Sola Scriptura

[Ginger2]

Ah, but it was in there. And then scholarly honesty prompted the Protestants to take it out. Remember, they’ve had 400 years to figure out that “Alone” did NOT belong in there. It’s odd that the people that claim Catholics try to add or take away from the Bible are actually the ones who have erred the greatest. This is one example. Another would be removing 7 books from the Old Testament. But perhaps another thread.

Please tell me you have more…

lol. Prove that Protestants used Bibles containing the word “alone” in Romans. Ans stop with these “out of thin air” type of accusations.

As for the 7 extra-biblical books Catholics added to the OT, I proved that in a thread called “Protestants: Why Can’t You Ever Answer A Question From History As Catholic Can?” Not one Catholic could refute the facts I presented…then suddenly the entire thread was deleted without any explanation.

But if you would like to discuss that topic privately, I will be happy to oblige!

 

[NotWorthy]

Luther did not teach Faith Alone. That is a Catholic myth that stems from misunderstanding.

When asked about using the word “alone” in Romans, Luther explained in the German language the word “only” needed to be added for clarity and didn’t mean “faith only” is required.

below is an excerpt of his actual words:

“I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. *But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). *For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet drunk”; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” *There are a vast number of such everyday cases…

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add “allein” in order that “nicht” or “kein” may beclearer and more complete. *…

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German - as these asses do. *Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. *We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. *Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

---

*… So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: “Ut quid perditio haec?” and in Mark 14: “Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?” Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate it: “Why has this loss of salve occurred?” *But what kind of German is this? *What German says “loss of salve occurred”? *And if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is lost and must be looked for and found again; … *But a German would say “Ut quid, etc…” as “Why this waste?” or “Why this extravagance?” Even “it is a shame about the ointment” - these are good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done wrong. *That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used it better." - Martin Luther

Following this reasoning, the word “only” is appropriate in the German, but would not be appropriate in English translationst.

Since Protestant Bibles do not use the word “alone” in the English translations of Protestant Bibles, it is obvious Luther didn’t start a new doctrine. If he had that word would be found in Protestant Bibles which it is not.

Then I’m confused. Why didn’t Luther put “alone” in the numerous other passages that would have necessitated it?

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you speak 16th century German…because I don’t speak 16th century English. Languages can change considerably over time.

This quote is what Luther stated as his reason for using the word “only” (not alone as Catholics claim)

If he was misrepresenting the language, why didn’t the Catholic church point that out? Instead they refer to his sarcasm in partial quotes that give the appearance of trying to mislead.

How many Protestant Bibles do you know of that use the word “alone” in Romans 1:17? I know of zero!

But there were at least 7 German translations prior to Luther’s. Did any of them have “alone” in Romans 1:17?

 

[NotWorthy]

lol. Prove that Protestants used Bibles containing the word “alone” in Romans. Ans stop with these “out of thin air” type of accusations.

As for the 7 extra-biblical books Catholics added to the OT, I proved that in a thread called “Protestants: Why Can’t You Ever Answer A Question From History As Catholic Can?” Not one Catholic could refute the facts I presented…then suddenly the entire thread was deleted without any explanation.

But if you would like to discuss that topic privately, I will be happy to oblige!

Crank up another thread, then.

 

[NotWorthy]

lol. Prove that Protestants used Bibles containing the word “alone” in Romans. Ans stop with these “out of thin air” type of accusations.

???

Out of thin air? Going by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura would seem to make one feel the need to not change the Scriptures. I don’t see how that is “out of thin air”.

 

[Ginger2]

Then I’m confused. Why didn’t Luther put “alone” in the numerous other passages that would have necessitated it?

Maybe he did. How do you know he didn’t?

 

[Ginger2]

???

Out of thin air? Going by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura would seem to make one feel the need to not change the Scriptures. I don’t see how that is “out of thin air”.

I asked you to prove your accusation "Prove that Protestants used Bibles containing the word “alone” in Romans. What Bibles, aside from early German translations, used the word “alone” and when was it removed?

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe he did. How do you know he didn’t?

Then he would have used it as evidence of proof that this was the accepted grammar norm of German.

Then the Catholic Church would have argued against all the other “only’s” that he added.

 

[NotWorthy]

I asked you to prove your accusation "Prove that Protestants used Bibles containing the word “alone” in Romans. What Bibles, aside from early German translations, used the word “alone” and when was it removed?

So this is what you mean “out of thin air”?

Ok, I’ll see what I can find.

 

[NonCatholic]

The following is to clarify a little about the definition of Sola Scriptura and a little history and background. I think this will help guide the thread a little more…I have only put the first 2 paragraphs, so if you want to read in the entirety-I posted the link at the bottom. I Googled to get this link - FYI

Question: “What is sola scriptura?”

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings” - referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is ‘God breathed’ (given of inspiration of God) and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, - unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, - and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue, “the Bible nowhere states that it is the ONLY authoritative guide for faith and practice.” While this is true, it fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for “sola scriptura,” it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed – the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

Someone may want to find the Catholic definition and or thoughts on this to add a level field…

 

[guanophore]

Actually, God is the only authority necessary because He is always right and never makes mistakes. The Bible is His Word preserved in written form as a guide for Christians to follow.

While verse 16 states, “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
verse 17 says, “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Do you think that Jesus appointed authority over HIs Church?

If not, what do you believe the scripture means when it says:

16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16

Ginger2, you seem to believe that scripture alone is sufficient to make you into a perfect human being.

 

[guanophore]

I am so confused by this statement.

You declare that the Bible is the only authority. And then you ignore the authority that the Bible assigns to the Church?

That makes no sense!

I think you will find that the majority of what she writes does not.

 

[NotWorthy]

The following is to clarify a little about the definition of Sola Scriptura and a little history and background. I think this will help guide the thread a little more…I have only put the first 2 paragraphs, so if you want to read in the entirety-I posted the link at the bottom. I Googled to get this link - FYI

Question: “What is sola scriptura?”

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings” - referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is ‘God breathed’ (given of inspiration of God) and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Except… except… except that the Bible gives authority to the Church! I am amazed by this glaring oversight in Sola Scriptura-ists!

If anything is contrary to Scripture, it is the claim that Scripture is the sole authority.

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority.

Although I find the rest of this laughable, I am rather offended by the claim that the Catholic Church made Her traditions superior in authority to the Bible. The Catholic Church’s Magisterium, Her Sacred Tradition, and Her Bible are all equal in authority.

None of the example listed are contrary to Scripture, which would support your claim if they were contrary to Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

When did I say anything about Bible only? Please site the post as I think you are confusing me with someone else.

What I said is “God is the only authority necessary because He is always right and never makes mistakes. The Bible is His Word preserved in written form as a guide for Christians to follow.”

The Bible tells us that God often uses other people, nature and incidents to interact with us.

nature and Incidents? Are those also profitable to your training in righteousness?

Do you not believe the Bible can be used as a guide? Kind of like using a road map helps you locate your physical destination, the Holy Scriptures help you find your spiritual destination.

It is dangerous to use it apart from the Sacred Tradition which produced it. This is because people’s own perceptions influence how they understand it, and people often get off on the wrong road.

God’s Holy Spirit works through scripture. It was never intended to be separated from the Church, which is ensouled by the HS.

Where in the world did I say “the Bible is the only authority”?

I absolutely reject that idea!

Clearly you have set yourself up as an authority as well.

Sola Scripture is not actually a Protestant doctrine.

Ginger, Abraham Lincoln has a lot of wonderful sayings. The one that best applies to this situation is “It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

I believe you would benefit from some simple study of your family history.

Near as I can figure Protestants began trying to come up with an appropriate definition after Catholics began claiming Protestants believe the Bible contains all knowledge and nothing else is needed.

No again, Ginger2. You are as off about this as you were about the canon. You are right on one point, though, the Catholic Church did declare this a heresy.

It’s hilarious, because one false accusation has led to Protestant attempts to define a doctrine that doesn’t even exist!

It exists in multiple forms, kinda reflective of the rest of the fruit of the reformation which is separation and division, multiplying daily.

If you wish to assert yourself, you would not look so ridiculous if you did a little study before writing such things. :ehh:

 

[guanophore]

Actually, I think you are the one that brought it up (post #8?)…I was merely pointing out the statement started in verse sixteen is finished in verse 17.

Why is all Scripture profitable? So the man of God will be perfect and thoroughly furnished unto every good works.

Sorry I wasn’t clear.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Ginger2, I think this might be lost on you, since your anti-Catholic glasses are so thick, but I am going to write it for anyone who might be lurking.

What Christians need to grow with God is teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. all these duties were given to the Church - to people, since they cannot be accomplished by writings, however Holy. Scripture is profitable in these tasks. Teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness are given by the Church so that the individual may be proficient and equipped for every good work.

Eph 4:11-14
11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

We see in this passage that God has given these gifts through persons in the Church.

You seem to be trying to get the Bible to do the work of the Church. This is not the way that God set it up.

The RC misinterpreted something ML said/did, and they began refuting a doctrine that didn’t exist.

What is laughable is that Protestants began clarifying a doctrine that didn’t exist to defend themselves against attacks. lol

Ginger, blaming the error of SS on the Catholic church really is embarrassing for you, and claiming that it is not a protestant doctrine, or does not exist really makes you look ridiculous.

The earliest mention of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura I have seen was by Martin Luther as he was questioned in the Synod of Augsburg (Germany) in October 1518. In his appeal to the Council, Luther placed the Bible and his interpretation of it, above the Pope. Even so he admitted the authority of the Synod and of the Bible were equivalent, only in the hope that the Synod would give him a favorable decision. In the Leipzig Disputation in July 1519, Luther went a step further and declared that Scripture ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already erred in matters of faith. As a result he was branded a heretic.

A simple reading of history will confirm this, Ginger2. You can pretend this heresy does not exist, or that the Catholic church made it up, but that does not change the facts.

Of the Catholic Church misinterpreting what Martin Luther has said/done?

OK, off the top of my head, the RC claims ML invented a new doctrine of Faith Alone (Sola Fida) by adding the word “alone” to Romans 1:17.

This is a false assertion. If it were true, then English translations of Protestant Bibles should include the word “alone” - BUT they don’t!

This false doctrine is not part of the Protestant faith.

You are wrong again, Ginger2. I think you set a new daily record!

Luther had developed faith alone prior to any translation of the scripture. He added that word to the scripture because he felt that it best captured the sense of the passaged. His homies talked him into taking it out, that is why it is not in English Bibles today. Same as they talked him into leaving in other books he wanted to take out, such as the Epistle of James.
It is a false doctrine, and it is very much a part of Protestantism.

I am glad you know that it is false, and I hope you will come to find that many of the things you have posted here today are also false.

I do not belong to a church at this time, sorry.

Maybe this is not a bad thing? I mean, matters could be worse!
You seem to be so prone to error, being around more people exercising it seems like it would get you even further off track!

First, I have never attended a church that teaches using ML writings. They all have used the Holy Bible.

Likely you have, but since you clearly do not know what he said and believed, you would not recognize it.

Second, I think you are reading into ML’s words your understanding based on an assumption.

It would be best if you did not assume that others do not use your technique. Some of us actually do our research.

The Word of God is not limited to the Bible. The Bible is the written Word of God.

So you have said! You are finding the Word of God in “incidents”, apparently, and in the first Church of Ginger2, pastored by yourself.

I’ll take a look at it and get back as to what I think. If Luther taught Bible Only - he was wrong.

Since what you think seems to be al that matters, I guess that would be a good start.

 

[guanophore]

lol. Prove that Protestants used Bibles containing the word “alone” in Romans. Ans stop with these “out of thin air” type of accusations.

As for the 7 extra-biblical books Catholics added to the OT, I proved that in a thread called “Protestants: Why Can’t You Ever Answer A Question From History As Catholic Can?” Not one Catholic could refute the facts I presented…then suddenly the entire thread was deleted without any explanation.

Perhaps you filled that thread with the same type of erroneous drivel that you have this one?

 

[NotWorthy]

Ginger, Abraham Lincoln has a lot of wonderful sayings. The one that best applies to this situation is “It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

I don’t this there’s any reason for this. C’mon Guanophore. We can respect one another, even in disagreement.

Perhaps you filled that thread with the same type of erroneous drivel that you have this one?

Nor this.

 

[Ginger2]

Then he would have used it as evidence of proof that this was the accepted grammar norm of German.

Why would he? He already explained it was proper German - that is how he proved it. If it was proper German the matter is settled.

That is what I would do, as stating I used the same grammar in other places is a ridiculous argument that proves nothing.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger2, you seem to believe that scripture alone is sufficient to make you into a perfect human being.

No sir, Christ Jesus is sufficient to perfect me.

 

[NotWorthy]

Why would he? He already explained it was proper German - that is how he proved it. If it was proper German the matter is settled.

That is what I would do, as stating I used the same grammar in other places is a ridiculous argument that proves nothing.

Ginger? If “only” is the appropriate grammar, then he would have “added” it more times. I’m only aware of him adding it during this one verse. It would seem inconsistent if he only found one occurrence where it was appropriate to add “only”, and an amazing coincidence that it is THE VERSE that supports Luther’s new theology.