Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[justasking4]

Mea Culpa;4150568]
Quote:
Originally Posted by christmary4ever
The problem really with Sola Scriptura is each
pastor have a different scriptural interpretation. and
each claimed to be inspired. The pastor who can
muster the best argument wins the day.

This is the first i have ever seen such a claim? What pastor or pastors do you know that claim their interpretation is inspired? Would you happen to know the name of the church that says this?

Mea Culpa
The main problem with sola scriptura is that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who founded a Church for our salvation. Sola scriptura is a heretical, unscriptural rejection of that Church. The reading for the Mass today, Ezekiel 33:8, teaches us that if we don`t speak up against false teachings like sola scriptura, we will be held responsible for the souls of those who perish because of it.

Can you name 3 or 4 examples of Sola Scriptura that makes it hereitcal?

 

[Marian_Devotee]

To Meaculpa. Herein lies the seperation of Catholocism & Protetantism. The Paganism that is rampant in your church is heresy & blasphemy to us. That is why there was a Reformation. The un -scriptural teachings of your church, ie, lack of SS, is why the Reformation happened. We are at a standstill.

Larry M,
The Church is neither pagan nor heretical nor blasphemous. We have many people on this forum who are thoroughly versed in the Church’s teachings. Every Protestant accusation has been successfully defended, many times, by both Cradle Catholics and those who have converted from some Protestant variant to Catholicism. I deeply love my Faith and grow in it each day. We should not be at a “standstill”; if you have difficulty in understanding a specific teaching, please do a search on this forum. Or google “Scott Hahn”, “Jimmy Akin”, “Tim Staples”, or any number of former Protestants who became Catholics and are now Apologists. They can probably better educate you on what we believe. Please keep an open mind. Have a great day!

 

[larry_m]

To Marian Devotee. Thankyou so much for your thoughtful reply. Let it be understood that both Protestantism & Catholicism declare each to be heretical. I do not & will not attack my brothers & sisters personally for there belief, whether Protestant or Catholic, only the false teachings. As I have stated before my controversy is not with persons of faith, just the false teachings of church institutions. You & I did not come up with what we believe to be truth, therefore I respect you in your belief system & faith. We just disagree, is all, on certain issues. As a Protestant, I firmly believe the majority of the redeemed will be my brothers & sisters in the Catholic faith because of their love for our Savior. When I stated to Meaculpa there is no more room for discussion was because we have exhausted our replies on THIS subject only. There is always room for open discussion on other subjects of which I am more than happy to be a part of with my brothers & sisters in all communions. May the Eternal Spirit guide & direct you in our Savior. Your brother in Him.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Can you name 3 or 4 examples of Sola Scriptura that makes it hereitcal?

Here’s the definition of heresy from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xi, a. 1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics.

The second type of heresy is “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure” - isn’t that basically a definition of sola scriptura? Deny the authority of the Church, the infallibility of the Pope, deny Sacred Tradition - this is what sola scriptura is all about, denying important “points of Christ’s doctrine.”

The same article from The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to enumerate Luther’s heresies -

By 1521, that is within four years from his attack on abuse of indulgences, he had propagated a new doctrine; the Bible was the only source of faith; human nature was wholly corrupted by original sin, man was not free, God was responsible for all human actions good and bad; faith alone saved; the Christian priesthood was not confined to the hierarchy but included all the faithful. The masses of the people were not slow in drawing from these doctrines the practical conclusion that sin was sin no longer, was, in fact, equal to a good work.

Sola scriptura is unscriptural - it is not taught anywhere in scripture. It is basically a denial of the Church established by Jesus himself, a denial that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, a denial of Apostolic Succession.

It is the definition of heresy - picking out one aspect of the deposit of faith and denying everything else. Again, The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.”

 

[justasking4]

Mea Culpa;4152228]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Can you name 3 or 4 examples of Sola Scriptura that makes it hereitcal?

Mea Culpa
Here’s the definition of heresy from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xi, a. 1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics.
The second type of heresy is “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure” - isn’t that basically a definition of sola scriptura?

No. Is it not true that all that Christ taught can only be found in the Scriptures?

Deny the authority of the Church, the infallibility of the Pope, deny Sacred Tradition - this is what sola scriptura is all about, denying important “points of Christ’s doctrine.”

Sola Scripture would not deny the authority of the church so long as its in harmony with the Scriptures. Papal infallibilty is not mentioned of taught in the Scriptures. If i’m not mistaken did it not take centuries for this to develope where the pope was said to be infallible?

The same article from The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to enumerate Luther’s heresies -

By 1521, that is within four years from his attack on abuse of indulgences, he had propagated a new doctrine; the Bible was the only source of faith;

Do not the Scriptures tell us what the faith is and in Whom we are to have faith in?

human nature was wholly corrupted by original sin,

True. Romans 5:12

man was not free,

True. All men are enslaved to sin. Only those who have trusted in Christ are free from its power.

God was responsible for all human actions good and bad;

I would have to see the context for this. No doubt men are responsible for the evil they do.

faith alone saved;

True. Epheisans 2:8-9

the Christian priesthood was not confined to the hierarchy but included all the faithful.

True. I Peter 2:9

The masses of the people were not slow in drawing from these doctrines the practical conclusion that sin was sin no longer, was, in fact, equal to a good work.

Not sure what this means. Can you clarify?

Sola scriptura is unscriptural - it is not taught anywhere in scripture.

I would to see what you mean by Sola Scriptura to answer this.

It is basically a denial of the Church established by Jesus himself, a denial that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, a denial of Apostolic Succession.

See my previous response. If you look at the John 16:12-13 in regards to Jesus promise to guide you will find that the promise was made to His diciples i.e. apostles and not to the entire church. It was from these teachings i.e. the NT that the leaders-teachers of the church were to teach from and no further.

It is the definition of heresy - picking out one aspect of the deposit of faith and denying everything else. Again, The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.”

Not even a catholic can accept or believe all that it teaches since there are contradictions if you do.

 

[des_scahill]

The Bereans were left alone by St. Paul because
they do not contradict his teachings and Paul does not contradict what scriptures teaches.

Hmmm, there’s a few things I’d like to cover here. Firstly, the point I’m making about the Bereans is not that they agreed with Paul.

Its the fact that they went home, read their sacred texts for themselves, and then decided that what Paul was telling them was the truth. Paul doesn’t commend them just for agreeing with him - some of the Thessalonicans agreed with him too.

Acts 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

There are indeed false teachers and that’s the very reason God established an infallible church to interpret and teach the scipture so the faithful can have an assurance on what the Holy Spirit wants to communicate to them.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting an ‘assurance’ on what the Holy Spirit is saying - either to the church collectively - or to yourself on matters that involve your personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

But I’d take issue with the implied limitation you’ve placed on God. (that an “infallible” church is the only way God gives that assurance to the faithful christian).

So what are the sources of our assurance?

The 'Catholic" answer is (generally speaking) to define everything precisely and say "Our view on this is the only is the only acceptable view. Disagree with us and you are probably not even a christian at all, or at best, maybe you are some type of sub-christian who doesn’t know as much about God as we do.

To today’s sincere Protestant, thats going a little too far. Its akin to me - as a Baptist -saying “Look at that lot over there, they don’t even practice full immersion baptism. They are definitely not christian” No doubt I could probably find some extremist Baptist somewhere in the world who would say that, but so far I haven’t met one. We allow more ‘wiggle’ room on things that don’t impinge directly on the attributes of Jesus Christ and His grace.towards the lost.

My question is in a Baptist church who ultimately
decides who’s teachings or interpretation is to
be accepted? And if their church can not guarantee that their interpretation is infallible, how can it be binding to each and every member of their church?

OK - thats a fair question. But what is it that NEEDS to be decided with complete finality? Certainly there are some things that MUST be ‘decided’ upon with finality -such as say the Virgin Birth or the physical resurrection of Christ. If you don’t believe the entirety of the Nicene Creed you simply cannot be an authentic orthodox ‘christian’ no matter what you call yourself.

But how much further than that should you go? Is the Baptist pastor who was recently killed in India by an extremist Hindu group a non-christian in your view because he didn’t use unleavened bread for communion? Should I in my turn declare the Catholic nuns, who were also killed in the same area, non-christian because they use rosary beads?

 

[energy2007]

We know it ended because the apostles all died out. Secondly, there is no such thing as an oral tradition that can be proven unless you accept the written Scriptures.

It was when it was first spoken.

you got it backwards, The only way you can accept scriptures
to be inspired is through oral tradition. None of the books claim
to be inspired. You have to trust the catholic church who through
the Holy Spirit infallibly declared the canon of the N.T. and the old
Testament in 393 (hippo,N.africa) and Carthage 397 , Florence 1442. Even Luther gave the church credit for this. Protestant
apologist who disagree with us on almost everything, concede this point. I did not post this to show off. Catholics/Protestants
are sinners in need of Gods’s mercy. we are not pleasing God
being mean to each other.

They certainly used the OT to support their conclusions. See verses 15-21.

 

[energy2007]

Hmmm, there’s a few things I’d like to cover here. Firstly, the point I’m making about the Bereans is not that they agreed with Paul.

Its the fact that they went home, read their sacred texts for themselves, and then decided that what Paul was telling them was the truth. Paul doesn’t commend them just for agreeing with him - some of the Thessalonicans agreed with him too.

Acts 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting an ‘assurance’ on what the Holy Spirit is saying - either to the church collectively - or to yourself on matters that involve your personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

But I’d take issue with the implied limitation you’ve placed on God. (that an “infallible” church is the only way God gives that assurance to the faithful christian).

So what are the sources of our assurance?

The 'Catholic" answer is (generally speaking) to define everything precisely and say "Our view on this is the only is the only acceptable view. Disagree with us and you are probably not even a christian at all, or at best, maybe you are some type of sub-christian who doesn’t know as much about God as we do.

To today’s sincere Protestant, thats going a little too far. Its akin to me - as a Baptist -saying “Look at that lot over there, they don’t even practice full immersion baptism. They are definitely not christian” No doubt I could probably find some extremist Baptist somewhere in the world who would say that, but so far I haven’t met one. We allow more ‘wiggle’ room on things that don’t impinge directly on the attributes of Jesus Christ and His grace.towards the lost.

OK - thats a fair question. But what is it that NEEDS to be decided with complete finality? Certainly there are some things that MUST be ‘decided’ upon with finality -such as say the Virgin Birth or the physical resurrection of Christ. If you don’t believe the entirety of the Nicene Creed you simply cannot be an authentic orthodox ‘christian’ no matter what you call yourself.

But how much further than that should you go? Is the Baptist pastor who was recently killed in India by an extremist Hindu group a non-christian in your view because he didn’t use unleavened bread for communion? Should I in my turn declare the Catholic nuns, who were also killed in the same area, non-christian because they use rosary beads?

Let me address your last point. We catholics and any other
christians does not take delight on the death of anyone who
gave up their own personal comfort to preach the gospel knowing
their lives can be taken away. You just have to read history and see how the catholics were persecuted,slandered and discriminated upon through the ages. Of course there are good
and bad catholics and protestants. The catholic church declares that all other christian group are christians as long as their baptism rite is valid.What i do not understand is some parents would not even allow their Baptist children to play with catholic kids…
how the catholic faith

 

[PerryJ]

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura that demands within the defintion itself what books should be in the Scriptures? What church or denomination states this kind of thing?

I am not sure what this question is for?

The concept is Sola Scriptura is based upon the thought that one’s foundation is the Bible. As such one has to have a defind Bible to be able to have Sola Scriptura. It is irrelevant wether you believe in Bible Only Sola Scriputra or the new improved Sola Scriputura. One has to have a defined Bible. The Bible never defines itself; therefore, one does not have a usable canon. This is shown by Bible using different books and Bible having different verses in them. Sola Scriptura has no way to define what one should be reading as the correct version of the Bible.

 

[PerryJ]

Well, not really. In the Baptist church, and many other protestant churches, the church members go home and check up on what he said if it sounds ‘dodgy’. and can raise issues with both him and the board of elders. if needed. We are (hopefully) generous hearted enough to make “allowances” from time to time. - a pastor is a shepherd first, with the many responsibilities and difficulties that entails, and he’s also ‘human’.

There’s also the aspect too of ‘wheat’ and ‘tares’. The pastor isn’t exempt from that, and neither is the Catholic Church.

Catholics don’t seem to have any practical belief in the personally indwelling Holy Spirit in each believer being capable of giving them a personal ‘nudge’ if what is being preached is bad theology. If it was good enough for the Bereans to check up on things for themselves, and get commended for it by Paul, then I don’t think its too much of a stretch to see a general principle there.

Its also just plain commonsense. There are so many warnings about the dangers of ‘falling away’ and ‘false teachers’ in the New Testament that you would perhaps be a little foolish to ignore them.

.

That statement about Baptist sound plausible; however, that is not always the case. First the Pastor often knows more than the congregation and can sway many into error. Second Baptist Pastor are dismissed for many reasons; including, not following the beliefs of the elders even if the elders are in error. Just because a group of elders believe something doesn’t make it true. If the elders do not like the message of the pastor they can and will vote the Pastor out. Your statement is dependant upon Man being perfect. They aren’t and your process makes many errors. Christianity is not a democracy. There is one truth. Before you refute this statement I was a Protestant and understand how it works. If the Pastor states something not liked by the congregation they can be voted out. Wether the Pastor was stating the truth or not. As a former Protestant you and I both know that this happens often.

The statement against Catholic’s not having a indwelling shows that you do not understand the basics of Catholicism. We physically and spiritually take Christ into us every time we take the Eucharist. Our faith is based upon the Eucharist and Christ indwelling in us. Your statement couldn’t be farther from the truth.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4154292]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura that demands within the defintion itself what books should be in the Scriptures? What church or denomination states this kind of thing?

PerryJ
I am not sure what this question is for?

Many people think that for Sola Scriptura to be true certain conditions must be met or its not true. Such is the case above.

The concept is Sola Scriptura is based upon the thought that one’s foundation is the Bible. As such one has to have a defind Bible to be able to have Sola Scriptura. It is irrelevant wether you believe in Bible Only Sola Scriputra or the new improved Sola Scriputura. One has to have a defined Bible. The Bible never defines itself; therefore, one does not have a usable canon. This is shown by Bible using different books and Bible having different verses in them. Sola Scriptura has no way to define what one should be reading as the correct version of the Bible.

Part of the claim of Sola Scriptura is that it claims that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant. How we know which books are is a separate issue. If the Scriptures are truly inspired-inerrant then it follows from that they would carry the most authority. There is no other inspired-inerrant authority on the earth. No even the church can truly claim this and support it with facts.

 

[PerryJ]

Many people think that for Sola Scriptura to be true certain conditions must be met or its not true. Such is the case above.

Part of the claim of Sola Scriptura is that it claims that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant. How we know which books are is a separate issue. If the Scriptures are truly inspired-inerrant then it follows from that they would carry the most authority. There is no other inspired-inerrant authority on the earth. No even the church can truly claim this and support it with facts.

Exactly my point is that Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible is inspired-ierrant; however, you don’t know which books are inspired-inerrant. To take it to the extreme you could read Dr. Suess and believe it was inspired-inerrant. You have no way of knowing which books are inspired and which are not. There were over 50 gospels created. Which do you choose from? A case can be made against some of these; however, many can not be easily refuted. If one follows Sola Scriptura one does not know even what to read.

Catholics do know because the Church came before the Bible and definded the Bible as inspired. You have no such claim as a Church and Sola Scriptura doesn’t help you define it.

Sola Scriptura can not be found in the Bible, in fact, it states the reverse. It also does not help you define what books you should read. You have to make up a list of books to read.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4154564]Exactly my point is that Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible is inspired-ierrant; however, you don’t know which books are inspired-inerrant.

Of i course i know which books are inspired and why.

To take it to the extreme you could read Dr. Suess and believe it was inspired-inerrant.

Not so. For one this book would not pass the test of being written by an apostle or one assoicated with one.

You have no way of knowing which books are inspired and which are not.

Not so. I know some of the tests for what qualifies as Scripture.

There were over 50 gospels created. Which do you choose from?

Those that were either written by an apostle or closely associated with one. 46 of these so called gospels fail this test.

A case can be made against some of these; however, many can not be easily refuted. If one follows Sola Scriptura one does not know even what to read.

Again this is not the case at all. Sola Scriptura does not really deal with this issue directly.

Catholics do know because the Church came before the Bible and definded the Bible as inspired. You have no such claim as a Church and Sola Scriptura doesn’t help you define it.

What do you do with the OT canon that predates the church? The OT was already recognized as being Scripture before the church came into existence.

Sola Scriptura can not be found in the Bible, in fact, it states the reverse. It also does not help you define what books you should read. You have to make up a list of books to read.

This is where your defintion of Sola Scriptura would be helpful. How are you defining it?

 

[PerryJ]

Of i course i know which books are inspired and why.

Not so. For one this book would not pass the test of being written by an apostle or one assoicated with one.

Not so. I know some of the tests for what qualifies as Scripture.

Those that were either written by an apostle or closely associated with one. 46 of these so called gospels fail this test.

Again this is not the case at all. Sola Scriptura does not really deal with this issue directly.

What do you do with the OT canon that predates the church? The OT was already recognized as being Scripture before the church came into existence.

This is where your defintion of Sola Scriptura would be helpful. How are you defining it?

I will use any defintion you want and will be able to disprove it. It is not Bibilical. Post any definition you want.

No offence; but, your faith does not know. What about the 22 epistles. How many other books were refuted? Did your faith even look at them?

Your statement that the canon of the old testament was prior to the establishment of the Church is wrong. The Jewish people had different set of books during Christ’s time. The Pharisees and the Saduccess used different sets of books. This is easily verified on the web. The first attempt to define scripture by the Jewish people was after the second Jewish revolt at Jebnah. First this council had limited authority. Second it was after they refuted and condenmed Christ; therefore, they lost all authority. Third they refuted all of the NT books. so you can use this authority if you exclude all of the New Testament.

Does your faith use the DCs? If not you are not using them you have excluded books from the Bible. Historically this has been proven time and again. Protestant’s excluded the DC based upon Jerome and Luther use of Jerome’s text which has been historically proven false. This can be verified by secular sources. If your faith knew how to define the word of God your faith would not be excluding books that have been proven to be excluded by false man made assumptions. This is proved by the dead sea scrolls.

They would also not exclude books that were referenced over 100 times by Christ the apostles, again the DCs.

Below is just one examples of the DCs being proven that they should be included in the Bible.

The Qumran finding include fragments from the larger version of Daniel in a non-Greek (i.e., Hebrew & Aramaic language), which even pre-date the second cent. version by the Hebrew, Theodotian. Consequently, extant historical evidence shows that there were indeed different versions of the Book of Daniel.

Which one did the Church of Christ use? According to Origen, “every Church of Christ” during his day used the LARGER version of the Book of Daniel. Every one of them. In fact, if you look at all the Christian manuscripts of Sacred Scripture in other that fragmentary size, they TOO include the larger version of Daniel.

Which book do the Protestant use? The smaller version becuase they follow the guidance of man even when proved wrong.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4154708]I will use any defintion you want and will be able to disprove it. It is not Bibilical. Post any definition you want.

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

No offence; but, your faith does not know. What about the 22 epistles. How many other books were refuted? Did your faith even look at them?

There were a number but they never qualified as Scripture. We know that just by looking at the 27 books that make up the canon of the NT.

Your statement that the canon of the old testament was prior to the establishment of the Church is wrong. The Jewish people had different set of books during Christ’s time. The Pharisees and the Saduccess used different sets of books. This is easily verified on the web.

Do you think Jesus took the OT Scriptures as inspired-inerrant Scripture?

The first attempt to define scripture by the Jewish people was after the second Jewish revolt at Jebnah. First this council had limited authority.

Do you have the dates for these?

Second it was after they refuted and condenmed Christ; therefore, they lost all authority.

Third they refuted all of the NT books. so you can use this authority if you exclude all of the New Testament.

i’m not referring to the NT but the OT.

Does your faith use the DCs? If not you are not using them you have excluded books from the Bible. Historically this has been proven time and again. Protestant’s excluded the DC based upon Jerome and Luther use of Jerome’s text which has been historically proven false. This can be verified by secular sources. If your faith knew how to define the word of God your faith would not be excluding books that have been proven to be excluded by false man made assumptions. This is proved by the dead sea scrolls.

The DC"s were not elvated to full canocical status until the council of Trent in the 1600’s. They were disputed in the church for centuries and for good reason.

They would also not exclude books that were referenced over 100 times by Christ the apostles, again the DCs.

What explicit statement from them do you have that Jesus used from them?

Below is just one examples of the DCs being proven that they should be included in the Bible.

The Qumran finding include fragments from the larger version of Daniel in a non-Greek (i.e., Hebrew & Aramaic language), which even pre-date the second cent. version by the Hebrew, Theodotian. Consequently, extant historical evidence shows that there were indeed different versions of the Book of Daniel.

Which one did the Church of Christ use? According to Origen, “every Church of Christ” during his day used the LARGER version of the Book of Daniel. Every one of them. In fact, if you look at all the Christian manuscripts of Sacred Scripture in other that fragmentary size, they TOO include the larger version of Daniel.

Which book do the Protestant use? The smaller version becuase they follow the guidance of man even when proved wrong.

This really is a separate issue for Sola Scriptura.

 

[PerryJ]

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

There were a number but they never qualified as Scripture. We know that just by looking at the 27 books that make up the canon of the NT.

Do you think Jesus took the OT Scriptures as inspired-inerrant Scripture?

Do you have the dates for these?

i’m not referring to the NT but the OT.

The DC"s were not elvated to full canocical status until the council of Trent in the 1600’s. They were disputed in the church for centuries and for good reason.

What explicit statement from them do you have that Jesus used from them?

This really is a separate issue for Sola Scriptura.

The definition doesn’t matter because unless you know which book are to be read Sola Scriputra is proven false.

Your faith did not look at the 27 books of the NT. If they did what test did they use. For example the books from Peter were not written by Peter. They were not even written by the same person. They believe that Peter told someone to write them. How do you know they are inerrant? Many of the books that you state were refuted were not refuted for many years. A different set of NT books existed at different sites. Some of these books were authenticated; yet, not held as inspired. This did not happen automatically as your post suggest. The early Chrisitan’s didn’t just sit down one day and say all of these are clearly inspired and these are not. It was not obvious.

The old testament is the inspired-inerrant word of God and you do not have all of it.

The dates for the council of Jebnah was 90 AD. This is after the Jewish people refuted Christ and lost authority. Even as the Bible shows the Saducees and Pharisees did not use the same Bible. Do you refute the Bible and truly believe you have a defined canon of the OT?

Here is a short list of several cross references: Mathew 6:14-15 and Sirach 7:14, Mathew 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16, Luke 6:31 and Tobit 4:15, Luke 14:13 and Tobit 4:7, John 10:22 - 1 MacCabees 4:59, Romans 9:20-22 and Wisdom 12:12, 15:7, 12:20, Romans 11:34 - Wisdom 9:13, 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Sirach 35:9, Hebrew 1:3 and Wisdom 7;26, Hewbrew 11:35 and 2 MacCabees 7:7. All of these cross references existed in early Protestant Bibles. Since then Protestant Bibles excluded the DCs because they knew that the use of these books proved their man made theology in error. Calvin specifically states that if the DC are included their doctrines fall apart. Luther used Jerome’s list of text because he was losing a debate and his Protestant Reformation would have fallen apart. You can read about the debate at Leipiz on the web and verify my statement.

The foundation of Sola Scriputa is that one must have a defined canon of the Bible to interpret. If your canon is false, and it is, you will come to the wrong conclusions.

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4154927]The definition doesn’t matter because unless you know which book are to be read Sola Scriputra is proven false.

The fact is i know which books are inspired-inerrant and which are not. Take the NT. We both agree that there are 27 books. Correct?
Are these books are considered inspired-inerrant by you?

Your faith did not look at the 27 books of the NT. If they did what test did they use.

The church of the 4th century got it right on this. No debate here.

For example the books from Peter were not written by Peter. They were not even written by the same person. They believe that Peter told someone to write them. How do you know they are inerrant?

I could read up and find why this may be so. In this case we cannot be absolutely certain one way or the other.

Many of the books that you state were refuted were not refuted for many years. A different set of NT books existed at different sites. Some of these books were authenticated; yet, not held as inspired. This did not happen automatically as your post suggest. The early Chrisitan’s didn’t just sit down one day and say all of these are clearly inspired and these are not. It was not obvious.

Some were obvious others not.

The old testament is the inspired-inerrant word of God and you do not have all of it.

We do agree on the 39 books though.

The dates for the council of Jebnah was 90 AD. This is after the Jewish people refuted Christ and lost authority. Even as the Bible shows the Saducees and Pharisees did not use the same Bible.

Do you refute the Bible and truly believe you have a defined canon of the OT?

I do have a defined canon of 66 books that are inspired-inerrant.

Here is a short list of several cross references: Mathew 6:14-15 and Sirach 7:14, Mathew 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16, Luke 6:31 and Tobit 4:15, Luke 14:13 and Tobit 4:7, John 10:22 - 1 MacCabees 4:59, Romans 9:20-22 and Wisdom 12:12, 15:7, 12:20, Romans 11:34 - Wisdom 9:13, 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Sirach 35:9, Hebrew 1:3 and Wisdom 7;26, Hewbrew 11:35 and 2 MacCabees 7:7. All of these cross references existed in early Protestant Bibles. Since then Protestant Bibles excluded the DCs because they knew that the use of these books proved their man made theology in error. Calvin specifically states that if the DC are included their doctrines fall apart. Luther used Jerome’s list of text because he was losing a debate and his Protestant Reformation would have fallen apart. You can read about the debate at Leipiz on the web and verify my statement

.
I have read of supposed allusions to the DC"s but never a direct quote from them.

The foundation of Sola Scriputa is that one must have a defined canon of the Bible to interpret. If your canon is false, and it is, you will come to the wrong conclusions.

I do have a defined canon of 66 books that the Catholic church agrees with. Correct?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

Yes, didn’t Jesus say to the apostles: Go forth, and write a book, and then worship it!

No, he founded a church.

Matthew 16:18-19:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In case we missed it the first time, he says it again. Matthew 18:17-18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 28:19-20
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

I can’t find the part about Jesus commanding that the Bible will be the sole rule of faith and morals. I do find a lot of things about His Church, His apostles, baptizing in His name, making disciples of all nations, sending the Holy Spirit to lead his apostles (and their successors) into all truth - but nothing about the Bible being the sole rule of faith and morals.

Can you help me out by pointing out the passages where Jesus (or anybody else) teaches sola scriptura in the Bible?

Thanks.

 

[PerryJ]

The fact is i know which books are inspired-inerrant and which are not. Take the NT. We both agree that there are 27 books. Correct?
Are these books are considered inspired-inerrant by you?

The church of the 4th century got it right on this. No debate here.

I could read up and find why this may be so. In this case we cannot be absolutely certain one way or the other.

Some were obvious others not.

We do agree on the 39 books though.

I do have a defined canon of 66 books that are inspired-inerrant.
.
I have read of supposed allusions to the DC"s but never a direct quote from them.

I do have a defined canon of 66 books that the Catholic church agrees with. Correct?

You only agree to 27 books because the Catholic faith defined them. Sola Scriptura nowhere states which books belong. The Church that was defined prior to the Bible did this. I believe in an earlier post you stated the Bible existed prior to the Church it did not.

Do you believe you can make apple pie without apples? One needs all of the (name removed by moderator)sired word of God to understand his message.
Calvin and Luther both have stated that the Protestant theology falls apart if one includes the DCs. It is proven the DCs were left out in error. It is historically proven that the DCs should be included and the two major reformation theologians stated that your faith falls apart if the DCs are included.

Allusions? Over 100 allusions that the Protestant faith attested to for over a century. Did they suddenly change? This is the Protestant faith supporting false doctrines by changing history. Go back and look at your early Bibles. All of these so called allusions are listed by your foundng fathers.

If you go with this the theory that they need to be referred to then you have to throw out Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum Esther, The Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes as none of these receive even one single New Testament citation.

You do have 66 books that the Church agrees with; however, the conclusion one gets from Sola Scriptura is wrong in many areas. Partly because you have the wrong canon.

Sola Scriptura is a way for man to force his theology on God.

 

[PerryJ]

Can you help me out by pointing out the passages where Jesus (or anybody else) teaches sola scriptura in the Bible?

To add to Mea’s thought and the point I have been making is with Sola Scriptura one can not even define what passages to look at. With Sola Scriputura one does not even have a Bible because nowhere did Christ or anyone else state in the Bible what belongs in the Bible. Protestants are only guessing what belongs in the Bible.