Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[sola_scriptura]

It is one of many reasons why people convert, speaking from personal experience . It is visible proof of the subjectivism inherent in the Sola Scriptura approach. For if the meanings of the scriptures were all “obvious” from scripture alone, without either Tradition or Magesterium, Protestants wouldn’t come into enormous disagreements over their meaning. For there are many extremely sincere people in all Protestant denominations, and the non-denominationals too are usually very sincere. They’re just mistaken in the way they see many Biblical things.

The problem of course is even Catholics disagree over major theological issues. There is a wide divergence of theological views on central issues such as soteriology (which IMO is perhaps the most important sub-topic in theology). For instance there are different orders in the church, like the Jesuits and Benedictines, who have substantial disagreements regarding soteriology.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The problem of course is even Catholics disagree over major theological issues. There is a wide divergence of theological views on central issues such as soteriology (which IMO is perhaps the most important sub-topic in theology). For instance there are different orders in the church, like the Jesuits and Benedictines, who have substantial disagreements regarding soteriology.

The disagreements are not central doctrine. What is central is the teaching regarding our conduct as Christians.

For example, the free will/predestination spectrum should have no impact on the daily conduct of our lives as Christians.

Agreed?

 

[Lampo]

great – an actual credible objection.

Thanks.

First I do not advocate scripture alone.

I thought it reasonable to assume you did since you are participating in a thread titled, “Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical.” Not to mention your name.

I adhere to Trinitarian doctrine, nowhere in scripture does it ever use the word Trinity. Most Protestants agree with me here, so obviously you’re misconstruing sola scriptura.

It’s hard to hit a moving target.

It does not ignore tradition –

Maybe your personal, unique flavor of sola scripture does not ignore tradition, but many other’s definition of sola scriptura does. That is just one of the many, many problems with the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

…rather it views scripture as more reliable than tradition when there’s a clear conflict. Paul said it’s **useful **for rebuke and correction, which is all we say as well.

Bolding is mine. When there is a conflict, where does Scripture point us? To the Church or to Scripture?

There is enough in scripture to refute the soundness of Catholic doctrine.

That is impossible. Personal, private, fallible interpretation of Scripture could erroneously refute the soundness of Catholic doctrine, as in your case.

Again, you’re premising your entire discourse here on an erroneous notion of my view regarding the primacy of scripture.

I thought it reasonable to assume since you are participating in a thread titled, “Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical.” Not to mention your name.

so what’s your point?

I was pointing out one of the problems with sola scriptura. I was applying the same rules you use in interpreting one passage to the passage I mentioned. This is what you get when you use scripture alone. One makes up his own rules according to his personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture.

Did I ever say Christians should be impatient? Did I ever say we should be anything but steadfast?

I never said you did. Maybe you need to re-read the entire post?

That’s a silly argument – classical red herring.

I would think most reading this thread would disagree with you. What I said is 100% related to this thread and this particular post. A red herring would be if I were to try and misdirect the thread by mentioning Mariology, Saintly Interecessory Prayer, venerating icons, works based righteousness, etc. (please see post #907.)

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The logical outcome of your postulation that Sacred Tradition and the decrees of popes and church councils are also a source of doctrine, is to say that scripture is imperfect and obscure and needs the RC Magisterium to interpret it. Scripture is not the norm of truth on your understanding.

That is not true. My understanding is that human interpretations and traditions about the meaning of Scripture are not the “norm of truth,” and these are what I see as dominating Protestantism through its subjectivist approach of Sola Scriptura.

The Scripture is absolutely all true, and so is the Sacred Tradition the apostles handed down from God to their successors, and so is the revelation of the Sacred Magesterium. These are complementary truths, all one and all mutually supporting. Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium together form one deposit of faith and reflect the Trinity in their roles and in their unity. None of them ever contradict the others. They always agree and they support one another in everything. They make clear the meaning of the revelation of God, rather than leaving humans to figure it out for themselves through their own readings (human traditions of interpretation) of the Bible.

I believe Christ Himself rejects such tradition of this kind as a source of theology and doctrine when He urges people to return to the CLEAR FOUNTAIN OF SCRIPTURE (see and please read carefully Luke 16:29 and Luke 24:27).

Goes and does so.
Luke 16:29:

Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’

We should listen to Moses and the prophets. All Christians, no matter where you look, are encouraged to read the Scripture and listen to it. However, does this verse say we are to listen to them alone?
"Luke 24:27:

Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them the things about Himself in all the scriptures.

Look at the verse you’ve given! It says itself that Jesus interpreted the Scripture to them- they were unable to correctly interpret it on their own. Is it any wonder, then, that He left for His Church a Magesterium inspired by the Spirit to lead the Church into all truth?

This verse does not say Jesus told them to treat as infallible Scripture alone. It does nothing for Sola Scriptura. In fact, it flatly contradicts the idea that the meanings of scripture are so obvious that anyone through personal reading will be able to come to all the right conclusions through it.

Sacred Tradition, therefore, is not infallible like scripture. Consequently, Sacred Tradition cannot be considered binding or authoritative in the church.

Actually, there are several passages that affirm the role of Sacred Tradition, just as I have shown you there are several that affirm the Papacy and Magesterium.
2 Thessalonians 2:15:

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

The Early Church taught the same about Sacred Tradition. They constantly affirmed full adherence to Scripture, Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium and the Seat of Peter, just as the Scripture itself does.

 

[onenow1]

.

I would think most reading this thread would disagree with you. What I said is 100% related to this thread and this particular post. A red herring would be if I were to try and misdirect the thread by mentioning Mariology, Saintly Interecessory Prayer, venerating icons, works based righteousness, etc.

oneow1, No arguement here.

 

[twb1621]

Hey – I can’t control what you think; but I can know you’re wrong, and you are.

Its not about what I think, it is about reading the scripture which I know you can do but wont acknowledge all of scripture. And if you place all these verses side by side you can’t honestly (other than saying I am wrong) show I am wrong.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

NO – GOD is my authority. Your look to the traditions of men! God alone, grace alone, His word alone – good enough for me but apparently not you.

Are you still hiding from this post?

You can admit that you don’t have an argument, then I’ll drop the subject. Otherwise, since you brought up intercession of the saints first, I think you should respond.

1. Those who have died in God’s good grace are alive and that these people are aware of what is happening on earth.
2. Those in heaven are concerned about what happens on earth.
3. That our prayers can be carried by intercessors to God.
4. That the prayers of the righteous are worth pursuing.

1)Those who have died in God’s good grace are alive and that these people aware of what is happening on earth.

Mark 12

Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God said to Moses,‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 27 So he is the God of the living, not the dead. You have made a serious error.”

In Heb 11, the achievements of the Old Testament saints are reviewed with an emphasis on their faith. It ends by stating that they had not yet received salvation:

39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Heb 12 starts like this:

1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.

I believe this makes the case that those who have died physically are still alive and that they are witnesses to what occurs on earth.

1. Those in heaven are concerned about what happens on earth.

Luke 15

7I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

1. That our prayers can be carried by intercessors to God.

Rev. 8

3Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne. 4The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel’s hand.

1. That the prayers of the righteous are worth pursuing.

James 5

The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results.

To summarize, Catholics, as well as several other faiths, believe that once we are alive in Christ we remain alive in Christ. We also believe that those in heaven are aware and concerned about those still on earth. For this reason, we seek their intercessions given that they have been deemed righteous, if, in fact, they are in

 

[twb1621]

Hmmm let’s see you want me to show you proof from the Catholic Churches own records that they are guilty of something? Boy talk about brain washed?

Let’s say I’m a prosecutor and I want to convict someone of a crime. I have pretty solid evidence against them but they say hey look I have produced documentation showing I’m innocent? Or they say you can’t find an admission of my guilt in any document I ever produced. What should I do?

Should I say OK I believe you, or should I laugh and toss the bum in jail? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say any prosecutor worth his salt is going with option two.

no you should say maybe its worth looking into more deeply to be sure. A prosecutor would not prosecute a case without the means and motive or physical proof to convict, nor would he base his case on personal feelings alone. And a suspect who is a suspect based on personal feelings alone and has an alibi would not be charged let alone convicted.

 

[twb1621]

The problem of course is even Catholics disagree over major theological issues. There is a wide divergence of theological views on central issues such as soteriology (which IMO is perhaps the most important sub-topic in theology). For instance there are different orders in the church, like the Jesuits and Benedictines, who have substantial disagreements regarding soteriology.

how so

 

[A_Sinner_1]

Sola_Scriptura wrote:

Popes who have committed such atrocities, to equate them with Peter is just disturbing (and I’m trying my best to be kind).

Lampo wrote:

Show me the Encyclical or Dogmatic Constitution any of them wrote, that stated that these activities are no longer to be considered sinful, including the phrase, "I declare and define … ".

Sola_Scriptura wrote:

Hmmm let’s see you want me to show you proof from the Catholic Churches own records that they are guilty of something? Boy talk about brain washed?

I agree that popes were sinners (St. Peter included), some more so than others. I will grant you for argument’s sake that popes committed atrocities. Now, where in an Encyclical or Dogmatic Constitution including the phrase, "I declare and define … " did a pope redefine sin to justify his actions?

 

[sola_scriptura]

no you should say maybe its worth looking into more deeply to be sure. A prosecutor would not prosecute a case without the means and motive or physical proof to convict, nor would he base his case on personal feelings alone. And a suspect who is a suspect based on personal feelings alone and has an alibi would not be charged let alone convicted.

we (protestants anyway) know certain doctrines are extremely problematic and do not enjoy apostolic support, we have irrefutable historical records showing the many poor (most would say bad) past practices of Rome, so that really is enough (I’m a lawyer I know).

We don’t really need motive. All we need is to show the act was committed by the person or entity in question & they had the requisite intent. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse when we look at intent either. For instance when Johann Tetzel was wrongfully charging money to free souls from purgatory all we need to show if he knew he was charging money to free souls from purgatory to have damnable intent.

Moreover, we also know Pope Leo X appointed him commissioner of indulgences for Germany, and we know he desperately needed funds to repay loans taken to rebuild St. Peter’s (I could also point out that this man was a Medici who was consecrated bishop at age 13 – but I won’t nit pick). So we even have motive.

Should I give documents produced by the accused consideration – obviously the accused is a biased party so anything they produce will carry little weight. This is equitable jurisprudence.

Now this is only one case – I can point to many others, but again it’s sort of fruitless (I’d rather discuss the merits of doctrine using what we know can be traced back to the apostles themselves rather than engage in mud slinging).

I simply think doctrine became adulterated through the ages by mistakes in exegesis, which permeated (and became magnified) because of the flawed concept of infallibility; and I am confident that I have an excellent case for that proposition.

 

[Lampo]

I simply think doctrine became adulterated through the ages by mistakes in exegesis, which permeated (and became magnified) because of the flawed concept of infallibility; and I am confident that I have an excellent case for that proposition.

You are entitled to think what you want. Jesus promised that His Church would be guided into all truth and that His Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth. If, like you say, doctrine became adulterated then Jesus lied. His Church couldn’t have the truth if her doctrines are corrupt. If they are corrupt, that means they are lies. The father of lies is Satan so that means the gates of Hell would have prevailed. I believe Jesus when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

 

[JMJ_coder]

God Himself taught it through Paul and Peter.

You still haven’t ‘proven’ that these verse teach sola scriptura - that is that there isn’t another mode for transmission of Revelation.

You seem to think (erroneously, but that is for another thread) that everyone became heretics ~late 2nd century. Please show in extra-biblical texts (since we obviously disagree on what the Scriptures are saying) that sola scriptura was the belief of the Church. There are plenty of writings from the Church Fathers prior to Saint Irenaeus to choose from. Please show that this is how the early Church operated. You have made the claim, it is up to you to prove it.

 

[distracted]

These SS people don’t use common sense. To me SS makes no sense at all! They think all truths comes from the Bible and we know that this is not so.

If that were so, there would have been no Christian truth on the Planet until the 1520s…

(by the way people act these days… you would think Christian truth had NEVER made it… )

 

[twb1621]

we (protestants anyway) know certain doctrines are extremely problematic and do not enjoy apostolic support, we have irrefutable historical records showing the many poor (most would say bad) past practices of Rome, so that really is enough (I’m a lawyer I know).Although you give general commentary this does not show support for flaws in doctrine, only corrupt individuals, which can and does happen in all faiths. This is also in the gospel and occurred within our Lord’s own disciples…

We don’t really need motive. All we need is to show the act was committed by the person or entity in question & they had the requisite intent. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse when we look at intent either. For instance when Johann Tetzel was wrongfully charging money to free souls from purgatory all we need to show if he knew he was charging money to free souls from purgatory to have damnable intent.?

Moreover, we also know Pope Leo X appointed him commissioner of indulgences for Germany, and we know he desperately needed funds to repay loans taken to rebuild St. Peter’s (I could also point out that this man was a Medici who was consecrated bishop at age 13 – but I won’t nit pick). So we even have motive.

Should I give documents produced by the accused consideration – obviously the accused is a biased party so anything they produce will carry little weight. This is equitable jurisprudence.

Now this is only one case – I can point to many others, but again it’s sort of fruitless (I’d rather discuss the merits of doctrine using what we know can be traced back to the apostles themselves rather than engage in mud slinging).

I simply think doctrine became adulterated through the ages by mistakes in exegesis, which permeated (and became magnified) because of the flawed concept of infallibility; and I am confident that I have an excellent case for that proposition.

 

[A_Sinner_1]

Sola_Scriptura wrote:

I’m a lawyer I know

As a lawyer, it might be helpful to you to compare the development of the Church Magisterium (inspired) over 2000 years versus the development of United States Constitutional law (uninspired) over 200 years.

 

[twb1621]

we (protestants anyway) know certain doctrines are extremely problematic and do not enjoy apostolic support, we have irrefutable historical records showing the many poor (most would say bad) past practices of Rome, so that really is enough (I’m a lawyer I know).Although you give general commentary this does not show support for flaws in doctrine, only corrupt individuals, which can and does happen in all faiths. This is also in the gospel and occurred within our Lord’s own disciples…

We don’t really need motive. All we need is to show the act was committed by the person or entity in question & they had the requisite intent. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse when we look at intent either. For instance when Johann Tetzel was wrongfully charging money to free souls from purgatory all we need to show if he knew he was charging money to free souls from purgatory to have damnable intent.Well for a legitimate case you seek to prove motive and wasn’t intent one of the essentials I said was needed?? I agree as far as ignorance of the law is concerned although for a mortal or grievous sin to exist, knowledge that it is a sin must be present…

Moreover, we also know Pope Leo X appointed him commissioner of indulgences for Germany, and we know he desperately needed funds to repay loans taken to rebuild St. Peter’s (I could also point out that this man was a Medici who was consecrated bishop at age 13 – but I won’t nit pick). So we even have motive. again, such an act does not show support for flaws in doctrine, nor does it fall under infallibility, , only corrupt individuals, which can and does happen in all faiths. This is also in the gospel and occurred within our Lord’s own disciples

Should I give documents produced by the accused consideration – obviously the accused is a biased party so anything they produce will carry little weight. This is equitable jurisprudence. But it would be dangerous not to mention negligent to any case to ignore evidence (which if documented would then be physical evidence) that could be considered of a defense for the accused. And if it is a defense, how so?.

Now this is only one case – I can point to many others, but again it’s sort of fruitless (I’d rather discuss the merits of doctrine using what we know can be traced back to the apostles themselves rather than engage in mud slinging). as would I. As said before, does not show support for flaws in doctrine

I simply think doctrine became adulterated through the ages by mistakes in exegesis, which permeated (and became magnified) because of the flawed concept of infallibility; and I am confident that I have an excellent case for that proposition.

Doctrine has never changed. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be most interested to hear it. So far, you have only raised the point that man can be corrupt which no one disputes.

In closing, and to be clear, no accusations are made in regard to anyone in these forums, I have been in the back room during many case negotiations between various attorneys and at times in the presence of judges in regard to both criminal and civil cases and I know “agreements/settlements/plea bargains” are often made to the detriment of the client/victim/defendant instead of their best interests so corruption comes in many forms and all positions at some point or other.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hey Sola, where are you hiding?

You can admit that you don’t have an argument, then I’ll drop the subject. Otherwise, since you brought up intercession of the saints first, I think you should respond.

1. Those who have died in God’s good grace are alive and that these people are aware of what is happening on earth.
2. Those in heaven are concerned about what happens on earth.
3. That our prayers can be carried by intercessors to God.
4. That the prayers of the righteous are worth pursuing.

1)Those who have died in God’s good grace are alive and that these people aware of what is happening on earth.

Mark 12

Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God said to Moses,‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 27 So he is the God of the living, not the dead. You have made a serious error.”

In Heb 11, the achievements of the Old Testament saints are reviewed with an emphasis on their faith. It ends by stating that they had not yet received salvation:

39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Heb 12 starts like this:

1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.

I believe this makes the case that those who have died physically are still alive and that they are witnesses to what occurs on earth.

1. Those in heaven are concerned about what happens on earth.

Luke 15

7I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

1. That our prayers can be carried by intercessors to God.

Rev. 8

3Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne. 4The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel’s hand.

1. That the prayers of the righteous are worth pursuing.

James 5

The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results.

To summarize, Catholics, as well as several other faiths, believe that once we are alive in Christ we remain alive in Christ. We also believe that those in heaven are aware and concerned about those still on earth. For this reason, we seek their intercessions given that they have been deemed righteous, if, in fact, they are in

 

[Lampo]

Sola_Scriptura wrote:

As a lawyer, it might be helpful to you to compare the development of the Church Magisterium (inspired) over 2000 years versus the development of United States Constitutional law (uninspired) over 200 years.

Excellent point! Is the Constitution up for individual, private interpretation or is there some entity that interprets the Constitution? We recognize the importance of proper interpretation of the Constitution and give that duty to the courts. Jesus knew the importance of proper interpretation of the Scriptures and that is why He established a teaching Magisterium.

 

[PJM]

Are all church councils of the Holy Spirit?

Reply:

I’m not entirely sure that I understand your question. But if your asking if "all RCC, Church Councils are inspired and their truth assured, then the answer has to be yes/COLOR] Reference Mt 16:18

A RCC, official Council is “The Catholic Magistrium,” consisting of the Bisjop of Rome, i.e. our Pope, and the community of Bishops that are “in communion” with the Pope.

Church Councils that proclaim in all matter s of Faith and or Morals" and intended for the World Wide RCC, are defacto: infallible.

God’s continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.