Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[onenow1]

Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical; This is a Lie proven many times over. Provide evidence from the Scriptura proving that Sola Scriptura theology is absolutely biblical. Please provide the biblica verse that states such a deception.

Those who believe in Sola Scriptura, have no authority to lay claim too but every wind of doctrine invented by man himself, Sola Scripturalist brings a changing gospel in every age since it inception. The proof is in your Sola Scriptura history of faith. Research your own Sola Scriptura faith and you will find that it has changed since Martin Luther invented it. Sola Scriptura has been the worst man made doctrine to invade Christianity since the Arain heresy, only because Sola Scriptura and the free world thinkers allowed it to survive longer than any other hersey that infected the people of God, and his Catholic church.

The one who falls for the Sola Scriptura man made theology, makes themself to be a false god to protest the living God who never made sola scriptura worthy of faith. Sola Scriptura are on their own to believe as the deciever pleases them to believe, this confirms the many different protestant and non catholic christian belief’s which comes from this Sola Scriptura new invention.

onenow1,

The evidence is there but not everyone investigates !

 

[tGette]

Sola Scriptura = Irony

The concept of Sola Scriptura is ironic.

Did I need to say it twice?

 

[onenow1]

Sola Scriptura = Irony

The concept of Sola Scriptura is ironic.

Did I need to say it twice?

O Holy Spirit, who comes from the Love of the
Father and Son…through Mary, our Mother:
May God’s will be done unto us all!
Amen, Amen!

This prayer says it all.

Thanks, onenow1

 

[justasking4]

Sola Scriptura = Irony

The concept of Sola Scriptura is ironic.

Did I need to say it twice?

You defintion of Sola Scriptura is what?

 

[guanophore]

I must, respectfully, disagree here with your answer. I cannot concede that Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equally authoritative, inspired and inerrant sources of divine truth. My conscience simply will not allow me to concede this.

The word of God, inspired, infallible and inerrant in the original autographs, is the only norm of doctrine. Please consider this - if the Magisterium interprets inerrant scripture, then it is not above or even EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE is it?

It is not the interpretation of Scripture that makes the Magesterium infallible, but the HS.

Please turn to Acts 17:11 and read the verses there very carefully. The Bereans are commended for examining all doctrine according to the rule of scripture alone and for judging doctrine from no other point of view than from scripture alone.

No, the Bereans were commended because they received the Aposotlic instruction with openness.

Acts 17:11-12
" These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica,** for they welcomed the message very eagerly** and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so."

The gospel is to be received from the Apostles with eagerness. The Apostolic instruction is even greater than the scriptures they had (the OT) because Christ is a far better covenant.

The Jews have never been “sola scriptura”. The scriptures are important, and essential, but they are never to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

As much as I respect Catholics who practise their faith - and I most surely do - it is on this foundational principle of ‘scripture alone’ that prevents me from becoming a full Catholic or converting to Roman Catholicism myself.

I believe that you are sincere.

Think what it would do to me, hypothetically speaking, dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Roman Catholicism would ask of me to accept the Magisterium’s list of dogma and theological pronouncements without question. This I could not do.

The Church does not ask that you not “question”. Of course you must study, to show yourself approved. You are obligated by your conscience to thoroughly examine everything. The part that is missing, what the Bereans had that you don’t, is that you are resistant to the Apostolic instruction. You have approached the examination with a recalcitrant attitude from the start.

Many of us continue to have areas of problems with the faith. What the Church asks us to do is to approach in faith and trust, and believe that God will bring our doubts into faith, just as He did for Thomas.

You see, in Acts 17:11 all is subordinate to scripture; the judgment of scripture is the judgment of God. This is my position.

I am sorry, but Paul was bringing a new message that could only be found in it’s shadow form in the Scripture. The gospel was preached because that is how Jesus designed it to be delivered. The teaching authority was committed to persons, not to the text.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Craig, did my answer to your question about why the Church hasn’t made a massive infallible commentary on the Bible make sense to you, in view of Jesus’ words in the Gospels, the Magesterium’s authority in Acts, and the development of the Old Testament over time?

That was a limited question you asked, but it was a barrier between you and the Church, so I hope you understand and accept the explanation, even though you still believe in Luther’s Sola Scriptura.

Hi Lief,

Thank you for your post.

I have read this with interest. You have not, of course, convinced me against the sola scriptura principle.

I do enjoy your posts. You write with clarity and thoroughness; and I have profited from what you have written on this forum. We share a lot of common ground; there are some significant differences between us too.

Please ponder this statement of mine, brother in Christ:

I do not believe in scripture because of the church but because of its own internal testimony that it is the voice of God.

This is the essence of my belief in sola scriptura.

Please ponder this too, my friend . While the scripture repeatedly affirms that “scripture” is of great value for the soul, should be dwelt on and cannot be broken, only one of the books of the New Testament declares itself to be scripture: The Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:18-19). None of the other books of the New Testament – and I don’t know of any from the Old Testament that do this either – claim to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God.

They make statements about the value of the Word of God and the books of the scripture, but never say which books belong in scripture.

Therefore your belief in the scripture is not the result of its own internal testimony. For there is no list of the true books of the scripture in the scripture itself. So your belief that these are the right books that should be in the Bible comes from the Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” from the Early Church councils that selected the canon (Hippo, Carthage and Rome), not from the scripture.

By the way, Lief, replies to your posts 932, 933 and 937 are on their way.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

Great!

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Again I ask, if sola scriptura was the practice of the early Church, where is the extra-biblical evidence (since we obviously disagree on Scriptures) that they taught and practiced sola scriptura. Where are the writings of the Church Fathers or Church Councils that teach sola scriptura? Surely they must have mentioned sola scriptura in the Council that defined the Canon of Scripture - is it in their texts?

It is not necessary for sola scriptura, per se, to be spelled out with absolute clarity in the Church Fathers.

You see, you take the position that the Church Fathers are pivotal in defining all doctrines. I do not.

You take the position that the Church Fathers are inspired, infallible and inerrant in their writings. I do not.

I think there are things of value in the Church Fathers but I do not, for a single moment, take their writings to be all sufficient or all defining. This, obviously and surely, is a significant difference between us.

The early Church lived in the Berean spirit and then later on sola scriptura was more precisely defined, theologically speaking.

 

[JMJ_coder]

It is not necessary for sola scriptura, per se, to be spelled out with absolute clarity in the Church Fathers.

You see, you take the position that the Church Fathers are pivotal in defining all doctrines. I do not.

You take the position that the Church Fathers are inspired, infallible and inerrant in their writings. I do not.

I think there are things of value in the Church Fathers but I do not, for a single moment, take their writings to be all sufficient or all defining. This, obviously and surely, is a significant difference between us.

The early Church lived in the Berean spirit and then later on sola scriptura was more precisely defined, theologically speaking.

I’m not talking about them being inerrant. If, as you claim, that sola scriptura is the truth, and the early Church had the truth before being corrupted until the Reformation - then there must be some evidence in the early Church (outside of Scripture, which we disagree on) to support sola scriptura. If there isn’t, then how can you claim that sola scriptura is the way that the early Church believed?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I do not believe in SS so maybe that is why I do not understand this statement. What do you mean internal testimony, is that what you think or feel Scripture is telling you? Can you clarify a bit more.

Thanks.

Happy to oblige!

What I mean to say is this, as a person who is convinced of the sola scriptura principle:

I believe that the scriptures are the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant word of God as penned in the original manuscripts. I do not believe this because the Church tells me that this is so. This is a spirit-wrought conviction about the nature and authority of the scripture writings themselves.

The very nature and character of scripture points to an intrinsic and objective clarity of its words and sense.

The very voice of God speaking in and through the scriptures points to a dynamic property that illumines our understanding and leads us to Christ. Scripture itself does this! There is no mention of a certain Magisterium interpreting the meaning of scripture for us. God Himself teaches us through the scriptures; God Himself speaks to us through the scriptures; God Himself illumines us through the scriptures.

Scripture is the supreme standard of truth, standing OVER - never BESIDE - Sacred Tradition and all human opinions, philosophies and church councils.

Sola scriptura!

 

[CWBetts]

Why can’t anyone admit that sola scriotura can’t be found in scripture?

 

[tGette]

You defintion of Sola Scriptura is what?

I don’t know…there are so many.

Which one do you adhere to?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The Quran also makes the same claim in internal testimony that it is the voice of God (actually much more forcefully than the Bible does). So why do you not believe that book?

I do not, obviously, believe the Quran because its claims are false. It is not inspired, infallible or inerrant.

The Bible, however, is consistent with its own internal claims that it is - indeed - the word of God written. Its inner consistency is seen in the sublime contents of its writings, its supernaturalness, its miracles and its unerring accuracy.

Scripture speaks of itself as a light and a lamp. I want you to read and study these scriptures, that substantiate this claim:

Proverbs 6:23; Psalm 19:8; Psalm 119:105.

Also, 2 Peter 1:19 is at pains to declare that scripture enlightens the minds of humans.

Only scripture enlightens human minds - not Sacred Tradition or the Roman Catholic Magisterium. Scripture alone is our divine light and lamp.

Sola scriptura!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You defintion of Sola Scriptura is what?

Sola “I” believe what I want to believe. Jesus built a church not a body of individuals to believe as they feel. God has always left a teaching authority on earth to teach his commands and feed his people see Jesus speaking to Peter on the beach after the resurrection in Johns Gospel 21:15-23. One cannot have a Sola Scriptura without a teaching authority to teach it, so in reality, Sola Scriptura is a false pretense to free oneself from God’s authority on earth, to become their own god.

The holy Spirit cannot lie nor be decieved, not to mention contradict. So to believe one interprets Sacred Scripture by the Holy Spirit on his own, leads to the many contradictions of the many Sola Scriptura protestant and non catholic denominations. This division of so many different Holy Spirit individual Sola Scripturalists contradicts making Sola Scriptura a deception, because Truth does not conrtadict, change or decieve.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Only scripture enlightens human minds - not Sacred Tradition or the Roman Catholic Magisterium. Scripture alone is our divine light and lamp.

Obviously you are very unfamiliar with Sacred Tradition.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I do not, obviously, believe the Quran because its claims are false. It is not inspired, infallible or inerrant.

How do you know? How are you certain that the Bible’s claims are true and the Quran’s are false. Muslims all think of the Quran as you do of the Bible - it claims to be the word of God and it uplifts them spiritually.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Why can’t anyone admit that sola scriotura can’t be found in scripture?

I, too, am still waiting to see the scriptural “proof” for sola scriptura.

Please give the biblical verses that teach Scripture alone. All I have seen is that Scripture is inspired, edifying, etc. - well, we all agree on that. But, I haven’t seen the verses that say that only Scripture is these things.

On the contrary, we have provided the biblical evidence that shows that there are oral traditions, and a teaching authority.

See (again):

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical; This is a Lie proven many times over. Provide evidence from the Scriptura proving that Sola Scriptura theology is absolutely biblical. Please provide the biblica verse that states such a deception.

Those who believe in Sola Scriptura, have no authority to lay claim too but every wind of doctrine invented by man himself, Sola Scripturalist brings a changing gospel in every age since it inception. The proof is in your Sola Scriptura history of faith. Research your own Sola Scriptura faith and you will find that it has changed since Martin Luther invented it. Sola Scriptura has been the worst man made doctrine to invade Christianity since the Arain heresy, only because Sola Scriptura and the free world thinkers allowed it to survive longer than any other hersey that infected the people of God, and his Catholic church.

The one who falls for the Sola Scriptura man made theology, makes themself to be a false god to protest the living God who never made sola scriptura worthy of faith. Sola Scriptura are on their own to believe as the deciever pleases them to believe, this confirms the many different protestant and non catholic christian belief’s which comes from this Sola Scriptura new invention.

The burden of proof and evidence also lies with you - namely to prove that:

Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equally inspired, authoritative and inerrant sources of divine truth.

The reason why I reject these claims, is not out of any motive or need to do so. I have no agenda, I have no axe to grind with Catholics who I surely believe are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

The most important thing in this discussion is not to try to “outdo an opponent”. You see, true and genuine Catholics who practise the faith are not my opponents; they are fellow believers who take up their cross with me and follow Christ.

The point of this discussion is the truth. I remain convinced, on this issue, that sola scriptura is the truth. This truth did not originate with Martin Luther; it is as old as the apostolic church.

Sola scriptura brings forth wisdom and understanding. Please read and study here Psalm 19:7 and 2 Timothy 3:15.

Sola scriptura reveals hidden mysteries - please see Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:9; Colossians 1:26-27.

Scripture functions as a light that is clear.

Sola scriptura!

 

[JMJ_coder]

Scripture functions as a light that is clear.

If Scripture is soooooo clear, why can’t thousands of different of Protestant denominations agree on even fundamental doctrines? They all claim to be sola scripturists, and all claim to be under the guidance of the Holy Spiirit, and they all come to differing conclusions.

Sola scripturists accept the inspiration of Scripture, but they fail to realize that they have been handed this Tradition from the Catholic Church.

 

[onenow1]

The burden of proof and evidence also lies with you - namely to prove that:

The point of this discussion is the truth. I remain convinced, on this issue, that sola scriptura is the truth. This truth did not originate with Martin Luther; it is as old as the apostolic church.

onenow1, could you point to the originator of scripture alone or SS? It would be helpful .

peace, one now1

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Sola Scriptura = Irony

The concept of Sola Scriptura is ironic.

Did I need to say it twice?

I disagree thst sola scripture is ironic. To say that sola scripture is incongruous you are saying that it is inconsistent; this statement I reject.

I have been at pains to show you what the nature and authority of scripture is like; and that its internal testimony - far from being incongruous or ironic - is consistent, beaming forth the light of God.

The purpose of scripture is to bring humans to eternal life. Please read here John 20:31 and Romans 15:4 which support my claims.

Scripture functions as a light that is clear. How could this be ironic?

The Catholic claim that Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equally inerrant authorities for divine truth is not clear or consistent. This is why I reject this concept.

It is because scripture functions as a light that is clear that I hold, with conviction, that sola scriptura is the truth on this issue.