Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[tGette]

Where does the Bible say it is the ONLY authority. I agree 100% with the verses you quoted saying it is useful, but it never claims to be the ONLY useful thing.

I sometimes think people believe that all that is mentioned about Jesus in the Bible is all that happened to Him and all He ever said. Obviously you know this to not be true because you apparently know the Bible and know that the Bible tells us that not everything Jesus taught or did could be contained in all the books of the world.

So…in order for me to believe Sola Scriptura…I need to know where the Bible tells us that it is the ONLY thing we should use. That I should limit my Christianity to that of the pages of this Book.

Thanks!
Peace

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Do you not think Jesus knew which books He wanted in the NT?

What do you think He meant when He said:

John 16:13-14
" When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

Who was Jesus addressing?

His disciples, or the world?

If we keep reading in John it is clear that there is a distinction between promises made to his disciples and the rest of us:

John 17

14I have given them(who is them?) your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify** them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those(This is us!) who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.**

 

[Zooey]

SIA:

Mary could not be without sin because of he own admission of her stating, “my God and my Saviour.”

You seem to be a wee bithttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/3.gif forgetful tonight, yean. Did ye uch:nae recall that we ha’e explained to ye, again & again, that He saved her from sin??? He didn’t wait for her to fall into sin before He did it,you see; He did it:aok: in advance.
Its a verra:nerd: simple concept, laddie. I :shrug:cannae see how ye ha’e so much trouble with it… :nope:

 

[SIA]

You seem to be a wee bithttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/3.gif forgetful tonight, yean. Did ye uch:nae recall that we ha’e explained to ye, again & again, that He saved her from sin??? He didn’t wait for her to fall into sin before He did it,you see; He did it:aok: in advance.
Its a verra:nerd: simple concept, laddie. I :shrug:cannae see how ye ha’e so much trouble with it… :nope:

And where does it tell us that in the Bible because I must have missed those verses altogether.

 

[justasking4]

You seem to be a wee bithttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/3.gif forgetful tonight, yean. Did ye uch:nae recall that we ha’e explained to ye, again & again, that He saved her from sin??? He didn’t wait for her to fall into sin before He did it,you see; He did it:aok: in advance.
Its a verra:nerd: simple concept, laddie. I :shrug:cannae see how ye ha’e so much trouble with it… :nope:

It may be a simple concept but its speculation. There is no evidence for it.

 

[RobHom]

We have been here many times before.

Yes, and it seems that it is an “obsession” with you to bring it and one other subject up redundantly.

Mary could not be without sin because of he own admission of her stating, “my God and my Saviour.” Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that she couldn’t have been without sin because of this in Scripture.

This wording is specious “proof”. So Aquinas had a different opinion than many others. What places his words above those of others?

And again, Scripture never says anything about her being assumed into Heaven body and spirit, nothing.

And scriptures do not tell us about a whole raft of things…like a whole herd of “solas” loosed on the planet by heretics. Not to mention a few other things…

And we could get into the whole debate about Jesus’ brothers and sisters here by why when there are other threads to deal with that.

And that whole issue is wrought by you guys…simply because you refuse to accept facts. You want the bible, your bible with a small b, to support you based on your “interpretations”…not only of scripture but the original languages as well. Ancient Hebrew Araimic had no word for “cousins” because the word is “Latin” in origin. Ancient Hebrew and Aramic used the word “brother” as a term to identify those who were close…even to the tribal level.

genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DBY/NamesPersonal/Cousin.html

**The origin of the word is from the Latin “consobrinus” which, in turn, was built up on “soror” meaning “sister” - hence “sorority”. It is not, as it might appear, based on “consanguineus” - i.e. consanguinity. Mediaeval Society, following the Latin tradition, applied it to any member of a family beyond brothers and sisters, who was related through a Mother, and it was, in fact, frequently used to describe relatives whom we would now call nephews and nieces. Where it was really necessary clearly to designate a child as actually being the off-spring of an uncle or an aunt, the expression “German Cousin” came into being. Otherwise it may be taken that reference in Mediaeval writings to a person being a “cousin” to somebody else, signify that only some degree of relationship was acknowledged but without precision. **

Anyhow, much in the Bible speaks to Mary not being perpetually virgin

Be so kind as to “provide proofs” of this “much that the Bible speaks to”. Or is this another of your fallacious allegations which you cannot support?

There is nothing there to make us assume that she didn’t have a normal marriage with her husband.

And there is absolutely nothing that makes anyone assume that she did have a “normal” marriage with Joseph.

There is nothing sinful abut having sex with your spouse.

Really? It appears you have one thing right.

And then all of the titles given to Mary by the RCC do contradict Scripture. They raise her to the level of divinity with Christ.

Again you express your unsupported opinion or are repeating the opinion of someone else who cannot support the claims you make.

Jesus said that nobody enters onto the Father except through me, yet Catholicism calls Mary co-redemptrix. Not possible.

While Christ did in fact say that, you fail to grasp the significance of the concept of Mary being co-redemptrix. Your failure, not the Church’s.

We can go on, but those are a few.

And no doubt you will with your unsupported attacks against something you do not understand or want to understand.

 

[RobHom]

And where does it tell us that in the Bible because I must have missed those verses altogether.

So long as you and your partners continue to ascribe to only what is printed between the covers of your “bibles” you will never see or understand it.

You continue to lean on a post planted in quicksand…sola scriptura is not biblical…its a man-made contrivance of one thoroughly mad individual who was sitting on a toilet when he conjured it up.

 

[SIA]

Yes, and it seems that it is an “obsession” with you to bring it and one other subject up redundantly.

This wording is specious “proof”. So Aquinas had a different opinion than many others. What places his words above those of others?

And scriptures do not tell us about a whole raft of things…like a whole herd of “solas” loosed on the planet by heretics. Not to mention a few other things…

And that whole issue is wrought by you guys…simply because you refuse to accept facts. You want the bible, your bible with a small b, to support you based on your “interpretations”…not only of scripture but the original languages as well. Ancient Hebrew Araimic had no word for “cousins” because the word is “Latin” in origin. Ancient Hebrew and Aramic used the word “brother” as a term to identify those who were close…even to the tribal level.

genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DBY/NamesPersonal/Cousin.html

**The origin of the word is from the Latin “consobrinus” which, in turn, was built up on “soror” meaning “sister” - hence “sorority”. It is not, as it might appear, based on “consanguineus” - i.e. consanguinity. Mediaeval Society, following the Latin tradition, applied it to any member of a family beyond brothers and sisters, who was related through a Mother, and it was, in fact, frequently used to describe relatives whom we would now call nephews and nieces. Where it was really necessary clearly to designate a child as actually being the off-spring of an uncle or an aunt, the expression “German Cousin” came into being. Otherwise it may be taken that reference in Mediaeval writings to a person being a “cousin” to somebody else, signify that only some degree of relationship was acknowledged but without precision. **

Be so kind as to “provide proofs” of this “much that the Bible speaks to”. Or is this another of your fallacious allegations which you cannot support?

And there is absolutely nothing that makes anyone assume that she did have a “normal” marriage with Joseph.

Really? It appears you have one thing right.

Again you express your unsupported opinion or are repeating the opinion of someone else who cannot support the claims you make.

While Christ did in fact say that, you fail to grasp the significance of the concept of Mary being co-redemptrix. Your failure, not the Church’s.

And no doubt you will with your unsupported attacks against something you do not understand or want to understand.

You are not refuting anything here Rob, you are just dancing around in circles. Your responses are thin. The Bible is clear and you just don’t want to put the Word of God in front of what your church says on the matter. I would be looking very closely upon where the truth is there. Your soul depends upon it.

 

[tGette]

Since the Bible is so clear about everything! Please, someone help me figure this out:

Originally Posted by tGette forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
*Where does the Bible say it is the ONLY authority. I agree 100% with the verses you quoted saying it is useful, but it never claims to be the ONLY useful thing.

I sometimes think people believe that all that is mentioned about Jesus in the Bible is all that happened to Him and all He ever said. Obviously you know this to not be true because you apparently know the Bible and know that the Bible tells us that not everything Jesus taught or did could be contained in all the books of the world.

So…in order for me to believe Sola Scriptura…I need to know where the Bible tells us that it is the ONLY thing we should use. That I should limit my Christianity to that of the pages of this Book.

Thanks!
Peace*

 

[adstrinity]

Do you not think Jesus knew which books He wanted in the NT?

What do you think He meant when He said:

John 16:13-14
" When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

I am not convinced. I shall elabourate when I am at a computer.

 

[Reformed]

Since the Bible is so clear about everything! Please, someone help me figure this out:

Oh… the Bible is not clear about everything. This is intentional. Why do you think Jesus spoke in parable?

 

[tGette]

Oh… the Bible is not clear about everything. This is intentional. Why do you think Jesus spoke in parable?

So then shouldn’t things be clear?

Or did Jesus not do a good enough job?

 

[SIA]

So then shouldn’t things be clear?

Or did Jesus not do a good enough job?

I think it has more to do with our vast limitations to understand who God is.

 

[RobHom]

You are not refuting anything here Rob, you are just dancing around in circles.

I have no need to refute anything. It is you who bears that burden, not I. I just explained the fallacies in your beliefs. You refuse to accept truth and facts, which paints you poorly. No need for me to dance…I just watch you do it, poorly at that.

Your responses are thin. The Bible is clear and you just don’t want to put the Word of God in front of what your church says on the matter. I would be looking very closely upon where the truth is there. Your soul depends upon it.

My response was quite solid. Its the board in your eye that blocks your vision… Stop worrying about me, concern yourself with your own affairs. My Church is built on the word of God, not on the affairs of a King who wanted divorces. The “Truth” is what we hold dearly…the very one that you are unable to see or grasp.

I will pray for your soul and ask God to forgive you for wrongly judging many people.

 

[SIA]

I have no need to refute anything. It is you who bears that burden, not I. I just explained the fallacies in your beliefs. You refuse to accept truth and facts, which paints you poorly. No need for me to dance…I just watch you do it, poorly at that.

My response was quite solid. Its the board in your eye that blocks your vision… Stop worrying about me, concern yourself with your own affairs. My Church is built on the word of God, not on the affairs of a King who wanted divorces. The “Truth” is what we hold dearly…the very one that you are unable to see or grasp.

I will pray for your soul and ask God to forgive you for wrongly judging many people.

Pray for yourself as will I.

 

[Zooey]

So long as you and your partners continue to ascribe to only what is printed between the covers of your “bibles” you will never see or understand it.

:sad_yes:

 

[tGette]

Pray for yourself as will I.

Why don’t we all just stop right now and pray for each other.

Let us not say we will pray for each other (either as some condescending, self-righteous remark, or as a procrastinated promise).

I mean it.

STOP RIGHT NOW!

AND

PRAY! PRAY! PRAY!

Not before you go to bed tonight…now! Even if briefly!

We all need to!

 

[guanophore]

We have been here many times before. Mary could not be without sin because of he own admission of her stating, “my God and my Saviour.”

Whether God saved her at conception, birth, or the coming of the angel, she was still saved. None of that presupposes that she sinned.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that she couldn’t have been without sin because of this in Scripture.

Does this mean you will accept the rest of the teachings of Aquinas?

And again, Scripture never says anything about her being assumed into Heaven body and spirit, nothing.

Well, we read it differently.

Do yoiu realize that she was assumed after the majority of the scripture was written?

And we could get into the whole debate about Jesus’ brothers and sisters here by why when there are other threads to deal with that.

Bring it on!

Anyhow, much in the Bible speaks to Mary not being perpetually virgin.

No. But I can understand why it would seem this way for someone who is separated from the Apostolic Tradition.

There is nothing there to make us assume that she didn’t have a normal marriage with her husband.

Is your doctrine based upon what you can “assume”?

There is nothing sinful abut having sex with your spouse.

This is true. This is also why we call Mary the spouse of the Holyl Spirit. The HS overshadowed her, and she became with child.

And then all of the titles given to Mary by the RCC do contradict Scripture.

Post some, and let’s see. Also, please include the other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church that are not Roman, and the Orthodox titles also.

For some reason you think this is “Roman” and not Apostolic.

They raise her to the level of divinity with Christ.

No, SIA, we do not. This is either a reflection of gross ignorance of the Catholic faith, or a baldfaced lie, I can’t tell which.

Jesus said that nobody enters onto the Father except through me, yet Catholicism calls Mary co-redemptrix. Not possible.

News flash:

Mark 10:27
“For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”

We can go on, but those are a few.

Please, by all means, go on. Clearly it is necessary to bring false accusations, since you are apparently unable to support the false assertion made in the title of the thread.

 

[guanophore]

You are not refuting anything here, you are just dancing around in circles. Your responses are thin. The Bible is clear and you just don’t want to put the Word of God in front of what your church says on the matter. I would be looking very closely upon where the truth is there. Your soul depends upon it.

You are right. There is no need or propriety to put the Word of God “in front of” what the Church says on the matter. Since they both come from the same Source, we know that there is no contradiction between the two.

I agree that the soul depends upon this, since Jesus empowered the Church with authority, and those who do not listen, are not listening to Christ.

 

[Gara3987]

Hello Friends,

“It is written”…

(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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:15-17

(18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
(19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
(20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
(21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:18-21

Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

You have the freedom of conscience.
“I receive not honor from men.” John 5:41

If, I repeat if you support freedom of conscience and that of choice, allow the following link to remain, and people to look for themselves. If Catholicism is truth then allow it to be compared.

amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Media-RtR-Video.html

“Here I stand I can do no other.” Martin Luther

If you do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the following statement from New York Catechism is simple to swallow.

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of the Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the found of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism

God help us when a man places himself above the " Holy One of Israel," Jesus Christ alone is salvation found in.

Righteousness by faith

Galatians 5:5-6
(5) For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
(6) For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10

[Emphasis of bold added, to make clear Jesus Christ alone is salvation in and no other]

amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Media-RtR-Video.html

Search for yourselves, Jesus Christ wants so much to have a personal relationship with you.

The Scriptures do not teach Sola Scriptura, in fact if you read it carefully the Scripture speaks about Tradition as well:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (II Thess. II, XIV)

you could also look up (Matth. 15:2, 3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; Luke 1:2; Acts 16:4; 1Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:3; 1Ptr. 1:18; 2Ptr. 2:21.)

The Scriptures are not complete: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (John 21, 25)

So I guess as far as you would be concerned everything that is not in the Scriptures -(John 21, 25) which would be Tradition- is unimportant to you. At any rate it is impossible for one to understand the Holy Scriptures correctly without the Holy Ghost to guide them, this is one reason why Christ founded His Church in the first place (Matth 16: 15-19) to teach the Holy Scriptures (1 Tim. 3, 15) for the Holy Ghost is with the Roman Catholic Church (Acts 20, 28). If Scriptures are clear to understand, why did Martin Luther and his imitators make new catechisms of Christian doctrine? Why do they fill the libraries with innumerable books of interpretations, explanations and commentaries? Above all, why have they any churches, where the Scriptures are explained, if the Scriptures are sufficient? And if there should be a church, why so many churches, of so many denominations, in every city and in every town? If there is a clear statement that in the Scriptures which all Christians should endeavor to put into execution, it is certainly the desire which Christ expressed in His prayer to the Eternal Father on the eve of His Passion and Death, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17, 21). What else do such words mean than that all Christ’s followers should first of all have the same faith?—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4, 5).