Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

  • Thread starter Thread starter BibleOnly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sola scriptura means that the scriptures alone stand supreme in determining dogma…
Please provide chapter and verse that states this.
Therefore, sola scriptura is absolutely biblical and its practical import is that it is the divine plumbline in deciding what is the truth on an issue.
Bolding is mine. You say we should use Scripture to decide the truth on an issue. Let’s do that. Turn to 1 Tim. 3:15. What does it say is the pillar and bullwark of truth?
 
Catholic teaching affirms that Purgatory is a place where further cleansing is necessary in order to be fit for heaven. This may, in God’s economy, take some time.
God is beyond time and space. The Church has never declared how long someone might be in purgatory. It might be instantaneous or it might be 1,000 years. We don’t know and the Church has never claimed to know.
My position, is that the perfect sanctification of the redeemed spirit takes place instantaneously at death, based on the finished work of Christ. There is no hiatus in my viewpoint.
This way of thinking is very Catholic also.
 
Your words, obviously, are not the inspired, inerrant word of God because the authoritative stamp of God is not behind them.
How do you know the “authoritative stamp of God” is not behind them? What is the “authoritative stamp of God?”
The Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God because holy men of God were moved under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to reveal the mind, character and will of God.
How do you know? Who told you this? How do you know the writer of the Book of John was John? How do you know who wrote the Book of Matthew? Or Mark? Or 3 Peter? How do you know who wrote ANY books of the Bible?
These men retained their authentic personalities and temperaments and wrote in their own individual styles; but the end process by the CONCURSIVE action of the Holy Spirit produced the infallible result God wanted, viz: to reveal divine truth.
Very true! He did this through the Church He established - the Catholic Church.
 
Just on a side note. Today is the feast day of St. Ignatius of Antioch and I thought I’d provide this little snippit:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (1st century)
Ignatius, a convert from paganism, succeeded Peter as bishop of Antioch, Syria. During the persecution of the Roman emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome to be eaten by wild animals. Along the way, he wrote several encouraging letters to the Church. He was the first writer to use the term “Catholic Church.”
 
onenow1;4299285:
Yes, the topic is sola scriptura is absolutely biblical - and I am taking the affirmative position! It is absolutely biblical because the scriptures claim themselves to reveal God’s unerring will and mind…
…Sola scriptura means that the scriptures alone stand supreme in determining dogma; therefore, it is my considered belief that the scriptures do not afford a place to the notion of Purgatory.
As requested by others, I’d like to see the Bible verses you use to support this position. Mind you, we Catholics agree with you: The Bible is God’s inspired, inerrant written Word.
Where we differ is “why” we believe this to be so.
 
It was a professor of theology who said it. Not the Church. That’s how I explain it.
How do you explain the change in the Church’s long standing belief that those who die without being baptized are separated from God forever. This included all non-Catholics also. Which position are we to hold as sound doctrine?
 
How do you explain the change in the Church’s long standing belief that those who die without being baptized are separated from God forever. This included all non-Catholics also. Which position are we to hold as sound doctrine?
I am so glad you asked. If you are truly interested in this then go to the link I am providing and read it. Here is a snippet from the article:
Interest in this recent document is understandable, and most people have learned of it through the news media. While many articles written since the document’s publication summarize its contents accurately, many do not. A Google news search reveals headlines such as, “Pope Changes Church Teaching on Limbo,” and **“The Church Abandons Limbo.” **Such headlines can easily give the impression that 1) Limbo was a defined doctrine of the Church, and 2) the Pope has the authority to change—even to reverse—defined doctrine. A May 4 Washington Post article by Alan Cooperman included the statement “limbo is a ‘problematic’ concept that Catholics are free to reject.”
Beyond the headlines you encounter even larger problems. An April 21 Associated Press article by Nicole Winfield quotes Fr. Richard McBrien (professor of theology at Notre Dame and noted dissenter) as saying, “If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace . . . Baptism does not exist to wipe away the ‘stain’ of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church.” On the other end of the spectrum, Kenneth Wolfe, columnist for The Remnant, was quoted in Cooperman’s article as saying, “The Vatican is suggesting that salvation is possible without baptism. That is heresy.”
These characterizations notwithstanding, the ITC makes no rulings (and does not have the authority to do so).** “The Hope of Salvation” in fact reiterates and builds upon the Catholic tradition. It neither categorically rejects Limbo nor denies the necessity of baptism.** Rather, it offers reasons to hope that God may provide a way of salvation to those little ones whose lives ended before baptism was possible.
Link
 
Lampo;4303597]Please provide chapter and verse that states this.
There is none. However only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant and therefore qualify as the only ultimate source of authority for Christians.
Bolding is mine. You say we should use Scripture to decide the truth on an issue. Let’s do that. Turn to 1 Tim. 3:15. What does it say is the pillar and bullwark of truth?
The church. Which church is Paul referring to? Does he mention the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church?
 
The church. Which church is Paul referring to? Does he mention the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church?
does he have to? The first Church was the Roman Catholic Church… No other “Christian church” existed at that time…

Christ established ONE Church… not 35,000, all teaching conflicting doctrine…

God is not the author of confusion… Man is.
 
No one decides who is in Purgatory and who is not because no such place exists.
The Bible does not use the word purgatory any more than it uses the word Trinity. But just as it gives what is described by the word Trinity when we are told to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, so it gives what is described by the word purgatory when it tells us that souls not bad enough for hell, and not good enough for heaven, will be purified after death in order to fit them for heaven. Thus St. Paul tells us in I Corinthians III., 15, that the soul which does not satisfactorily stand the test of judgment will be saved, but so as by fire. Whatever the nature of the fire of purification, it will mean a cleansing by suffering as opposed to the pleasures of the sins rendering it necessary.
 
However only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant and therefore qualify as the only ultimate source of authority for Christians.
How do you know this?
The church. Which church is Paul referring to? Does he mention the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church?
The only Christian Church that existed at the time. Later, in the year 107AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch named this Christian Church the Catholic Church. “Roman” is of the Latin Rite of the entire Catholic Church. There are 22 Rites.

BTW, JA4, care to go back to post #634 and answer the questions I posed to you?
 
does he have to? The first Church was the Roman Catholic Church… No other “Christian church” existed at that time…

Christ established ONE Church… not 35,000, all teaching conflicting doctrine…

God is not the author of confusion… Man is.
Paul? Why he was referring to the J Witnesses of course;)
 
Hi Folks!

I came across something pertinent and very interesting.

St Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 189) - “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul – that church which has the Tradition and which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic Tradition.” (Against Heresies 3:3:2)

St Irenaeus of Lyons - “Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man (depositing his money) in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life……For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important questions among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present questions? It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church – those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But (it is also incumbent) to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (Against Heresies 4:26:2)

I found this in Patrick Madrid’s “Why Is that in Tradition?”

Marvellous reference.

👍
 
Thank you for taking the trouble to come back to me with passages and verses from the Bible as your “proof”. I appreciate this. I myself am very amateur in my Faith but I try to learn as much as possible. However something I only read recently is this about st Peter’s warning about those who are “ignorant” of how to correctly interpret the Bible:

“There are some things in them (ie the writings of St Paul) hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16)

So I urge you, as I myself will do, to study this topic prayerfully and carefully. I am sure if we do that we will both gain something valuable.

It is morning here and I have a lot of things to do but I will come back with a carefully prepared answer later today.

Cheers
Cinette
🙂
I appreciate deeply the tone and manner of your writings. This means a lot to me. I respect your Christian fervour and value this highly.

I look forward to your further responses. I will listen carefully to what you have to say.

In Christ,

Craig
 
…CONTINUED

Rev 22:18-19 : When John speaks of “adding” or “taking away”, he is referring only to the Book of Revelation. The Catholic Church has done neither. But Protestants have removed (taken away) 7 books and parts of Books of the OT. Interestingly, at Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 contained all the Books of the Catholic (Septuagint/Greek) OT in HEWBREW.

1 Peter 4:11 : “Whoever speaks” : Again this refers to the oral (spoken) Word, disproving sola scriptura.

Psalm 119:59-60 “Testimonies” here could mean either the written OT or the Oral Talmud. It is no proof of sola scriptura in Judaism.

Romans 15:4 : The text only says that what was written in former days, was written for our instruction and encouragement – to which we shout “Amen” – but it does not say that what was written is “sufficient” for us for salvation. It is no proof of sola scriptura. When Paul’s Letter to the Romans was written in 57-58 AD, not all of the NT had yet been written. The “written” referred to by Paul is the OT.

2 Tim 3:15-17 : This was written in 75AD. Not all of the NT had yet been written, and the Bible was only discerned and put in one Book near the end of the 4th century. The writings Timothy was “acquainted with” was the OT! To say they are able to instruct us for salvation is not the same as saying the Scripture is ALL we need, or sufficient for salvation Verse 16: “ALL Scripture is inspired” is not the same as saying ONLY Scripture is inspired! ALL and ONLY do not mean the same thing; the text merely says that the whole of the Bible is indeed inspired, but it does not mean that ONLY the Bible is inspired! It allows for other inspired truths, not written.

I would also recommend you get “Where is that in the Bible” by Patrick Madrid. As I have said this book and the other recommended above are nice pocket sized books. There is also “Where is that in Tradition? Pope Fiction” They are all well researched and extremely readable.

Craig, kindly read this and comment - unlike some posters who are only bent on arguing and go round in circles and there is never any progress.
🙂
First of all, I want to say I am impressed with the effort and thought you have put into your reply. I share with you a desire to know the truth and to be faithful to Christ.

I am not interested in “winning debates” or “scoring points”. I am only interested in being true to God, as I know you are too.

As I read your post, I think you are saying you agree with me that the scriptures are, indeed, inerrant and without error in the original manuscripts. Is this correct?

If that is correct, then in essence you are postulating that Sacred Tradition, too, is inerrant and without error. Is this correct?

If that is correct, then it follows, of necessity, that the Holy Spirit also infallibly worked in other areas other than scripture to produce an inerrant result. I ask, in all sincerity, where is the evidence of this; where is the proof of this Cinette?

With warm regards in Christ our Saviour,

Craig
 
Please provide chapter and verse that states this.

Bolding is mine. You say we should use Scripture to decide the truth on an issue. Let’s do that. Turn to 1 Tim. 3:15. What does it say is the pillar and bullwark of truth?
The church universal (catholic) built upon the foundation of the New Testament prophets and apostles is the pillar and bullwark of the truth.
 
How do you know the “authoritative stamp of God” is not behind them? What is the “authoritative stamp of God?”

How do you know? Who told you this? How do you know the writer of the Book of John was John? How do you know who wrote the Book of Matthew? Or Mark? Or 3 Peter? How do you know who wrote ANY books of the Bible?

Very true! He did this through the Church He established - the Catholic Church.
Please give me documented and credible evidence that Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church as an institution.

Please give me proof of your claim.
 
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



[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.
What is it with posters of this sort?. They start a thread which they know the Catholics out there would jump on, then they don’t post anything after that.

Is it because they found out after a few replies that their position is indefensible or is there a more uncharitable intention.

This happened on another thread started by vichlopet. After a few posts you never hear from her again.

Anyway here’s my twobits which I posted earlier on another thread:

The two pillars of Protestantism (Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) are mutually exclusive. If you believe Sola Scriptura you cannot believe Sola Fide, and if you believe Sola Fide then Sola Scriptura bites the dust.

And heres why: Sola Fide cannot be supported by Sola Scriptura because there are a lot of passages that say otherwise. This is why Luther** needed **to get rid of the book of James. Because with it (and other passages as well) this tenet will not hold water.

So what do protestants do? They get fixated on a few phrases that will support Sola Fide.

And when confronted with the other verses (e.g. James and Matthew 25:31-44) they either dismiss it or come up with ridiculous explanations.

The Bible Alone would probably have beeen okay but what it really means is “SOME PARTS OF THE BIBLE ALONE THAT WILL SUPPORT FAITH ALONE.”

So far no one has come up with a reasonable answer to this question: With the multitude of protestant denominations out there, with differrent interpretations of the Bible,who among them is right?

Take one simple issue: Infant Baptism. There are those who belive it should be done, others don’t believe so. And both camps hold their positions as doctrine. Since they can’t both be right, which one has been backed by the Holy Spirit when it came up with it’s conclusion?

And the list goes on.

I asked a Protestant friend this and all he did was become angry and call me stupid. But no answer.

So BibleOnly, what do you say? I doubt you’ll reply. I think you only started this thread for mischierf.

😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top