Sola Scriptura

[living_water]

I can only interpret this post, which does not supply a single verse of Scripture to support the supposition that the truth is contained in Scripture ALONE as your attempt to stave off cognitive dissonance as you realize you cannot justify your argument.

Trust me. You lose when it comes to this argument. It’s been argued for hundreds of years, and there is not a single shred of Biblical evidence that all truth is limited to Scripture alone. Many before you have lost miserably here. Scott Hahn tells the story of losing this argument to one of his high school students in his book, “Rome Sweet Rome”.

 

[Gamera]

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself. (Psalm 119:160)

Amen — His word contained BOTH in Apostolic Tradition (1 Thes 2:13) AND in Scripture. So why do you reject the part of God’s word contained in Apostolic Tradition and use only the part contained in the Bible? Do you think using only PART of God’s word is “absolutely sufficient?” Where does the Bible say that?

 

[brkn1]

I am frustrated beyond belief reading this thread. It is unreal. Person after person comes here and writes long, tangential, irrelevant, practially paranoid posts about Scripture that don’t even address the arguments/issues at hand.

And it’s like they cannot even hear or comprehend it when people explain that they aren’t addressing the issues. It’s like all reason and logic has just been flipped off like a light switch. It really does remind me of some of the thinking that goes on in cults.

You should relax a little and watch those videos about Mary you gave a link for, although I’m not sure how that link relates to Sola Scriptura either.

I checked them out anyway and I have to tell you that I started to get confused about which Mary was the right Mary. I mean, there were so many different Marys. They were different woman I tell you and I know what you mean about things being “unreal”. Pictures don’t lie. There were more than just one Mary there I tell you.

 

[Fisher]

IThess002:013 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

What did I take away ?

 

[Fisher]

The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. “Jesus answered and said to him,** If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” (John 14:23-24). And then again “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). **

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”

 

[Stephen_C]

Hey guys,
Fisher is not even reading your replies. He is just copying and pasting someone’s self interpretations. The ole take unrelated bible quotes to fit his interpretation. In other words conforming the bible to his will. It should be the other way around.

 

[Gamera]

IThess002:013 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

What did I take away ?

The preaching of the Apostles.

You’ve posted over and over how great God’s word is (and of course, it is!) without stopping to realize that “God’s word” is not ONLY the Bible. 1 Thes. 2:13 says that the preaching of the Apostles is “the word of God.” You use the words “Bible” and “God’s word” interchangeably, but the Bible itself says that the Apostle’s preaching also constituted “the word of God.”

Sola scriptura denies this Biblical truth. Sola scriptura denies that anything is “God’s word” other than Scripture. It is a man-made doctrine totally at odds with God’s revelation. That is the issue in this thread. Catholics believe the Bible, including 1 Thes 2:13, and therefore we believe that “God’s word” consists of two things (1) Scripture, and (2) Apostolic Tradition (the Apostles’ preaching).

 

[Gamera]

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone

But He didn’t! Dude, are you even reading what I’ve posted? Read Luke 11:51, where Jesus relied on non-scriptural Jewish tradition that Zechariah died between the altar and the sanctuary. I’ve referred you to that several times now. Jesus did NOT rely on “the Scriptures alone.” The Bible itself shows that Jesus relied on tradition … and that isn’t even capital T Tradition, it’s just small T tradition. Why do you keep saying that Jesus relied on Scripture alone, when we know for a fact that He didn’t?

 

[Gamera]

Hey guys,
Fisher is not even reading your replies. He is just copying and pasting someone’s self interpretations. The ole take unrelated bible quotes to fit his interpretation. In other words conforming the bible to his will. It should be the other way around.

I think he’s intermittently skimming them. But it’s still worth replying because other readers might wonder what the Catholic answer to his material is. Although, it is getting repetitive. Soon I’m going to have to make Luke 11:51 my signature just so I won’t have to keep typing it. Well, or 1 Thes 2:13.

 

[Fisher]

So why do you subtract from God’s word? Since 1 Thes 2:13 tells us that the Apostles’ preaching constitutes God’s word, why are you taking away from God’s word by discarding half of it and keeping only the Bible?

Oh, so there is a whole bunch of stuff I CAN’T know from the Bible because it was only given orally and the Catholic religion has somehow been able to get this spoken word from somewhere and tell me what it was.

First let’s see what Jesus says about man’s tradition (I love the word of God, it just illuminates everything).

What does Jesus say about Tradition?

“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites.”

What else does Jesus say about Tradition?

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked [Jesus], why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is WRITTEN [Jesus is quoting the Bible], This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…

And he said unto them, Full well YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Mark 7:5-9, 13

Does the Bible support your tradition like they say it does?

1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Where does it say, “Listen to yourTradition?” Relevance please? Where does it say this was passed down by oral tradition?

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Where does it say, “Listen to your Tradition?” Relevance please? Where does it say this is oral tradition?

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Relevance please? This does not commend us to the Traditions of the your religion. Where does it say this is oral tradition?

Sin of Presumption" says it is a sin to say that you have eternal life. They say that you simply can’t know for sure. But what does the Bible say?

These things have I WRITTEN unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13

The “Sin of Presumption” tradition says that it is a sin to say that you know FOR SURE that you are going to heaven–but didn’t we just read a Bible verse GURANTEEING HEAVEN to the believer?

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Where does it say, “Listen to yourTradition?” Relevance please?

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Where does it say, “Listen to your Tradition?” Relevance please?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Where does it say, “Listen to your Tradition?” Relevance please? Paul is instructing people who heard him and his fellowlaborers.

**how carefully the written word was kept by God’s chosen people, Israel. **
God has always emphasized the importance of keeping His written word:

This BOOK OF THE LAW SHALL NOT DEPART OUT OF THY MOUTH; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is WRITTEN therein… Joshua 1:8

Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and it is ALL about the importance of knowing the scriptures.

But what about in the New Testament? Jesus read from the BOOK Isaiah in the synagogue:

Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the BOOK of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was WRITTEN,

Paul read the gospel of JESUS IN THE WRITTEN WORD! Listen:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES

 

[honeysuckle]

You should relax a little and watch those videos about Mary you gave a link for, although I’m not sure how that link relates to Sola Scriptura either.

I checked them out anyway and I have to tell you that I started to get confused about which Mary was the right Mary. I mean, there were so many different Marys. They were different woman I tell you and I know what you mean about things being “unreal”. Pictures don’t lie. There were more than just one Mary there I tell you.

This is exactly what I mean by the comments having a distinctly paranoid quality. In this comment, there is also a demonstrated inability to use abstract thinking appropriately, which could potentially be worrisome if this type of thinking were encountered in a medical setting.

 

[Gamera]

Oh, so there is a whole bunch of stuff I CAN’T know from the Bible because it was only given orally and the Catholic religion has somehow been able to get this spoken word from somewhere and tell me what it was.

Not “somehow.” Through the one Church which Jesus founded. You can’t deny that the Bible says in 1 Thes 2:13 that the Apostles’ preaching was “the word of God.” Do you think part of the word of God was given only to be lost? What happened to, “…so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth, it shall not return to me empty …” (Isaiah 55:11)?

First let’s see what Jesus says about man’s tradition (I love the word of God, it just illuminates everything).

YES IT DOES!!!

“So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle,” 2 Thes 2:15.

I love ALL of the word of God – in both Sacred Scripture and in Apostolic Tradtion. It just illuminates everything. Like when someone claims that Jesus relied on “scripture alone,” we can turn to Luke 11:51 and see that Jesus relied on Jewish traditional teachings, not on Scripture alone. Or when someone claims that the Apostles relied on Scripture alone, we can turn to Hebrews 11:37 and see that the Apostles relied on Jewish tradition, not on Scripture alone. Or when someone claims that the Bible calls itself the sole source of God’s word, we can turn to 1 Thes 2:13 and see that the Apostles called their own preaching “the word of God.”

What Jesus condemned were man-made traditons (small t) which contradicted God’s word. One such tradition is the false man-made notion of sola scriptura. It’s a perfect example of a man-made tradition which people enthrone over the word of God.

 

[Evlogitos]

Hello, Fisher! You seem pretty interested in the thread and its subject, so I hope I can prevail upon you to reply to a few questions I asked earlier, but never really got answered. Pretty please?

1. Which man or woman wrote the Gospel of Mark? How do you know?
2. Why do Christians count the Gospel of Mark as Scripture, while the Gospel of Thomas is not? How do you know?
3. Why is the Book of Esther Scripture, while the Book of Wisdom is not? How do you know?
4. Why do Christians count the Book of Hebrews as Scripture, while the Shepherd of Hermas is not? How do you know?
5. Who was the first person in the early church who accepted and read from a complete New Testament (all 27 books, no more, no less)? What year was it? How do you know?
6. Since the New Testament was not even fully written until about 95 A.D., how did faithful Christians arrive at correct Christian doctrine and practice before the New Testament was written? How do you know this alternative method for obtaining the Truth is no longer permitted? How did Christians arrive at correct doctrine in the years before the 27-book New Testament canon was settled?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration.

Pax,

Seraphim

 

[Gamera]

…2. Why do Christians count the Gospel of Mark as Scripture, while the Gospel of Thomas is not? How do you know?..

You know, I’d never noticed that before. But now that you say it, you’re right – Mark’s Gospel never names its author. Good call.

I used to ask sola scriptura supporters how they know the order of the books. Like, what if I wanted to publish a Bible with Revelation first, then Romans, then Judges, then Genesis … would they object? But I asked the question once too often, and someone actually answered no, he wouldn’t object, since the text was all that mattered.

 

[Evlogitos]

I wouldn’t object either, frankly (although it’d be annoying). The order of the books is basically a logical and traditional one (e.g., Gospels, Acts, Paul, the General Epistles, Revelation), separated into “before Christ” and “after Christ.”

 

[Seeking_God]

Seeking_God used to have Rom 10:13 as his sig, but has since changed it. Hopefully, he has been considering that one must consider the whole truth and not a part of the truth.

Wrong, I have not changed my sig. What you see is what it has been, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

Don’t lie or make untrue statements as you have just done.

 

[Seeking_God]

Since the New Testament was not even fully written until about 95 A.D., how did faithful Christians arrive at correct Christian doctrine and practice before the New Testament was written? How do you know this alternative method for obtaining the Truth is no longer permitted? How did Christians arrive at correct doctrine in the years before the 27-book New Testament canon was settled?

1st, the Catholic Church was not even around to compile the Hebrews Scriptures. The OT was closed 400 years before Christs life, death and resurrection. It was the apostles and eyewitnesses to the events of Christs first coming who wrote the NT, not Catholics. The RCC did not exist in the first century. It is not the one true church founded by Christ because it does not profess the faith of the apostles. Its teachings and traditions prove, beyond a doubt, that it has departed from the apostolic faith.

Jude warned the early church to contend for the faith against apostates. In verse 4 of his epistle, “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign and Lord.” Jude identifies the apostates by certain characteristics that resemble the RCC. Catholics deny Jesus as the only sovereign and Lord by supplanting His authority with an authority of their own. They have turned the grace of God into a commodity that can be bought, bartered or merited through indulgences and sacraments. They have perverted the Gospel of grace into a gospel of faith+works. They have denied the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ and given His divine attributes and titles to Mary and the Pope. They have denied the sufficiency of the word and work of Christ. These are some of the characteristics that would convict the RCC of being apostate not apostolic.

The RCC declares itself to be the church that Jesus started 2000 years ago. It pronounces that the church never changes its dogmatic teachings. With this in mind we, can examine the teachings of the RCC today and prove they do not resemble the first century church. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see:

Priests offering sacrifices for sins
Indulgences remitting punishment for sins
Prayers for souls in purgatory
Church leaders forbidden to marry
Infallible men
Salvation dispensed through sacraments
Rosaries, scapulars, holy water, crucifixes & statues

Catholics say the King James Bible and Protestant Bibles are based on the Catholic Bible, but many words were changed to justify Protestant beliefs. WRONG. The King James Bible was translated from the original languages of Scripture (Hebrew and Greek) while the first Roman Catholic Bible, known as the Douay-Rheims Bible was translated from Latin in the 16th century. A translation from the original languages would be much more accurate than a translation from a translation. It’s NOT the King James Bible that departed from the original canon but the RCC Bible. In 1546 the Council of Trent added the Apocryphal books to the canon attempting to justify the doctrine of Purgatory. Jerome rejected them when translating the Bible into Latin in 450 they were never part of the Hebrew canon. The texts include Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, Maccabees I & II, Esdras I & II, additions to the Book of Esther, the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Consider the references to tradition in the NT appear mostly as warnings against using them to nullify the word of God or to hold people captive (Mark 7:7-13 Col. 2:8-9). Only 3 times is tradition used in a positive sense. The few references are exhortation for Christians to follow apostolic traditions. Note the tense. Each reference is in the past tense, i.e. the tradition which you were taught, (2 Thes. 2:15); which you have heard (2 Tim. 2:2); and, as I [Paul] delivered them to you (1 Cor. 11:2) Mans tradition, which crept into the church after the apostles, is what we are to earnestly contend against (Jude 3). Followers of Jesus Christ are exhorted to earnestly contend for the faith which was delivered to the saints at the time the last apostle went to glory. “The faith” is made up of the Word of God and the traditions which “were taught” by the apostles. We must contend against other traditions because religious leaders and institutions can become corrupt (Mat. 23). The only assurance to genuine faith is from the objective, infallible Word of God (John 17:17).

The Gospel of John 21:25 states not everything Jesus said was recorded in scripture. You know why John included this in his Gospel? He tells us. These (things) have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30-31). Do you believe what John wrote? Many Roman Catholics have been indoctrinated to trust their clergy rather than what is written in the divinely inspired Scriptures. Read what John wrote about the Lord Jesus Christ:

He saves sinners from condemnation (John 3:18, 5:24).
He came to give life to those who are spiritually dead in sin (John 14:6).
He showed the world the only way to the Father because sinners are lost (John 14:6).
He is the personification of truth. To avoid deception we must trust Him (John 14:6).
He testifies to the truth. Those who seek the truth listen to Him (John 18:37).

John also answers questions on being born-again. He wrote. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13). Those who are born-again “believe in His name.” Is it possible for a 7-day old infant to believe or have faith in anything?

 

[Seeking_God]

Those who are born again are born of God not of any human initiative. You can not be born again because you were born into a Christian family, or because of self-will or because of your parents decision to baptize you. It is God alone who calls and draws those He has chosen (Eph. 1:4 John 6:44. Rom. 8:30). The Bible teaches anyone (Catholic or non Catholic) who has not been born again will not enter the kingdom of God, but suffer everlasting torment in the eternal lake of fire.

If one really wanted to bash Catholics we would ignore them and let them march toward an eternity without Christ. It is our love for Catholics and our Lord that motivates us to be faithful to the great commission. Our compassion for Catholics persuades us to proclaim that Jesus Christ is sufficient to save sinners completely and forever, a doctrine Catholics deny. It’s our desire to exalt our Lord by exposing teaching or tradition that robs Him of glory, honor and praise, He alone deserves. I pray Catholics come to Jesus with empty hands of faith, bringing nothing but your sins to the cross! Only then you’ll know the peace of God which surpasses all understanding.

 

[Evlogitos]

(You know, Seeking_God, simply cutting and pasting all your answers from anti-Catholic websites smacks suspiciously of trolling. )

1st, the Catholic Church was not even around to compile the Hebrews Scriptures.

When was the canon of Jewish Scriptures closed, once and for all? What is your source of information?

Do the New Testament sources quote from the Septuagint manuscript traditions, or from the Masoretic? How do you know? What impact might this have on the Bible you read?

Should we rely on the Old Testament canon and textual tradition that was used and received by the earliest Christians, or should we adopt the canon and textual tradition of Jews from hundreds of years after Christ? For what reasons?

+++

That said, while I appreciate your attempt at a response, it does not in any way answer my question. For future reference, if you do wish to answer, please directly answer the exact question asked, and, if possible, in your own original words.

Pax,

–Seraphim

 

[brkn1]

This is just as telling, in itself.

What is it about Orthodox partisans, that they complain so much about the Pope when he was basically doing his job? They gave him a hard subject to tackle, he tackled it and when they didn’t like the results, suddenly, out of thin air, they pulled ‘reasons’ that he wasn’t so important anymore. When someone does things that move them out of the community of the Church, they excommunicate themselves-- that’s what the word means.

Funny how the Orthodox had no problem with the primacy of the See of St. Peter before the Schism, yet when they were subject to its legitimate action of redress in a case they provoked, they seemed to magically ‘forget’ the way Church leadership had already progressed for more than a thousand years. Talk to Orthodox today and they act as if the Papacy never existed in the first place. Talk about revisionist history.

As for the Orthodox supposed claim to greater adherence to tradition, if you really are the church that’s blessed and is acting out what God wants, why do you have so many national and international administrative problems? Why is there so much internecine strife? Why did you try to crush the Old Believers and then have to reabsorb them years later? Why is there so much nationalistic prejudice and lack of brotherly cooperation among your churches? Why the breach with the Oriental Orthodox Churches? Well, I know why, but if you really had something like the Magisterium, would this happen? In your case, the Magisterium is conspicuous by its absence! And I’m not even going to ask you why the Greek Orthodox Church has placed such obstacles in the way of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. You won’t even let them call themselves by that name. No, you don’t need the clarifying authority of a Pope, even though you have so many sub-churches for each ethnic group that today, in the United States for example, you’ll have several people in the same city calling themselves Bishop of (Name). (And even though the head of the Coptic Church calls himself Pope. Ahem. If you want to talk about Orthodox conceit, let’s look at how the Greeks claim to have invented the word ‘Papa’ or father. Well, they have nicknames in Latin too. )

As I asked a teacher many years ago, “Why don’t we just call them the first Protestants?”

I’m glad for the absence of the Magisterium. They remind me of all the crooked lawyers and scribes that infest this country with all the unnecessary litigation that only is litigation for the sake of litigation. They love Latin words too. When I browse through some of the CCC, it looks as if some lawyer did his best to use big words to disguise the true meaning of whatever point was supposed to be made clear. It must take a bunch of lawyers to interpret that stuff. My eyes glaze over in no time, when I try to wade into it. I’m sure what I just said is a “mortal sin” in there somewhere, just like the use of Mary’s name in vain is probably now included as part of the original ten commandments.

Back to the Bible: “STAND FAST therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” (Galations 5:1)
What bondage?
The answer would be: the Law and its required works that are a curse to any who can not possibly fulfill the perfect requirement of those works of the law.
The just shall be justified by faith and not the law.
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Gal. 3:24

“But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” Gal. 3:25
What schoolmaster ?..Why the Law and those who would require us to obey them as the new tudors and govenors of our salvation by requiring our submitting now to their bondage, as if they were a “lord over the laity” having “power over the laity” to condemn or release (bind or loose) that person, according to a presumed right of acting in the Holy Spirit’s place for us.