Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Mea_Culpa]

Oh give me a break .Luther Did not want to start any church to continue sinning .Where do you get this stuff ? You have a great deal to learn about the reformation period.

Most heretics, Luther included, were probably sincere in their heretical beliefs.

The Bible is the “rule of faith” for sola scripturists. It contains everything necessary for salvation.

Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible.

Therefore, sola scriptura is not necessary for salvation - it is a false doctrine even if looked at from a “sola scriptura” perspective.

This is now post #693 of this thread, and no sola scripturist has been able to show were sola scriptura is plainly taught in the Bible.

I’d like to know how they reconcile that fact for themselves? Sola scriptura, the doctrine that scripture alone (look up sola) is the rule of faith and morals, is not taught anywhere in scripture. In fact, just the opposite is taught. Jesus founded a church and gave it authority to bind and loose - he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Sounds like Jesus wasn’t teaching sola scriptura. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, and to bring to remembrance all that he had said, whether it was later written down or not.

The Catholic Church affirms that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant - but it is not the end-all and be-all of our faith. That is not what Jesus taught or left us as a legacy. He left us the Catholic Church, with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to lead the faithful to eternal life and usher in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sola scriptura is a doctrine that denies what Jesus taught and what Jesus left us. It denies the Church that Jesus founded and of which he said “the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” It denies that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth - Jesus said he would do it, so the sola scripturists must think Jesus is a liar. The deny Apostolic Succession. They deny most of the glorious sacraments, instituted by Jesus as ways to bring us closer to Him.

Like all heresies, it focuses on one aspect of the deposit of faith and rejects others that it finds do not conform to their own man-made doctrine.

Sola scripturists need to wake up and accept the fullness of the Faith. The Father is waiting for them with open arms, like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son. They just need to stop denying what Jesus gave us, abandon their heretical man-made doctrine, and come home to the Catholic Church.

 

[justasking4]

Most heretics, Luther included, were probably sincere in their heretical beliefs.

The Bible is the “rule of faith” for sola scripturists. It contains everything necessary for salvation.

Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible.

Therefore, sola scriptura is not necessary for salvation - it is a false doctrine even if looked at from a “sola scriptura” perspective.

This is now post #693 of this thread, and no sola scripturist has been able to show were sola scriptura is plainly taught in the Bible.

I’d like to know how they reconcile that fact for themselves? Sola scriptura, the doctrine that scripture alone (look up sola) is the rule of faith and morals, is not taught anywhere in scripture. In fact, just the opposite is taught. Jesus founded a church and gave it authority to bind and loose - he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Sounds like Jesus wasn’t teaching sola scriptura. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, and to bring to remembrance all that he had said, whether it was later written down or not.

The Catholic Church affirms that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant - but it is not the end-all and be-all of our faith. That is not what Jesus taught or left us as a legacy. He left us the Catholic Church, with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to lead the faithful to eternal life and usher in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sola scriptura is a doctrine that denies what Jesus taught and what Jesus left us. It denies the Church that Jesus founded and of which he said “the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” It denies that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth - Jesus said he would do it, so the sola scripturists must think Jesus is a liar. The deny Apostolic Succession. They deny most of the glorious sacraments, instituted by Jesus as ways to bring us closer to Him.

Like all heresies, it focuses on one aspect of the deposit of faith and rejects others that it finds do not conform to their own man-made doctrine.

Sola scripturists need to wake up and accept the fullness of the Faith. The Father is waiting for them with open arms, like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son. They just need to stop denying what Jesus gave us, abandon their heretical man-made doctrine, and come home to the Catholic Church.

What is this “fullness of the faith” that you speak of? Does it mean a person must believe in the Marian dogmas, purgatory and a celibate leadership?

 

[distracted]

Oh give me a break .Luther Did not want to start any church to continue sinning .Where do you get this stuff ? You have a great deal to learn about the reformation period.

if you want to believe that, that’s your choice…

i get my information from reliable sources… Books, etc., not the internet…

& i think you & justingasking are justcontinuingThis Discussion knowing full well you don’t have any argument…

i guess some people just like to argue…

been there…

but not too much there anymore…

 

[distracted]

Oh give me a break .Luther Did not want to start any church to continue sinning .Where do you get this stuff ? You have a great deal to learn about the reformation period.

thought it was a rhetorical question but in case not:

The Facts About Luther by Monsignor O’Hare (Catholic priest/historian)

 

[distracted]

Oh give me a break .Luther Did not want to start any church to continue sinning .Where do you get this stuff ? You have a great deal to learn about the reformation period.

actually i have to admit i don’t KNOW absolutely that that was M. Luther’s agenda… I should have said it DEFINITELY SEEMED LIKE it… from what i have read…

And one thing that i do not correct…

is the idea that he felt he could not overcome his sins… his own words do him in… And the author of The Facts About Luther mostly uses Luther’s own words…

the book also cites Protestants who disagree w/ Luther… It is a good book… charitable toward Protestants who… because they were raised as they w ere, don’t know any better when it comes to their erroneous beliefs about the Catholic Church…

 

[Mea_Culpa]

What is this “fullness of the faith” that you speak of? Does it mean a person must believe in the Marian dogmas, purgatory and a celibate leadership?

Ah yes, let’s change the subject with more irrelevant questions.

Please show where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible.

 

[elts1956]

sola sciptura has been explained here ad nauseum…

As I understand it and have read on either this non Catholic thread, or another, Sola Scriptura means different things to different people. Perhaps each Protestant denomination that believes in it has its own definition. I have no idea how many that would be. I don’t think all of those beliefs and explanations of these beliefs have been discussed here ad naseum.

 

[KathleenElsie]

As I understand it and have read on either this non Catholic thread, or another, Sola Scriptura means different things to different people. Perhaps each Protestant denomination that believes in it has its own definition. I have no idea how many that would be. I don’t think all of those beliefs and explanations of these beliefs have been discussed here ad naseum.

Well that means 40,000 definitions at the most.

As for me and my family I’ll take the one definition of Holy Mother Church. Bible, Tradition, and tradition.

 

[Kay_Cee]

To answer this fully would require pages and pages. I know that Catholics and Protestants agree on this so its not necessary to go into it.

Probably because i’m dense—View attachment 4033

The link you posted isn’t working.

Do you doubt that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired-inerrant?

i must have missunderstood you (its easy on these forums).

i’m not aware of any passage specifically that would cover the entire Scriptures for this although i could bring up a few that i think do. I’m arguing from a different perspective and that is from the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Since we agree that they are inspired-inerrant then it follows that they carry an authority higher than any institution or man since they are from God Himself.

No. It does not follow at all.

Inspiration and inerrancy does not = exclusivity.

You do carrry the burden in demonstrating another “infallible-inspired-inerrant” rule since i have claimed there is no other. If you think there is, then what is it? If you say its the Catholic church then we can look at the Catholic church and see if it does meet the standard of being “infallible-inspired-inerrant”. If you say its the pope, then the same tests will need to be done.

It is not out of line for me to ask you to prove your own statement. I carry no burden of proof whatsoever by asking you to do that.

:justasking4
Are you asking for proof that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant?
Kay Cee
No. I thought I made that crystal clear. I’m asking for proof that the scriptures are the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith.

It doesn’t nor is it necessary. We already know the nature of the Scriptures. Its divine nature is derived from God Himself. Since this is the case, this is what makes them the sole infallible-inspired-inerrant rule of faith. To defeat this idea that the Scriptures are not the “sole” infallible rule of faith we need to see another rule that qualifies. That has yet to be done.

The fact that something is derived from God does not make it exclusive.

And again, it should be a piece of cake for you to prove your point. If indeed God wants scripture to be the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith, he must have communicated that to us somewhere. You only need to show where. Show me where he says it, and I’ll believe it.

BTW, what happened to my last question? Did you delete it because you couldn’t answer it or was that a mistake? Well, here it is again:

If the scriptures are the **sole **infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith, and your statement is an infallible rule of faith, then your statement must be contained within scripture. So where does scripture say that scripture is the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith? Please be sure your quote contains the concept of being both **sole **and rule of faith.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

If the scriptures are the **sole **infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith, and your statement is an infallible rule of faith, then your statement must be contained within scripture. So where does scripture say that scripture is the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith? Please be sure your quote contains the concept of being both **sole **and rule of faith.

There is no answer for that - sola scriptura is not taught in Holy Scripture.

All you’re going to get in response to that question is another question trying to change the subject, something like: “Why do Catholics worship Mary”? (I know Catholics don’t worship Mary, that’s just an example of how the sola scripturists will try to change the subject when asked to show where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible.)

They say scripture is the sole rule of faith, but that is not taught anywhere in scripture. That’s not what Jesus taught or left us as a legacy. They created this doctrine out of thin air. It has no basis in scripture, Sacred Tradition, or from the Magisterium of the Church, the three REAL authorities when it comes to matters of faith and morals.

 

[PerryJ]

Oh give me a break .Luther Did not want to start any church to continue sinning .Where do you get this stuff ? You have a great deal to learn about the reformation period.

Distracted may not have put in a long explanation as we discuss Luther all of the time and most know his story by now. In essence what he stated was correct. Luther was a man that lived in fear. He feared witches and sorcery. He joined the Church out of fear from a thunderstorm and his profession to St. Ann that if he lived he would join the Church. He feared God and always thought his confessions were in adequate. He confessed daily and yet he still lived in fear. His own words show not a normal fear; but, a mortifying fear that he could not overcome. One day he juxtaposed (read backwards) Romans 1:17 and came to the conclusion of faith alone. This was the answer to his life lived in fear. He of course then had to add alone to Romans later in the Chapter. Earlier in his life when he visited Rome he never stated that he had any issue with indulgences or the lavishnes of Rome. It wasn’t until a couple of years after his theology was created that he attacked Rome and indulgences. The indulgences were in fact being sold to the wealthy to pay for the Sistene Chapel. The indulgences were not going into the pockets of the Pope as many believe. Although lavishness were clearly a problem. As Luther was losing a debate to Eck at Liepzig concerning purgatory he had to eliminate the DCs from the Bible.

This is to catch you up one where we are with Luther. There is much more negative things we could post; however, I believe everyone has heard them many times.

I believe Distracted knows about Luther he was just cutting to the chase as we have discussed him at length many times.

In my opinion he was far from inspired or saintly. The Protestant reformation and SS are the results of fearful man being scared of God and the world around him.

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

The link you posted isn’t working.

The link was just another one of Justasking4’s annoying emoticons/smilies. It is one of his usual responses when he can’t think of anything to say.

All you’re going to get in response to that question is another question trying to change the subject, something like: “Why do Catholics worship Mary”? (I know Catholics don’t worship Mary, that’s just an example of how the sola scripturists will try to change the subject when asked to show where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible.)

It’s like spitting in the wind.

 

[guanophore]

The link was just another one of Justasking4’s annoying emoticons/smilies. It is one of his usual responses when he can’t think of anything to say.

It’s like spitting in the wind.

Hey, give him, or the cadre that uses that login (I think there is a group) some credit, because the postings have vastly improved in technological savvy. Up until recently, the quote function was not used correctly, emoticons were not included, particularly from an outside source, and the English composition left much to be desired.

You are right, though he (they, or who ever was logged in that day) agreed that SS was not in scripture, but that the doctrine was based on “the nature of th Scriptures themselves”. This is basically an admission that the Topic line is true, that SS is an extrabibilical doctrine.

 

[distracted]

As I understand it and have read on either this non Catholic thread, or another, Sola Scriptura means different things to different people. Perhaps each Protestant denomination that believes in it has its own definition. I have no idea how many that would be. I don’t think all of those beliefs and explanations of these beliefs have been discussed here ad naseum.

sola scriptura means exactly waht it appears to mean: belief that Scripture alone is sufficient to get one into Heaven.

and you know… Protestants, while they refuse to go along with the teachings of the Church, don’t even go along with Scripture… They go along with the Sciptures they like, the ones they understand, the ones that aren’t Cahtolic - sounding (St. John 6:27-54, 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 3;13, etc.)…

so much for the importance of Scripture

 

[distracted]

*Ah yes, let’s change the subject with more irrelevant questions. *
.

***That is a common tactic here at the forums… ***

 

[guanophore]

***That is a common tactic here at the forums… ***

And for this particular member, a frequent method of violating the forum rules, and derailing the topic.

I am not sure why it is so difficult to accept that SS is an extrabiblical doctrine. Such things are not a problem for Catholics, since our doctrine has never been confined to the Scripture. Somehow it is something that must be avoided by SS at all costs.

 

[distracted]

And for this particular member, a frequent method of violating the forum rules, and derailing the topic.

I am not sure why it is so difficult to accept that SS is an extrabiblical doctrine. Such things are not a problem for Catholics, since our doctrine has never been confined to the Scripture. Somehow it is something that must be avoided by SS at all costs.

i understood this until t he last sentence…

 

[guanophore]

i understood this until t he last sentence…

I think that Sola Scripturists intuitively realize, even if those who adhere to it deny it, that investing scripture with this authority would require that Scripture itself claim this of itself in order for it to be valid.

That is why the effort is made to insist that it is a biblical doctrine, based on what the Bible does say about itself. The SS must go to great lenghts to deny that extrabiblical doctrine is valid, because it is “too Catholic”.

 

[distracted]

I think that Sola Scripturists intuitively realize, even if those who adhere to it deny it, that investing scripture with this authority would require that Scripture itself claim this of itself in order for it to be valid.

That is why the effort is made to insist that it is a biblical doctrine, based on what the Bible does say about itself. The SS must go to great lenghts to deny that extrabiblical doctrine is valid, because it is “too Catholic”.

kind of interesting the extremes people will go to in order to avoid facing Catholicism…

Weird…

but then, you never know what kin of anti-Catholic propaganda a person has been exposed to… :coffeeread:

 

[headin_home]

Most heretics, Luther included, were probably sincere in their heretical beliefs.

The Bible is the “rule of faith” for sola scripturists. It contains everything necessary for salvation.

Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible.

Therefore, sola scriptura is not necessary for salvation - it is a false doctrine even if looked at from a “sola scriptura” perspective.

This is now post #693 of this thread, and no sola scripturist has been able to show were sola scriptura is plainly taught in the Bible.

I’d like to know how they reconcile that fact for themselves? Sola scriptura, the doctrine that scripture alone (look up sola) is the rule of faith and morals, is not taught anywhere in scripture. In fact, just the opposite is taught. Jesus founded a church and gave it authority to bind and loose - he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Sounds like Jesus wasn’t teaching sola scriptura. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, and to bring to remembrance all that he had said, whether it was later written down or not.

The Catholic Church affirms that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant - but it is not the end-all and be-all of our faith. That is not what Jesus taught or left us as a legacy. He left us the Catholic Church, with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to lead the faithful to eternal life and usher in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sola scriptura is a doctrine that denies what Jesus taught and what Jesus left us. It denies the Church that Jesus founded and of which he said “the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” It denies that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth - Jesus said he would do it, so the sola scripturists must think Jesus is a liar. The deny Apostolic Succession. They deny most of the glorious sacraments, instituted by Jesus as ways to bring us closer to Him.

Like all heresies, it focuses on one aspect of the deposit of faith and rejects others that it finds do not conform to their own man-made doctrine.

Sola scripturists need to wake up and accept the fullness of the Faith. The Father is waiting for them with open arms, like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son. They just need to stop denying what Jesus gave us, abandon their heretical man-made doctrine, and come home to the Catholic Church.

I woke up 2 years ago and accepted the fullness of the faith. At the age of 57, I converted to the Church that JESUS built which just happens to be the Catholic Church.
Me and my family had been in the “me and JESUS only” church for about 15 years.When I suggested we should examine our conscienses and accountability to GOD,my family didn’t want to hear it. My wife divorced me and the family will have nothing to do with me.
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.