Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[buffgbob]

I find this fascinating. How could the Bible have in it Sola Scriptura if not through prophecy? As to say, “You will write a book and it will contain no error.” Or at least, “I am writing this book and it contains no error.”

The fact of the matter is, whatever you pervert the Gospels to mean, they couldn’t have been talking about the Bible because it didn’t exist. The fact is, Biblical infallibility is completely dependent on Church infallibility (logically speaking, not inherent due to source.)

If in the year 400 someone would have said some nonsense like this people would have looked at them like they were insane. So you accept the book as infallible (which is a fundamental teaching of the Church) but not the Church that gave us the book? That’s nutty. That’s like if Scientologists were to write a book and for me to say, “I think this Scientology book (which they claim is infallible) is infallible, but that Scientology Church; that’s filled with errors.”

The rest of the “proof” I’ve seen from Scripture is weak anyway. It completely ignores instructions given to the people of the Church to hold fast to what was written and unwritten. Therefore, even if Scripture showed Scripture to be infallible (reiterating it is Catholic dogma); Sola Scriptura is still not proven.

Sola Scriptura means only Scripture. That idea is not only not in Scripture (self contradicting) but unpractical and unreasonable. Why would leaders of a Church that they understood Christ instituted write articles to members of that Church condemning that very Church and placing the Bible above it? It doesn’t make sense at all. And only if the Bible were to show something that paralleled that could Sola Scriptura even be something to be considered.

Sola Scriptura is made out of necessity to rationalize Protestant’s existence of differing faith to that of Christ and His Church. This is demonstrable from that this idea never existed prior to it being invented over 1500 years after Christ’s apostles spread the truth. And the million other ways clear falsehoods are eventually shown to be untrue.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

True. It was just to the immediate disciples.

This is the function of a healthy church but this has not always been true.

It is a promise of Jesus and I believe it is and has always been true.

Do you think the Holy Spirit failed?

If so, when did this failure occur?

 

[justasking4]

CHESTERTONRULES;4292704]
Originally Posted by justasking4
True. It was just to the immediate disciples.

This is the function of a healthy church but this has not always been true.

CHESTERTONRULES
It is a promise of Jesus and I believe it is and has always been true.

It was true only to the disciples since that is what He promised them.

Do you think the Holy Spirit failed?

No but men do.

If so, when did this failure occur?

The church failed in the inquisitions and various other places.

 

[justasking4]

I find this fascinating. How could the Bible have in it Sola Scriptura if not through prophecy? As to say, “You will write a book and it will contain no error.” Or at least, “I am writing this book and it contains no error.”

The fact of the matter is, whatever you pervert the Gospels to mean, they couldn’t have been talking about the Bible because it didn’t exist. The fact is, Biblical infallibility is completely dependent on Church infallibility (logically speaking, not inherent due to source.)

If in the year 400 someone would have said some nonsense like this people would have looked at them like they were insane. So you accept the book as infallible (which is a fundamental teaching of the Church) but not the Church that gave us the book? That’s nutty. That’s like if Scientologists were to write a book and for me to say, “I think this Scientology book (which they claim is infallible) is infallible, but that Scientology Church; that’s filled with errors.”

The rest of the “proof” I’ve seen from Scripture is weak anyway. It completely ignores instructions given to the people of the Church to hold fast to what was written and unwritten. Therefore, even if Scripture showed Scripture to be infallible (reiterating it is Catholic dogma); Sola Scriptura is still not proven.

Sola Scriptura means only Scripture. That idea is not only not in Scripture (self contradicting) but unpractical and unreasonable. Why would leaders of a Church that they understood Christ instituted write articles to members of that Church condemning that very Church and placing the Bible above it? It doesn’t make sense at all. And only if the Bible were to show something that paralleled that could Sola Scriptura even be something to be considered.

Sola Scriptura is made out of necessity to rationalize Protestant’s existence of differing faith to that of Christ and His Church. This is demonstrable from that this idea never existed prior to it being invented over 1500 years after Christ’s apostles spread the truth. And the million other ways clear falsehoods are eventually shown to be untrue.

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

 

[Lampo]

i can’t wait----:ballspin:

Looks like others have already answered you. And much better than I could have I might add.

 

[Lampo]

The church failed in the inquisitions and various other places.

:tsktsk: RED HERRING ALERT:tsktsk:

 

[Lampo]

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

Why don’t you give us the official Protestant definition that all Protestants use? That way we won’t be shooting at a moving target.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

Lampo;
Why don’t you give us the official Protestant definition that all Protestants use? That way we won’t be shooting at a moving target.

I see many people attacking this doctrine that they must know what it means. I curious to how they define it. In some defintions i have come across i would attack it also.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I see many people attacking this doctrine that they must know what it means. I curious to how they define it. In some defintions i have come across i would attack it also.

Since Protestants are so guided by the Holy Spirit that they can’t agree upon anything, why don’t you give us at least your definition of sola scriptura.

 

[Lampo]

I see many people attacking this doctrine that they must know what it means. I curious to how they define it. In some defintions i have come across i would attack it also.

Here’s my definition for what it’s worth:
Sola Scriptura - Everything necessary for our salvation is found in Scripture alone.

Is that the definition JA4 uses?

 

[justasking4]

Here’s my definition for what it’s worth:
Sola Scriptura - Everything necessary for our salvation is found in Scripture alone.

Is that the definition JA4 uses?

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the **sole infallible rule of faith **for the Church. It does not mean there are not other rules but that these other rules are inferior to the Scriptures in terms of authority. Only the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant since they derive their aurhority from God Himself and therefore they alone are the highest authority in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.

 

[justasking4]

Since Protestants are so guided by the Holy Spirit that they can’t agree upon anything, why don’t you give us at least your definition of sola scriptura.

This is not true. Protestant are in total agree for the following:
1-Christ is God
2- Died for our sins
3-Faith in Him is the only thing that can save a man

 

[JMJ_coder]

This is not true. Protestant are in total agree for the following:
1-Christ is God
2- Died for our sins
3-Faith in Him is the only thing that can save a man

No they don’t. Mainstream Protestants believe that (at least as far as I know they do), but some of the other groups don’t. There are some who deny that Jesus is God, some that deny that He died and rose, some that deny that we need to have any faith at all. Some could be argue whether or not some of them are actually Christian (i.e., Unitarians, JWs, Mormons, etc.), but they all claim the Bible as their authority (though, some add books, like the Book of Mormon).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the **sole infallible rule of faith **for the Church. It does not mean there are not other rules but that these other rules are inferior to the Scriptures in terms of authority. Only the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant since they derive their aurhority from God Himself and therefore they alone are the highest authority in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.

But, with your definition you are still left with relying on what you consider fallible men to tell you that the Bible is inerrant and what books are canonical. Even if you claim that you have studied and concluded for yourself all of this, by your definitions, you yourself are fallible and could be in error.

 

[justasking4]

JMJ_coder;4293394]
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is not true. Protestant are in total agree for the following:
1-Christ is God
2- Died for our sins
3-Faith in Him is the only thing that can save a man

JMJ_coder;
No they don’t. Mainstream Protestants believe that (at least as far as I know they do), but some of the other groups don’t. There are some who deny that Jesus is God, some that deny that He died and rose, some that deny that we need to have any faith at all. Some could be argue whether or not some of them are actually Christian (i.e., Unitarians, JWs, Mormons, etc.), but they all claim the Bible as their authority (though, some add books, like the Book of Mormon).

Unitarians, JWs, and Mormons are not Protestants. The are cults.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Unitarians, JWs, and Mormons are not Protestants. The are cults.

There are two types of Christian bodies, Apostolic Churches and Protestant ecclesial communities.

The Apostolic Churches are those that have maintained the apostolic succession, even if they have fallen from the full unity of the Church through schism or heresy. Among them is the Catholic Church, which is the fullness of the Church of Christ - which subsists in it; the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which is in schism since 1054 A.D.; and the Oriental Orthodox Churches which left at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

Every other Christian ecclesial community (as far as I know) is the result of the heresies of Martin Luther and a number of other so-called ‘reformers’. They get the name Protestant from the fact that they are (in one respect) defined by protesting against the Church of Christ. Thus, if those groups are Christian (I can see both sides of that argument), then they are Protestants - that is non-apostolic ecclesial communities.

 

[mcs7474]

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.

Your full of it, and so are sources.

 

[justasking4]

There are two types of Christian bodies, Apostolic Churches and Protestant ecclesial communities.

The Apostolic Churches are those that have maintained the apostolic succession, even if they have fallen from the full unity of the Church through schism or heresy. Among them is the Catholic Church, which is the fullness of the Church of Christ - which subsists in it; the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which is in schism since 1054 A.D.; and the Oriental Orthodox Churches which left at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

Every other Christian ecclesial community (as far as I know) is the result of the heresies of Martin Luther and a number of other so-called ‘reformers’. They get the name Protestant from the fact that they are (in one respect) defined by protesting against the Church of Christ. Thus, if those groups are Christian (I can see both sides of that argument), then they are Protestants - that is non-apostolic ecclesial communities.

If i’m not mistaken not even the professional catholic apologist here such as Tim Staples or Jimmy Atkin would make the claim these cults are true Protestants.

 

[guanophore]

Is not the Eastern Orthodox considered part of the “true” church?

There is only One Church. All persons who are properly baptized are members of it. Some members are more separated from the true teachings than others.

Where did Jesus promise this protection?

“When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will lead you into all Truth”.

Secondly, if He promised it then why did He and His apostles warn of false teachers who would come into the church and decieve many?

Because He is omnicient, and He knew you were going to be here even before you were born.

:knight2:

False teaching coming in is not equivalent to false teaching going out!

Nor is the main church either.

It is not a “main church”, ja4. You are suffering from a deficient view of the Church. At least, if you will not accept the Apostolic Teaching, consider what your bible says about the Church. The Head of the Church is Jesus. Jesus is divine. He is why the Church is infallible.

Are not your councils made up of fallible men?

Yes, just like the council in Jerusalem. However, you seem to be ignoring to One present at the Council who is infallible. Remember what they wrote? “It seemed right to the Holy Spirit, and to us”. This agreement of the Magesterium with the HS is what creates infalliblity.

You cannot get an infallible source from a fallilbe source.

Well, all things are possible with God. However, we know that infallible men can manfiest the perfect will and Truth of God. The NT is a result of infallibility at work through fallible men. The same process is at work in the councils.

It did not require that anyone to be infallible to determine the canon or Scripture interpertation. Did the memembers of the councils claim to be infallible when the canon of the NT was finalized?

This is correct. It is the decision, the action, the outcome that is infallible, not the people through whom the gift is manifested.

The Apostles healed others. It was a pure healing from God. It did not make them into Gods.

You might want to look at salvation. Must a person belong to the Catholic church to be saved?

Yes. There is only One Church. All who are saved are members of it.

There are a number of different and opposing statements in church documents.

This is misleading. There are many opposing statements made by Catholics. Many opinions can be found. Only the doctrine has perfect unity.

This is one of the great weakness in the Catholic church. When you go back for instance to look at the Scriptural support for aspects of the Marian doctrines you don’t find it. Look for scriptural support for example for her immaculate conception and assumption and you find none.
Same goes for the Treasury of Merit.

This is not a weakness of the Church but of the person looking. Those of us who have received these doctrines by faith can see perfectly clearly.

Would you consider the teachings of the Lord Jesus infallible?

Yes, whether they are found in the Scripture or in the Sacred Tradition.

Those teachings are what we call the Gospels and are considered infallible. Correct?

No. The Gospels are the “memoirs of the Apostles”. They cannot be infallible because infallibility requires action. It requires intellect and will, which are not qualities of the Holy Writings.

God is infallible but men are not. We should always trust God Who is absolutely trustworthy but never man. Man is fallen and capable of errors.

You have some serious ingrained trust issues. Such a condition is not uncommon in those who have been deeply harmed, wounded or abused. It is very sad to hear anyone say “never trust a man”. However, such things are commonly said by persons who have been badly victimized. What Jesus offers is healing for such wounds. It is true, men are fallible, and will make mistakes. However we can trust one another because God’s healing is much bigger than any wound.

 

[guanophore]

This is what infallible means:**unerring in doctrine: incapable of being **mistaken in matters of doctrine and dogma.

As you can see this would apply to the teachings of the Lord Jesus as found in the NT. Matthew 5-7 would be an example of this…

Look at these verbs. In order to “err” or be capable of erring, one must be able to act. In order to “be mistaken” one must be able to “be”. These are characteristics that belong to persons, not to the holy writings.

I suspect not for the mere fact that men are fallen.

This is where some common sense is helpful. Since mere men are fallen, and God needs to produce something infallible through them, there is required a gift of infallibility. We agree that the writers of the NT had this when they penned the writings, which is how they became inspired, by God acting through fallible men. Where we differ is that Catholics know this gift did not disappear after the ink dried.

Good questions. If we look at the disciples Jesus chose they were not the brightest and He did not make them infallible and yet He chose these fallible men to teach the gospel to and used them to lay the foundation of the church all the while they were fallible.

Right! God worked through fallible men to produce an infallble result. Could it be you are starting to “get” it?

He continued to help them after He ascended but He still did not make them infallible nor all knowing. He still allowed them to struggle in the flesh as we see in Peter.

Yes, and He continued to create infallible acts through them, in their writing, healing, teaching and preaching. The source of infallibility is God.

It seems to me that the one attribute that all the apostles shared in relation to Christ was their humility which made it possible for Christ to use them to record God’s inspired inerrant Word in a way that they would not err.

Yes. God is much more able to act infallibly in the presence of humility. That is why the councils can produce infallible decisions like the contents of the Bible. Humble faithful men prayed, discerned, submitted themselves to God, and responded to the infallible HS.