since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[thetazlord]

Perhaps you don’t see the irony here, taz, but it’s pretty clear. You seem to be taking on the very role to which you object to in the Catholic Church.

You are declaring yourself and your definition to be correct, and stating that others cannot divorce themselves from your definition.

And yet when the Church does this, you bristle and profess, “Each of us is quite capable of deciding for ourselves. We don’t need no magisterium, thank you very much!”

And yet, here you are professing, in essence, to be the magisterium which defines what SS is.

#irony

There’s no “irony” here, just a continued misunderstanding on your part on what “sola scriptura” on your part actually is, as well as confusion to why even self-professed Christians who “claim” to be sola scriptura actually aren’t. If they ADD their “beliefs” to Scripture (like advocating abortion, or allowing gay or female “pastors,” or advocate homosexuality), yet call themselves “sola scriptura,” then obviously they aren’t. But not because “my definition” of sola scriptura is correct, but because Scripture alone - in & of itself, independent of me - contradicts these “beliefs.” Scripture alone doesn’t need me, or a magisterium ( ← no offense intended or implied), to say this beliefs are unbiblical, because Scripture advocates against them alone. So, “I’m” not a magisterium on my own, but rather by advocating genuine sola scriptura, I’m basing my faith on Scripture alone, & not ADDING to it, unlike these other self-professed “groups” do, who in reality aren’t doing that, because they are ADDING to it.

 

[PRmerger]

Moses, King Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Luke, Paul, John, & most importantly, our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ

All of the above spoke to the power of the Scriptures.

But none of them spoke of Scripture Alone.

None.

That’s a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, taz.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s no “irony” here, just a continued misunderstanding on your part on what “sola scriptura” on your part actually is, as well as confusion to why even self-professed Christians who “claim” to be sola scriptura actually aren’t. If they ADD their “beliefs” to Scripture (like advocating abortion, or allowing gay or female “pastors,” or advocate homosexuality), yet call themselves “sola scriptura,” then obviously they aren’t. But not because “my definition” of sola scriptura is correct, but because Scripture alone - in & of itself, independent of me - contradicts these “beliefs.” Scripture alone doesn’t need me, or a magisterium ( ← no offense intended or implied), to say this beliefs are unbiblical, because Scripture advocates against them alone.

Yet each and every Christian who professes SS is going to use the Bible to support their views, which contradict your views.

They will be using the the very same paradigm you use. The very same, taz.

And yet you refuse to let them have this conclusion, while reserving for yourself the right to embrace your own conclusion.

So, “I’m” not a magisterium on my own, but rather by advocating genuine sola scriptura, I’m basing my faith on Scripture alone, & not ADDING to it, unlike these other self-professed “groups” do, who in reality aren’t doing that, because they are ADDING to it.

You are doing exactly what the Church did to the early protesters.

The Church told these guys: you cannot deviate from the Word of God. Your interpretations are INCORRECT.

Just like you are telling other Christians: your interpretations are INCORRECT.

 

[Church_Militant]

All of the above spoke to the power of the Scriptures.

But none of them spoke of Scripture Alone.

None.

That’s a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, taz.

Exactly…

 

[PRmerger]

In the simplest terms: all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19).

Well, then, if that’s what you mean by SS (and that’s certainly NOT a definition I’ve seen here by most SS advocates), then you are quite consonant with Catholicism in professing that.

Very Catholic, what you profess above.

 

[thetazlord]

Yet you have yet to supply a specific scripture where the Bible lays claim to any such final, ultimate, and self interpreting authority. Where exactly is that found in your Bible?

Actually, I have - several times - but you have chosen to ignore or dismiss these Scriptures:

Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19

No one here has asserted this straw man argument, though I’m sure you wish we would.

You’re not getting what I’m saying by providing the quote from Luke 24:44-45 (not Luke 27:44-45, typo - my bad!):

“Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures”

By Jesus “separating” the Psalms from “the Prophets,” He was acknowledging the THREE-fold division of the OT canon which Jesus still considered & called “Scripture,” which both Protestants recognize in their OT, as well as Jews do their TaNaKh, which would exclude the Apocrypha & the “additions” to Daniel & Esther which were not originally part of those OT books, but later “added” during the intertestimental period. This THREE-fold division described by Jesus is not the same as the FOUR-fold division in the Catholic OT, where the later Apocrypha books were “added” & “blended” into the OT:

Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees;
Sapiential (Wisdom) books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach;
Prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

So, it’s not a “fallacious argument” when you consider that “sola scriptura” is supported by what Jesus Himself considered OT “Scripture,” based on Luke 24:44-45, which He condemned the Pharisees for “adding” their “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9)

 

[PRmerger]

Just as the definition of the concept of the Trinity is not found in the Bible (let alone the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, but the concept is), the concept of the sola scriptura is found throughout the Bible from the Torah to the last page of Scripture. It this doesn’t satisfy you, then please show me both the WORD “Trinity” in the Bible, as well as its definition.

But I’m not a SS advocate (and here, I’m choosing this definition of SS), so I don’t need to support the use of the word Trinity from the Bible.

 

[thetazlord]

Well, then, if that’s what you mean by SS (and that’s certainly NOT a definition I’ve seen here by most SS advocates), then you are quite consonant with Catholicism in professing that.

Very Catholic, what you profess above.

You & I both know that’s not true, because Catholics profess “Scripture AND ‘Sacred Tradition.’” The word “AND” means that this “Sacred Tradition” isn’t found in Scripture. So, no, sola scriptura isn’t “very Catholic.”

 

[PRmerger]

You & I both know that’s not true, because Catholics profess “Scripture AND ‘Sacred Tradition.’” The word “AND” means that this “Sacred Tradition” isn’t found in Scripture. So, no, sola scriptura isn’t “very Catholic.”

As I said, if by SS you mean this: “In the simplest terms: all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19)”

then this is very Catholic.

And you do, in fact, subscribe to Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from the NT.

For it is the Catholic Sacred Tradition which discerned for you and me that there are 27 books in the NT, and that the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement are NOT theopneustos.

You know that because you defer to Sacred Tradition telling you so.

There is NOTHING in the Bible which gives you the table of contents, taz.

You know that because of the Catholic Church. Men who discerned for you and me what belongs in Bible. Catholic men. Catholic bishops, to be exact.

 

[thetazlord]

Yet each and every Christian who professes SS is going to use the Bible to support their views, which contradict your views.

They will be using the the very same paradigm you use. The very same, taz.

And yet you refuse to let them have this conclusion, while reserving for yourself the right to embrace your own conclusion.

Really? The “exact same paradigm” supports abortion, gay “marriage,” & gay & female “pastors”??? I don’t think so! Not the “exact same paradigm”!

You are doing exactly what the Church did to the early protesters.

The Church told these guys: you cannot deviate from the Word of God. Your interpretations are INCORRECT.

Just like you are telling other Christians: your interpretations are INCORRECT.

Actually, just the opposite.

 

[PRmerger]

Really? The “exact same paradigm” supports abortion, gay “marriage,” & gay & female “pastors”??? I don’t think so! Not the “exact same paradigm”!

Yes. The paradigm which says, “I get to read the Bible and interpret it myself, independent of the faith which gave us this Bible. No one gets to tell me what the Bible means.”

Is that not your paradigm?

 

[thetazlord]

But I’m not a SS advocate (and here, I’m choosing this definition of SS), so I don’t need to support the use of the word Trinity from the Bible.

You’re missing your own point. You were asking for a definition of sola scriptura in Scripture. My response was just as you won’t find a definition of Trinity in Scripture, let alone the actual “word,” likewise, you won’t find the definition of sola scriptura in Scripture either. But you will find the concept of it in those passages, just as you’ll find the concept of the Trinity in Scripture alone as well. Just as you don’t need extra-biblical “tradition” to understand the Scriptural concept of the Trinity, likewise, you don’t need extra-biblical “tradition” to understand the Scriptural concept of sola scriptura - BOTH concepts are found in Scripture alone. You certainly won’t find the concept of extra-scriptural “traditions” being just as “Sacred” or “Inspired” as Scripture is described as being (2 Timothy 3:16). THAT concept is what’s man-made, which is what Jesus rebuked (Matthew 15:1-9).

 

[thetazlord]

Yes. The paradigm which says, “I get to read the Bible and interpret it myself, independent of the faith which gave us this Bible. No one gets to tell me what the Bible means.”

Is that not your paradigm?

No, it’s NOT “my paradigm,” which only proves that you STILL aren’t understanding what sola scriptura is:

‘Sola scriptura’ (or ‘Scripture only’) is the Biblically-supported doctrine that all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19). For example, even though the word ‘Trinity’ isn’t found in Scripture, the concept of it is (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). Therefore, referring to God as a Trinity does not violate ‘sola scriptura,’ because the concept of it is explicitly supported by ‘Scripture alone’ & does not require ‘added tradition’ to support it. Jesus Himself supported ‘sola scriptura’ since He rebuked the ‘traditions’ of the Pharisees that ‘exceeded’ the ‘commandments of God’ in the Old Testament (Matthew 15:1-9), & when He corrected their ‘extra-scriptural traditions,’ as well as explained the things of God to His disciples, by stating ‘As it is written…’ (Matthew 26:24; Mark 7:6; 9:13; 14:21; etc) & ‘Have you not read?’ (Matthew 12:3,5; 19:4; 22:41; Mark 12:10,26; Luke 63; etc).

Advocating for abortion, gay “marriage,” & gay & female “pastors” violates sola scriptura because it isn’t supported by Scripture, because it’s not taught in Scripture. People who “believe” that they “get to read the Bible and interpret it myself, independent of the faith which gave us this Bible. No one gets to tell me what the Bible means” is not actually professing sola scriptura. In fact, they are doing just the opposite, by violating it.

 

[thetazlord]

And you do, in fact, subscribe to Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from the NT.

The problem is that’s not what Catholics mean by “Sacred Tradition,” which is “tradition” not found in Scripture. So, no I’m not “subscribing” to “Sacred Tradition” by quoting from the NT, & adhering to sola scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is that’s not what Catholics mean by “Sacred Tradition,” which is “tradition” not found in Scripture.

NO. That is NOT what Catholicism means by Sacred Tradition.

So, no I’m not “subscribing” to “Sacred Tradition” by quoting from the NT, & adhering to sola scriptura.

Of course you are, taz.

There is NO verse in Scripture which states that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos.

Yet you believe it is.

How do you know it is?

Because…

of Sacred Tradition.

The Catholic Church discerned that it was the inspired Word of God.

YOU didn’t discern it was. You simply accepted that it was, received it, and went with it.

 

[thetazlord]

Exactly…

Actually, they do. If not, where in these passages does it advocate “adding to” the Word of God, when they command NOT to “add to” the Word of God?

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s NOT “my paradigm,” which only proves that you STILL aren’t understanding what sola scriptura is:

‘Sola scriptura’ (or ‘Scripture only’) is the Biblically-supported doctrine that all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19).

Catholicism gives this an A+.

However, unless you can provide a Bible verse that states that 27 books belong in the NT, you are not subscribing to the Bible Alone.

You are giving your tacit submission the Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, they do. If not, where in these passages does it advocate “adding to” the Word of God, when they command NOT to “add to” the Word of God?

Well, Jesus couldn’t have been saying we can’t “add” to the Scriptures, because, as I’m sure you know, when he lived and breathed on this earth and spoke about the Scriptures…not a single word of the NT had yet been put to writ.

Thus, it was ADDED to, later. Much later.

He was, just like St. Paul, speaking about the OT.

So if we go by your paradigm, we would only be using the OT. A sort of Sola Old Testament paradigm.

 

[PRmerger]

Advocating for abortion, gay “marriage,” & gay & female “pastors” violates sola scriptura because it isn’t supported by Scripture, because it’s not taught in Scripture. People who “believe” that they “get to read the Bible and interpret it myself, independent of the faith which gave us this Bible. No one gets to tell me what the Bible means” is not actually professing sola scriptura. In fact, they are doing just the opposite, by violating it.

Just so we are clear: is your position that if it’s not found in Scripture we can’t believe/practice something?

(This relates to, of course, our theological/eccleisiastical beliefs and practices. I get that the Bible doesn’t have to mention our landing on the moon for us to believe it happened.)

 

[thetazlord]

NO. That is NOT what Catholicism means by Sacred Tradition.

Yes, it does. The problem is that you don’t even know what your own religion teaches about “Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.” For example, show me the “tradition” of the “theory” of Limbo of infants in the Bible, outside of extra-biblical “Sacred Tradition.” Show me Purgatory in Scripture (& no, 1 Corinthians 3:15 is NOT Purgatory, that’s the the Judgment Seat of Christ, v.10-14; 1 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10. Show me the bodily assumption of Mary in Scripture (& no, Revelation 12:1 is NOT the BUM, that’s describing ISRAEL, cf. Genesis 37:9-10). Show me praying & paying alms to decrease people out of Purgatory in Scripture (BTW, even using the uninspired Apocrypha doesn’t teach that). Show me Mary being conceived immaculate in Scripture (& no, Luke 34 does NOT teach that. All she is saying is that she “knows not man” UP TO THAT TIME). I could go on with other examples, but NONE of these “Sacred Traditions” are backed up by Scripture alone. So, Catholicism DOES teach that “Sacred Tradition” is extra-biblical tradition NOT found in Scripture.

Of course you are, taz.

There is NO verse in Scripture which states that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos.

Yet you believe it is.

How do you know it is?

Because…

of Sacred Tradition.

I’ve addressed this before, which demonstrates that you are just arguing in circles. I NEVER stated that I believe Hebrews is “God-breathed” because of “Sacred Tradition.” YOU believe it for this reason, not me. Hebrews has the EXACT SAME godly attributes as the OT, as well as the NT to qualify as being God-breathed Scripture.

The Catholic Church discerned that it was the inspired Word of God.

No, GOD did, Who helped the fallible men in the Church, like Peter & Paul to “discern” what is & is not Inspired Scripture. But that doesn’t make them “infallible” or “inspired.” It only means that the Scriptures, including Hebrews, was Inspired the moment they were penned. Nothing more.

YOU didn’t discern it was. You simply accepted that it was, received it, and went with it.

BZZZZT!!! Again, you are confusing YOURSELF, with me.