scriptura.
U-huh…one more time: Where does Jesus teach: THE BIBLE-ONLY?
 
After reading a little of that “site” it is clear that the author uses the cheep shot rhetoric. That author is hoping you are too ignorant to know better. 😊🤷
 
**
Jesus and the Apostles using Sola Scriptura**
Many on this site have been loudly proclaiming that sola scriptura is nowhere taught in the Bible and that Jesus gave no sanction for it. This is untrue and shows either a failure to know the scriptures or a stubborn attempt to defend tradition that conflicts with scripture.

Jesus said plainly that “scripture cannot be broken”. (John 10:35, and He constantly used the phrases “It is written” or “ye do err in not knowing the scriptures”. In spite of all his miracles and who He said He was, the real proof of His true identity would be the fact that He fulfilled all that the scriptures said about the Messiah to come.

Throughout His ministry, Jesus was careful to remind the people that who He was and what he was doing was a fulfillment of the law and testimonies of the scriptures. He was using sola scriptura to prove he was the Messaih

John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come,** that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he].**

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst

Matt 26:56 But** all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. …**

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 19:36 **For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, **A bone of him shall not be broken. 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced

All the above scriptures, and more , show that any new doctrine must be built upon the inspired word of God and not contradict it. Jesus could be called the true Messiah not by just what He said or did, but because He fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him

Look at the interesting comments of Peter on this very subject.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter was saying we saw what Jesus did and even heard God call Him His son, yet we even have a better proof than that- the word of prophecy that spoke of Him and was fulfilled by Him.

Notice also that the Apostles used sola scriptura in revealing Jesus as the Messiah:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Acts18:28 For he (Apollos) mightily convinced the Jews, [and that]** publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. **

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day **according to the scriptures: **

In preaching Christ the Apostles had to show that Jesus fulfilled all that the scriptures prophesied of Him, for noble men and women would not just accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ without a plain “it is written” .
So, too, should today’s Christian be noble and not accept any doctrine or tradition without confirming it with a “thus saith the Lord”, i.e. Sola Scriptura.
Phin,

You are a riot. So the reason that you propose for not accepting Sola Scriptura are:
  1. Failure to Know the Scriptures
  2. Stubborn attempt to defend Tradition that conflicts with Scripture
Other Possibilities
  1. Fail to understand the Scriptures that you know
30Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?”
  1. Failure to prove that Scripture is true as this post is concerning Sola Scriptura and ofthesons admits that you cannot prove the Scriptures to be true
  2. Proof that what you read is Scripture
  3. Ability to prove that using what you call Scripture is Scripture.
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Protestants removed the deuterocanonicals without authority
  1. I am blind and I cannot read. I am deaf and I cannot hear
I believe that you are too stubborn to admit that you cannot prove what you believe to be true.🙂
 
**

Jesus said plainly** that “scripture cannot be broken”. (John 10:35, and He constantly used the phrases “It is written” or “ye do err in not knowing the scriptures”. In spite of all his miracles and who He said He was, the real proof of His true identity would be the fact that He fulfilled all that the scriptures said about the Messiah to come.

So… Jesus passed on these truths via oral tradition?
In preaching Christ the Apostles had to show that Jesus fulfilled all that the scriptures prophesied of Him, for noble men and women would not just accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ without a plain “it is written” .
So, too, should today’s Christian be noble and not accept any doctrine or tradition without confirming it with a “thus saith the Lord”, i.e. Sola Scriptura.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phineas
**
Jesus said plainly that “scripture cannot be broken”. (John 10:35, and He constantly used the phrases “It is written” or “ye do err in not knowing the scriptures”. In spite of all his miracles and who He said He was, the real proof of His true identity would be the fact that He fulfilled all that the scriptures said about the Messiah to come. **
What on earth makes you believe Jesus is making reference to Sola Scriptura or defending it? No offense,but you are not a reliable source to explain scriptural verses.
 
What on earth makes you believe Jesus is making reference to Sola Scriptura or defending it? No offense,but you are not a reliable source to explain scriptural verses.
What on earth? That which exists between the ears.:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top