Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[eucharist04]

Then, by your convoluted logic, I shouldn’t believe in the Trinity and you shouldn’t believe in Purgatory.

The point I was trying to make is that non-catholics should not fuss about the fact that most Catholic doctrine are not found word for word in the scriptures.

 

[JonathanEdwards]

The point I was trying to make is that non-catholics should not fuss about the fact that most Catholic doctrine are not found word for word in the scriptures.

Sola scriptura never says that something has to be spelled out word for word in scripture, only that scripture is the final authority to which all other sources of doctrine and practice must defer.

 

[Church_Militant]

I am still waiting for the answer to the question as to what exactly is wrong with this statement.

No problem.

Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where that is taught?

Now…if the premise as expressed is itself not taught in the Bible as some n-Cs tell you it is, then how can one embrace it as a Biblical doctrine?

It’s not there, but the New Testament does plainly tell us. “15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1st Timothy 3)

 

[JonathanEdwards]

Convoluted? I think not sir…the fact is that Christianity has always believed in implied doctrines. In fact, a great many of the messianic prophesies that Our Lord fulfilled are implied in the Old Testament and that is one thing that has caused the Jews to stumble over Him to this day.

By your fallacious thinking, you might reject Jesus as Messiah.

Actually, I never said that there weren’t implicit teachings of different doctrines in scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

Sola scriptura never says that something has to be spelled out word for word in scripture, only that scripture is the final authority to which all other sources of doctrine and practice must defer.

Fine… then please show me where that is stated in scripture.

If SS is a Biblical doctrine as you assert then there should be ample scriptural support for it. I have yet to see such, but please, by all means, show me.

 

[Church_Militant]

Actually, I never said that there weren’t implicit teachings of different doctrines in scripture.

Then please show me SS as implicit in scripture. If it’s there it should be fairly simple to provide that evidence.

 

[JonathanEdwards]

Fine… then please show me where that is stated in scripture.

Again, you’re confusing the description of sola scriptura with the teaching of sola scriptura.

If SS is a Biblical doctrine as you assert then there should be ample scriptural support for it. I have yet to see such, but please, by all means, show me.

Read on, MacDuff.

No problem.

Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where that is taught?

Now…if the premise as expressed is itself not taught in the Bible as some n-Cs tell you it is, then how can one embrace it as a Biblical doctrine?

It’s not there, but the New Testament does plainly tell us. 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

1 Tim 3:14-17: 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice that it is scripture that God has given for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, not the Catholic church.

Let me ask you this: when Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did He appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by saying “the Catholic church has declared…”?

 

[MrS]

1 Tim 3:14-17: 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice that it is scripture that God has given for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, not the Catholic church.

Let me ask you this: when Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did He appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by saying “the Catholic church has declared…”?

So, is this your doctrine of Sola Old Testament…??

.

 

[VWcrazy]

Notice Timothy 3:16 does not say “only” Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is a non-Biblical theory that can not be supported within the Bible. If it were so, the Book, Chapter, and Verse would have been provided by now. So far, no one has given them.

 

[eucharist04]

Sola scriptura never says that something has to be spelled out word for word in scripture, only that scripture is the final authority to which all other sources of doctrine and practice must defer.

Where oh where does it say that it is the final authority.

 

[JonathanEdwards]

Notice Timothy 3:16 does not say “only” Scripture.

It doesn’t have to. If I say, “I’m cooking chicken for supper”, then it doesn’t matter that I didn’t say “I’m not cooking steak for supper”.

The fact that the text tells us that God gave us scripture for this pupose tells us that it is scripture and not the Catholic church.

Sola Scriptura is a non-Biblical theory that can not be supported within the Bible. If it were so, the Book, Chapter, and Verse would have been provided by now. So far, no one has given them.

Actually, I’ve done so several times. Funny that several of your fellow Catholics have seen them but you claim that you haven’t.

Let me ask you this: when Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did He appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by saying “the Catholic church has declared…”?

 

[With_Questions]

No problem.

Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where that is taught?

Now…if the premise as expressed is itself not taught in the Bible as some n-Cs tell you it is, then how can one embrace it as a Biblical doctrine?

It’s not there, but the New Testament does plainly tell us. “15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1st Timothy 3)

With all due respect, I have a thing against using the Bible to argue stuff. It is just a road that I don’t like going down.

I just want to understand stuff and ask questions.

But to me it is a matter of common sense.

If I know that the Bible is God’s inspired written word of God, then it makes sense that this is the standard that can be used to judge stuff that may or may not be correct.

So I don’t understand what is wrong with that statement.

 

[VWcrazy]

[Actually, I’ve done so several times. Funny that several of your fellow Catholics have seen them but you claim that you haven’t.
/QUOTE]

Actually, you have never done so. Scripture quotes which do not prove Sola Scriptura have been offered - but when pointed out that they do not actually prove Sola Scriptura at all, well, I guess that’s just ignored.

So please try again, show the exact Book, Chapter, and Verse which shows the Bible is the final authority. Timothy 3:16 just doesn’t do it.

 

[JonathanEdwards]

[Actually, I’ve done so several times. Funny that several of your fellow Catholics have seen them but you claim that you haven’t.
/QUOTE]

Actually, you have never done so.

Well, that’s odd. Several of your fellow Catholics have seen the scriptures I’ve cited and have responded to them.

Funny that they see them just fine and you can’t.

 

[VWcrazy]

Well, that’s odd. Several of your fellow Catholics have seen the scriptures I’ve cited and have responded to them.

Funny that they see them just fine and you can’t.

Still no proof.

Yes, the response have shown the Scriptures you have provided do not show Sola Scriptura.

 

[MDK]

When Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did He say “it is written…” or “the Catholic church declares…”?

Which authority did He appeal to?

You didn’t answer the question did you? Why?

 

[With_Questions]

Still no proof.

Yes, the response have shown the Scriptures you have provided do not show Sola Scriptura.

Why does there have to be Scriptural proof anyway? Why isn’t it enough to have a good reason based on Scripture plus a little bit of common sense.

The definition given in this thread of Sola Scriptura is not “Everything you believe must be provable by Scripture”.

Certainly Catholicism does not demand that "Everything you believe must be provable by Scripture.

So why does the standard have to be “Sola Scriptura (whatever that is) is false unless it is provable by Scripture”?

 

[JonathanEdwards]

Still no proof.

Yes, the response have shown the Scriptures you have provided do not show Sola Scriptura.

Actually, each of the passages I’ve cited show sola scriptura.

I notice you never answered my question:

When Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did Jesus appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by stating “the Catholic church has declared…”?

 

[MDK]

Sola scriptura is the doctrine that says that the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word, and is the authority by which tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice must be judged.

The Catholics will tell you that we believe it means that the Bible is the only source of authority, but this is not true.

We also accept the authority of the church (just not their particular branch of the church), the creeds and confessions of Christianity, and tradition, among other things.

We believe that each of these is a valid source of doctrine and pratice. We just believe that they are to defer to the authority of God’s word and are valid only inasmuch as they are in agreement with God’s word.

Who is “we”?

Do you really think that your team identified by “we” understands what Jesus actually taught, or simply what your team “we” wants to believe?

How many churches did Christ build, and who was appointed as rock of the Church? If you understood what this means, you probably wouldn’t be writing what you have written.

 

[JonathanEdwards]

Why does there have to be Scriptural proof anyway? Why isn’t it enough to have a good reason based on Scripture plus a little bit of common sense.

The definition given in this thread of Sola Scriptura is not “Everything you believe must be provable by Scripture”.

Certainly Catholicism does not demand that "Everything you believe must be provable by Scripture.

So why does the standard have to be “Sola Scriptura (whatever that is) is false unless it is provable by Scripture”?

Yeah, that’s kind of what I always wonder when they make the anti-sola scriptura argument.

On the one hand, they say that we don’t need the authority of scripture but then they turn around and say that Catholicism must be true because it’s doctrines are based on scripture.

No wonder they’re so confused.

MDK:

Who is “we”?

Christians who believe the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

Do you really think that your team identified by “we” understands what Jesus actually taught, or simply what your team “we” wants to believe?

Yes, I believe we have demonstrated that we understand what Jesus taught.

How many churches did Christ build, and who was appointed as rock of the Church?

One church and Christ is the rock.