M
Maria1212
Guest
Dear Iluminator,
I have a follow-up question for you. You have repeatedly said that you believe in the Bible, and the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura). Ironically, this idea is found no where in the Bible. However, in order for that to be a valid proposition (the idea that all things revealed by God that are necessary for salvation are found in Scripture alone, sola scriptura itself must be located in the Bible. But it is not located in the Bible. So my question to you, is why do you believe this?
Scripture nowhere claims to be the sole sufficient faith for Christians (as SDAs and most Protestants argue). Rather, it affirms its own importance and authority as well as that of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. (Please note I am refering to Tradition with a capital T (Tradition means the teachings and teaching authority of Jesus, and derivatively, the Apostles. I do not mean tradition with a lower case t–which referrs to erronous human tradition).
In fact, the Bible denies it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Jesus
s work is in Scripture. (John 21:25). In addition, Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim 2:2). He instructs us to "stand fast, and hold the traditions to which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (2Th 2:15). In Acts 2:42 we are told that the first Christians were "preserving in the doctrines of the apostles, and this was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written. Moreover, please read Rom 10:17. "See how faith comes from hearing, and hearding through Christs word.It is a mistake to limit Christ`s word to the written word only or to suggest that all of his teachings were reduced to writing, and the Bible does not support that notion.
In the New Testament (2Pet 1:20) we are reminded that “no prophecy in Scripture is the subject of private interpretation.” Indeed, if the Bible was intended as each individual`s guide to the truth, and individual guidance by the Holy Spirit were a reality, each reader would understand the same thing from any particular verse since God does not teach error. Yet Protestants and SDAs have understood contradictory things from Scripture (for example the first SDAs did not believe in the Trinity, but now they do).
There are numerous other part sof the Bible that confirm Scripture is not the sole sufficient rule of faith for Christians.
Matthew 16: 18-19 : “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.”
Matthew 18: 17-18 If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and 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."
Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects the one who sent him.”
In addition, in the Old Testament, the Lord endowed his priests with the authority to interpret his laws and issue binding decisions based on those laws (Lev: 20:1-27, 25:1-55).
Also see Deuteronomy 17:8-13, Matthew 28:20, Acts 2:14-36, Matthew18:18, Acts 15:28-29, Luke 10:16, Jude 10-11, 1 Corinthians 10:8,11:2, 1Thessalonians 2:13, 2Thessalonians 2:15, 1Timothy 3:14-15, 2Peter 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-12, 2:1.
When reading the Bible, it is important to read the passages in context, and when this is done, it is clear that the Bible does not support the idea of sola scriptura.In fact, the idea of sola scriptura is unbiblical, given the Scripture cited above. As a result, could you explain to me why you believe this, if you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Or do SDAs not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? I am asking you this with sincerity, because I am trying to understand your viewpoint. I simply want to know why you believe what you believe. While I do not share many of your beliefs, and am not attacking them, I am trying to explain why Catholics believe what they believe. And I would genuinely like to understand why SDAs believe what they believe.*
) response to the absurd beliefe that the Mark of the Beast is for Christians who worship on Sunday. In my analysis, which I think makes far more sense, the Seal and the Mark are contrasting the ultimate poles, i.e., the FULL children of God (faithful Catholics) and the FULL children of the devil (total apostates, like atheists or relativistic hedonists). In other words, the Seal of God can’t merely mean faithfulness to the Sabbath alone, but to ALL of God’s truth, which means none other than faithfulness to fullness of truth, which can only be had in total in Catholicism, just as the Mark of the Beast can’t mean merely a denial of the “true” Sabbath, but a denial and rejection of the ENTIRETY of God’s grace and truth, that is, again, a FULL apostate.
