Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[justasking4]

The Catholic Church’s teachings are based upon the whole Bible. (Of course including tradition etc.) We do not interpet the Bible one verse at a time. That is why our more complex doctrines such as areas concerning Mary are lost by Protestants.

If the Marian doctrines were truly based on the Scriptures then the individual passages and verses would support them. Its at the individual verse level that false doctrines and practices are seen. It is not enough to claim that church teachings are based on the whole Bible when the parts of the Bible don’t match the doctrines. Actually the Marian doctrines are quite simple to understand. Its the exergesis of the passages that catholics use that twist the Scriptures to say something it does not.

 

[PerryJ]

If the Marian doctrines were truly based on the Scriptures then the individual passages and verses would support them. Its at the individual verse level that false doctrines and practices are seen. It is not enough to claim that church teachings are based on the whole Bible when the parts of the Bible don’t match the doctrines. Actually the Marian doctrines are quite simple to understand. Its the exergesis of the passages that catholics use that twist the Scriptures to say something it does not.

I just posted support for the IC on another thread. It is very clear that it is supported by someone that reads and understands the whole Bible. Read the thread Hyper Dulia. You will find a friend there that also supports SS even though they know it is not supported by scripture.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

He used the Scriptures also. He never appeals to a tradition. Notice how Jesus used the Scriptures in context.

I did and i don’t see the connection. Can you clarify?

Acts 8:31.

 

[justasking4]

I just posted support for the IC on another thread. It is very clear that it is supported by someone that reads and understands the whole Bible. Read the thread Hyper Dulia. You will find a friend there that also supports SS even though they know it is not supported by scripture.

i have to admire you wanting to defend such a doctrine-practice. I know i wouldn’t want to…View attachment 4040

 

[guanophore]

If the Marian doctrines were truly based on the Scriptures then the individual passages and verses would support them.

I agree. In fact, they come from the Sacred Tradition, as does the entire contents of the NT. We see the support because we accept the Apostolic Teaching. I think, without that, the passages themselves are insufficient, especially if one reads them from an anti-Catholic viewpoint

Its at the individual verse level that false doctrines and practices are seen. It is not enough to claim that church teachings are based on the whole Bible when the parts of the Bible don’t match the doctrines.

Well, since the Church has never claimed this, it is not a problem. There are no Catholic Doctrines that are “based” on the Bible, which did not exist when they were formed. On the contrary, they are all “based” on the person of Christ, and were delivered whole and entire to the Apostles before a single word of the NT was ever written. What qualifies as false doctrine and practice is trying to derive Christianity from the Bible, instead of the persons to whom Jesus commmitted the teaching and authority to make disciples.

Actually the Marian doctrines are quite simple to understand. Its the exergesis of the passages that catholics use that twist the Scriptures to say something it does not.

If this bothers you so much, ja4, why are you here? Since you are convinced that the Catholic Church is full of “false practices and doctrines” and that Catholics “twist the Scriptures” why are you here? What need is this that you have that compels you to come here and continue banging your head against the infallible wall of the Church?

 

[guanophore]

i have to admire you wanting to defend such a doctrine-practice. I know i wouldn’t want to…

Interesting that nothing admirable ever comes through in your posts, just calumny and detraction.

What DO you want? Something…:coffeeread:

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
i have to admire you wanting to defend such a doctrine-practice. I know i wouldn’t want to…

guanophore
Interesting that nothing admirable ever comes through in your posts, just calumny and detraction.

What DO you want? Something…:coffeeread:

This is one of the great advantages believing and applying Sola Scriptura. I don’t have to defend unbilical doctrines and practices of men. Trying to harmonize Catholic doctrines and practices with Scripture is an impossible task. I wouldn’t want to do it. View attachment 4041

 

[Crusador]

I am convinced that the Scriptures are the word of God, and they say so themselves. Is it the Roman Catholic position that the Scriptures are not a sufficient source of divine revelation? When I say “sufficient” I mean, Are the Scriptures not sufficient to provide the seeker with all the necessary information about Jesus Christ, and the way of Salvation, so that if he sat down and read the Scriptures prayerfully he would not have all the information necessary in order to believe unto eternal life?

If the Scriptures are not sufficient -
then what else is needed for one to beleive and receive life?

 

[guanophore]

I am convinced that the Scriptures are the word of God, and they say so themselves.

Probably not, Crusador. First of all, one would have to figure out what constitutes scripture.

Is the Roman Catholic position that the Scriptures are not a sufficient source of divine revelation?

I should think this would be blatantly obvious. The Jews had Sacred Scripture, yet God found it necessary to be born of a woman, and become man. He is the image of the invisible God, and bears the very stamp of His nature. There is no Source of Divine Revelation better than He.

When I say "sufficient" I mean, Are the Scriptures *not* sufficient to provide the seeker with all the necessary information about Jesus Christ, and the way of Salvation, so that if he sat down and read the Scriptures prayerfully he would *not* have all the information necessary in order to believe unto eternal life?

Possibly. Some of that depends upon the ability of the reader, don’t you think?

If the Scriptures are not sufficient -
then what else is needed for one to beleive and receive life?

What is the illiterate person to do? What did all the Christians do that “believed” prior to any of the Bible being formed?

Do you believe that you receive life through the Scriptures?

 

[Crusador]

Probably not, Crusador. First of all, one would have to figure out what constitutes scripture.

Possibly. Some of that depends upon the ability of the reader, don’t you think?

What is the illiterate person to do? What did all the Christians do that “believed” prior to any of the Bible being formed?

Do you believe that you receive life through the Scriptures?

Well - I guess you would have the same problem as me then - for how do you know what constitutes Scripture? And if you say “well we have the church to tell us” - your own words have pinned you- “Well First of all then, one would have to figure our what constitutes the church.”

And so clearly - by tossing around these self-destructive propositions, you are clearly grabbing the blade, and trying to stab me with the handle - - ouch!

I also do not believe that it depends upon the ability of the reader- but upon the sovereign grace of God - it depends upon the Holy Spirit. It depends upon whether or not God will have mercy- “for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth - but of God who showeth mercy,” and just like He says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.”

But the question is this: Do the Scriptures provide all the necessary INFORMATION that one must beleive (by the grace of God) - in order to receive life?

We are also not here speaking of illiteracy. My question is addressed to whether or not the Scriptures CONTAIN all the necessary INFORMATION for one to believe and receieve life or whether the Scriptures are missing some vital and soul-saving information.

I never asserted that a person has to be able to read the Scriptures in order to be saved. We know that the message of the gospel can be preached and men can believe and receieve life. My question is about the message that must be beleived in order for one to receieve life - Is it sufficiently contained in Scripture, or is there more of the message that needs to be believed that is NOT contained in Scripture?

Please answer this question. Thx!

 

[abucs]

My answer would be yes, Crusader, but i would also want to suggest that God is a living God. He is with us now. He responds to our changing civilisations, problems, scientific advancements, temptations etc.

It makes sense to me to have a church in order to speak through in order to respond to our circumstances now. To warn us, to teach us, to bring us together, to make us holy through the trials and tribulations we collectively go through now in 2008.

In some ways the bible alone can be looking backwards. I think it is extremely important, but it is not always a good instrument to deal with the issues of today.

I think if we look at the life of Christ he was crucified largely because God’s people of that day were looking back at Scriptures and not forward to God. It was this view that allowed some of them to reject Christ when he came in a way they were not expecting.

With Jesus announcement of “his church” we have a living promise, continually renewing itself.

“Upon this rock i build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
“I will be with you always, until the end of the age”.
“The Spirit will come and lead you into all truth”.
“The pillar and foundation of truth is the church”.

To be absolutely sure, the church also has bad people in it and goes “off the rails” sometimes. It affects government, culture, economics, science and law.

It is not always correct but we have confidence that Jesus and the Spirit will always be with it and renew it as his church which will have a great impact on mankind.

It is this coming together as Church that has built western civilisation and allows a Christian (name removed by moderator)ut into the lives of people down the centuries.

 

[guanophore]

Well - I guess you would have the same problem as me then - for how do you know what constitutes Scripture? And if you say “well we have the church to tell us” - your own words have pinned you- “Well First of all then, one would have to figure our what constitutes the church.”

Indeed! We have what has been passed down to us from Jesus through the Apostles in an unbroken line of Succession. It was these successors, given the Authority by Christ to teach, administer sacraments, and make disciples, who compiled and authenticated the Holy Scriptures.

And so clearly - by tossing around these self-destructive propositions, you are clearly grabbing the blade, and trying to stab me with the handle - - ouch!

Indeed no! The Word of God is sufficient sword for both of us, is it not? Piercing to the division of soul and spirit? My goal is to help you explore the origin of the Scriptures that you are using.

I also do not believe that it depends upon the ability of the reader- but upon the sovereign grace of God - it depends upon the Holy Spirit.

Well, then we are in agreement on this point. I work with illiterate people, and I know there have been many such persons over the course of the last two millenia. I don’t think salvation is dependent upon the ability to read.

It depends upon whether or not God will have mercy- “for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth - but of God who showeth mercy,” and just like He says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.”

But the question is this: Do the Scriptures provide all the necessary INFORMATION that one must beleive (by the grace of God) - in order to receive life?

How is that relevant, if one cannot read?

We are also not here speaking of illiteracy. My question is addressed to whether or not the Scriptures CONTAIN all the necessary INFORMATION for one to believe and receieve life or whether the Scriptures are missing some vital and soul-saving information.

The reason I think one must take literacy into account is that everyone reads them and understands them (or fails to do so) based upon personal experience and education (or lack of it). Some people do read them, and don’t get saved, would you not agree?

I never asserted that a person has to be able to read the Scriptures in order to be saved. We know that the message of the gospel can be preached and men can believe and receieve life. My question is about the message that must be beleived in order for one to receieve life - Is it sufficiently contained in Scripture, or is there more of the message that needs to be believed that is NOT contained in Scripture?

That depends upon how one defines “saved”.

Please answer this question. Thx!

It is off topic in this thread. The point of this thread is, can the doctrine of SS be found in the bible. Are you postulating that, since the bible contains all the information needed to get “saved” that this means SS is biblical?

 

[PerryJ]

i have to admire you wanting to defend such a doctrine-practice. I know i wouldn’t want to…View attachment 4040

It was easy. It is all in the Bible and is very clear.

 

[onenow1]

This is one of the great advantages believing and applying Sola Scriptura. I don’t have to defend unbilical doctrines and practices of men. Trying to harmonize Catholic doctrines and practices with Scripture is an impossible task. I wouldn’t want to do it. View attachment 4041

HI, j4
Can you harmonize these passages for me please.

Acts 15:7, “And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe’.”
Here Peter reaffirmed the primacy given to him by GOD in Matt 16

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 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.
19 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.”

Peace,OneNow1

 

[Crusador]

Indeed! We have what has been passed down to us from Jesus through the Apostles in an unbroken line of Succession. It was these successors, given the Authority by Christ to teach, administer sacraments, and make disciples, who compiled and authenticated the Holy Scriptures.

OK- So you have not solved your own dilema. All you have done is re-iterated your position. But how does one come to figure out that your position is the right one, without some sort of “private interpretation?”

You have not solved anything for Protestants by giving us a bunch of religious propositions about your church. You have only pushed us back one step - for the issue is the same- how do we know that you are telling us the truth? How do we know that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church? Because you say so?

C’mon - you only beg the issue, because “First of all, one must figure out what constitutes the church.”

But the question is this: Do the Scriptures provide all the necessary INFORMATION that one must beleive (by the grace of God) - in order to receive life?

How is that relevant, if one cannot read?

It is relevant because if the Scriptures contain all that is necessary to be believed in order to receive life - then we can simply preach Christ from the Bible alone - and illiterate people can still be saved.

The reason I think one must take literacy into account is that everyone reads them and understands them (or fails to do so) based upon personal experience and education (or lack of it). Some people do read them, and don’t get saved, would you not agree?

I see that you are stuck on “reading” the Scriptures, when I am asking about the content of the Scriptures. Men and Women need to hear the message of the gospel in order to beleive - for “faith cometh by hearing” - SO my question is: Does the Bible contain all the necessary information one needs to believe in order to receive life?

Also- I see your point about some who read or hear the message of the Scriptures and do not believe- and it is valid. But this is why I use the word “sufficient” and have not used the word “efficient.” And this is why I stated that it is only by the grace and mercy of God that one can believe and be saved - whether he is literate or illiterate. My whole question was whether the message that is contained in Scripture is sufficient for one to believe and receive life.

You seem to believe that this question is somehow off topic - but it is not. :tsktsk: I am asking a related and indespensible question - so that if someone would be willing to answer it honestly, I can then begin to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is biblical. One of the main tenents of this doctrine is “The sufficiency of the Scriptures.” But Maybe you just do not want to answer the question, and if not- then I rest my case with you.

Maybe there is someone else who would be willing to answer my question about the Holy Scriptures (on this thread about sola Scriptura) :coffeeread:

 

[justasking4]

onenow1;4170335]
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is one of the great advantages believing and applying Sola Scriptura. I don’t have to defend unbilical doctrines and practices of men. Trying to harmonize Catholic doctrines and practices with Scripture is an impossible task. I wouldn’t want to do it. Attachment 4041

onenow1
HI, j4
Can you harmonize these passages for me please.

Acts 15:7, “And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe’.”
Here Peter reaffirmed the primacy given to him by GOD in Matt 16

If you read further you will see it was James who has the final say:
19 “Therefore **it is my judgment **that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that **we write **to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

It was James in concert with the others who give the final decision. No doubt Peter does carry weight.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 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.
19 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.”

Peace,OneNow1

What is the point you are trying to make here?

 

[Crusador]

Can you harmonize these passages for me please.

I would love to!

Acts 15:7, “And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe’.”

The passage you just cited is completely out of context. It is not Peter who exercised authority and jurisdiction over the council - rather it was James. See for yourself:

"And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

19 **Therefore my judgment **is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:7-21)

Peter simply gave a testimony of what he had witnessed and experienced, then James confirmed it with Scripture - and made the final judgment- :bible1:

Matthew 16:
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 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.
19 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.”

None of these were unique to Peter -

1. Nathaniel was the first to identify Jesus as the Son of God, the King of Israel - (John 1:49)
2. The Rock is Christ and his teachings - (Matthew 7:24; Roomans 9:33; 1 Corinthans 10:4)
3. The same power to bind and loose was given to all the apostles two chapters later - (Matthew 18:18 - see verse 1)

The passages that you quoted do not damage the case for sola Scriptura - and in fact - Acts 15 establishes sola Scriptura - for James made no judment until he first consutled the Scriptures.

But thank you for the opportunity to share with you - This forum is certainly a place where we can all learn from one another! God bless you! :tiphat:

 

[PerryJ]

I would love to!

The passage you just cited is completely out of context. It is not Peter who exercised authority and jurisdiction over the council - rather it was James. See for yourself:

"And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

19 **Therefore my judgment **is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:7-21)

Peter simply gave a testimony of what he had witnessed and experienced, then James confirmed it with Scripture - and made the final judgment- :bible1:

None of these were unique to Peter -

1. Nathaniel was the first to identify Jesus as the Son of God, the King of Israel - (John 1:49)
2. The Rock is Christ and his teachings - (Matthew 7:24; Roomans 9:33; 1 Corinthans 10:4)
3. The same power to bind and loose was given to all the apostles two chapters later - (Matthew 18:18 - see verse 1)

The passages that you quoted do not damage the case for sola Scriptura - and in fact - Acts 15 establishes sola Scriptura - for James made no judment until he first consutled the Scriptures.

But thank you for the opportunity to share with you - This forum is certainly a place where we can all learn from one another! God bless you! :tiphat:

Most of what you posted is incorrect and can be refuted easily if we were on a thread about the papacy. This thread asks if Sola Scriptura is Biblical. It is not. Justasking4 knows this as he has been on these thread for some time now. Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible and the Bible does not define what is inspired.

Sola Scriptura places the Bible as the rule of faith and as such the Bible would have to state it is the rule of faith; which, it of course it doesn’t.

It would also have to define what books are inspired. God knowing the canon doesn’t mean anything. Man has to know the canon. As anyone that has studied about their faith knows the NT was in dispute for centuries. The NT is not self authenticating.

I am not sure how people that believe in Sola ignore this most basic of questions. We can prove our authority easily and have many times on threads. When will someone that believes in Sola prove where this authority comes from in scripture.

 

[justasking4]

Most of what you posted is incorrect and can be refuted easily if we were on a thread about the papacy. This thread asks if Sola Scriptura is Biblical. It is not. Justasking4 knows this as he has been on these thread for some time now. Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible and the Bible does not define what is inspired.

Sola Scriptura places the Bible as the rule of faith and as such the Bible would have to state it is the rule of faith; which, it of course it doesn’t.

It would also have to define what books are inspired. God knowing the canon doesn’t mean anything. Man has to know the canon. As anyone that has studied about their faith knows the NT was in dispute for centuries. The NT is not self authenticating.

I am not sure how people that believe in Sola ignore this most basic of questions. We can prove our authority easily and have many times on threads. When will someone that believes in Sola prove where this authority comes from in scripture.

Since there is some confusion by those who oppose Sola Scriptura perhaps some examples of it and comparisons will help to clear up some of the confusion. Since Sola Scripturaist claim the Scriptures as their ultimate authority i think these examples may help to clarify what Sola Scriptura looks like in practice and application.

Is adultery wrong because the Scripture tell us it is or because the church says it is?

Is lying wrong because the Scripture tells us it is or because the church says it is?

Is eating meat on Friday during Lent a sin because the Scripture says it is or because the church says it is?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is adultery wrong because the Scripture tell us it is or because the church says it is?

The Scriptures teaches it, and the Church affirms or verifies it as morally sinful.

Is lying wrong because the Scripture tells us it is or because the church says it is?

Both.

Is eating meat on Friday during Lent a sin because the Scripture says it is or because the church says it is?

In itself, it is not a sin to eat meat on a Friday during Lent. The sin is in disobeying Church law. The Pope is the successor of Peter, and he has been authorized by Christ to bind and loose. Not eating meat on Fridays during Lent is a way for us to be “united among [our]selves by some common observance of penance.”

“The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.” (Code of Canon Law, 1249)

Second, the Catholic Church does not separate the Bible and Church. They view that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the Word of God. Both are equal.

Protestant thinking often have a misconception, that the two are separate by implying, “Is it Bible or Tradition?” For us, Catholics it is both.