so you believe in sola scriptura???It is interesting you say all man, of course that’s another thread.
Yes Christ does, Scriptures even say God’s Word will not return void, but curiously not one word about one man being infallible or in control of Christ Church.
Wow… What an inspiring story…
Incidently, my friends 85 year old Protestant dad
went through the RCIA with me and joined the church as well. Just goes to show you----
IT’S NEVER TOO LATE as long as you have breath.
your salvation could veyr well be in jeopardy…
you surely use that tactic a lot … of going into definitions that are aleady understood… . Have you run out of things to say?
To some extent. The term “inerrant” was applied by the Church.
I proposed that ALL the definitions of SS were inclusive, since none of them are found in Scripture, it is irrelevant which one we use.
Catholics do not believe every spiritual truth comes only from the Bible or that all one needs for salvation is found in the Bible… although most of us do see that if a person would just read the Bible… he may have a good chance of getting to Heaven if he were to obey what is written therein… Only problem is, i know very few Protestants who read the Bible thoroughly (and i know that even when they do read it, they don’t understand certain parts because some of those passages… No, ALL of them… sound a little too Catholic…so they skip over them). Anyway…
What??
I don’t ever recall the original poster defining Sola Scriptura. I need to know exactly how the term is being used before an adequate response can be made. I personally don’t think they want to be held accountable for such a think. Its easier to mock a straw man than deal with the real thing.
What is your definition of SS?
How do you define it?
i would not use such a defintion.
Great, where is this doctrine in Holy Scripture? (Hint: it’s not in there.)
Why must this be in Scripture to be true?
It doesn’t - but if you’re saying sola scriptura is the sole rule of faith, shouldn’t the bedrock principle upon which all your other heresies and fallacies are built be in scripture (by the logic of sola scriptura?)
No. Not in the way you are trying to frame it.
Major problem here. Jesus never promised the church would be protected from teaching error. Paul in Acts 20:29-30 warned that false teachers would come into the church and will draw disciples away. 2 Peter 2:1 also warns that false teachers will come in and decieve. In Revelation 2:20 the church at Thyatira embraced false teachings. If Jesus had promised such a thing these warnings and examples would be absurd.
Is your other infallible rule of faith also inspired and without error?
Not with the defintion i’m using. It does say though that in terms of authority the Scriptures alone are the highest authority. Not the pope or the church. If these 2 agencies teach anything contrary to the Scriptures then they are not to be believed.
Actually what you are prompting is false.
After reading way too many of his posts, here is how I understand justasking4’s version of sola scriptura:
Hello Guanaphore. Bless you for your patience and trying to understand where Claudius is coming from. If we could get more interaction going between people such as you promote, we ALL might learn something.You are misinformed, ja4. this is NOT why they are called Deuterocanonical. It means “second canon”. It is a collection of Sacred Writings that is distinct from the other collections.
News flash, ja4. The Apostles and Prophets are also “but men”. It is not their humanity that made what they wrote inspired/inerrant, but the Spirit of God. It is that same Spirit that Jesus sent to “guide into all Truth”.
Because the Scriptures must be interpreted in the light of what those who wrote them believed. When this does not happen, all kinds of misinterpretations occur. For example, Jesus is not God, and the HS is not a person, and that the Scriptures are the ultimate rule of faith.
The reason they are accepted is because Jesus and the Apostles used them. There are many people, some of them officials, that do not follow the example of Christ.
No, it is the Apostolic Teaching.
Yes, but He was using the Septuagint. This is why He told those that rejected part of it “you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God”. Many of the Jews of HIs day did not recognize which books were inspired.
Possibly. The Church surely is, since it is also “God Breathed”.
Try to avoid derailing another thread, ja4.
The fact that you can see there is more to the Apostolic faith than what you see in scripture should be enough to prove that Scripture was never meant to be complete. It seems to you that the faith of the Apostles is not the same as the Catholic faith for a variety of reasons. Sola Scriptura is the main cause of this misperception. Since you believe that all they taught is found in the NT, you are missing a lot of it. Furthermore, your posts make it clear that you do not understand what the Apostles, and therefore, what the Church teaches.
Because “derivation” happens in the mind of ignorant, fallible people. Even the most sincere person is limited by their own education and experience.
Hello historyb. I have a question that I am asking in curiosity, not malice. I haven’t done so myself, but am curious if folks believing in Sola Scriptura and perhaps belong to a specific denomination have compared their interpretations of Scripture with any other Protestant denomination whose members believe only in Sola Scriptura? Are there any differences in interpretations? A giant task ,but one I think I would tackle as much as I could IF I believed in Sola Scriptura.
i concur. i have learned alot, More than i care to know…Hello Guanaphore. Bless you for your patience and trying to understand where Claudius is coming from. If we could get more interaction going between people such as you promote, we ALL might learn something.