Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[davidv]

The question was why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? The early church fathers believed Scripture held all truth, why don’t Catholics of today? When did you stop accepting Scripture as the truth and the only truth?

The earliest Church Fathers, Peter and the apostles did not have the NT as we have it. So they could not believe in something that did not exist. They had the Truth as delivered to them from Christ in oral form and in the practices they kept.
Since this is true, your “why…today” question is invalid and cannot be answered.

 

[loscampos]

2 Thes 3:6

And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Why should we walk away from our brothers if tradition is not that important? And how did they recieve there traditions? By word and mouth 2 Thes 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.”

The key word is “or” it doesnt say “by word and epistle”, so then it is concievalbe to follow a tradition not in an epistle. Well then who has this authority to teach oral tradition? it must be the church. Could it be the same church that has the authority to bind and loose sins Mt 16:19, and the same church that has the ability to settle grievances Mt 18:17. Also the same church who has authority to baptise, since the bible cannot do it , and we can not baptize ourselves. And maybe it is the same church which is the pillar of truth 1 Tim 3:15. And maybe, just maybe it is the same church who protects against private interpretation of scripture 2 Pet 1:20.

Could tradition possibly come from “For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Pet 1:21

And was not Peter God Spoke “And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven” Mt 16:19

On a side note I find it odd that the apostles when asked “And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?” Mt 16:13 , with all that scripture floating around none of them could figure who the son of man was. It wasnt until Peter spoke with the holy spirit that he knew who the son of man was.

 

[Canto]

So For example since the assumption of Mary was never taught by the apostles its not an apostolic tradition. It would not be a Sacred Tradition.

Oh so you’ve met Peter and Paul and the whole gang of Apostles, you know everything they taught, everything.

As we’ve pointed out a million times
Not everything is written down (gospel of John)
Oral tradition is commanded to us (Paul’s epistles)

Paul handed tradition onto Titus and Philemon and Timothy, would they not handed it on and the handing on continue all the way down to the Church today or did it stop?

 

[Canto]

Lets test the Scriptures with some of the teachings of the church.
Where do the Scriptures teach Mary’s assumption?

Where do we see anyone in the NT praying to a Christian who had died? Stephen was the first to die. Are there any prayers to him in the NT?

Where don’t they teach Mary’s assumption?
Have you read the comments we’ve posted on TRADITION?

When Jesus died on the cross, do you think anyone would have prayed for him?

 

[Canto]

Where’s that in the bible?

The bible doesn’t contain all of Jesus’ life, so where is the rest of it?
Aside from for example the 40 days he fasted, there aren’t all that many physical days of Jesus’ life, i.e. birth, baptism, last supper, passion, ascension etc contained in the bible
So we have tradition to ‘fill in the blanks’

Paul quotes Jesus as saying “there is more happiness in giving then receiving.” (Acts 20:35)
Where is this in the Gospels?

WHERE IS THE FOLLOWING in the OT

“He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23) specific prophecy “spoken by the prophets”

Elijah’s prayer (James 5:17-18)

Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses (2 Timothy 3:8)

“For all the commandment of the Law being read of Moses to all the people: he taking the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, sprinkled the very book also itself and all the people” (Hebrews 9:19)

“When Michael the Archangel, disputing with the Devil, made altercation for the body of Moses: he durst not infer judgment of blasphemy, but said, Our Lord ‘command’ thee.” (Jude 1:19)

1582 Douay Rheims says

Tim 3:8] That those Magicians which resisted Moses, were thus called, it is not written in all the Old Testament. Therefore it came to the Apostles knowledge by tradition, as the Church now hath the names of the 3 kings of the penitent thief, of the soldier that pierced Christ’s side on the Cross, and of the like.

Heb 9:19] Here we may learn that the Scriptures contain not all necessary rites or truths, when neither the place to which the Apostle alludes, nor any other, mention of half these ceremonies, but he had them by tradition.

Jude 1:9] When, why, or how this altercation or combat was between St. Michael and the Devil about Moses’ body, no man can declare. Only this we see that many truths and stories were kept in the mouths and hearts of the faithful, that were not written in Scriptures canonical, as this was among the Jews. Some truths unwritten known by tradition.

Hebrews 5:12. For whereas you ought to be masters for your time, you need to be taught again yourselves what be the elements of the beginning of the words of God:

Matthew 18:17 And if he will not hear them, tell the Church**. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen** and the Publican.

 

[justasking4]

Canto;3288374]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets test the Scriptures with some of the teachings of the church.
Where do the Scriptures teach Mary’s assumption?

Where do we see anyone in the NT praying to a Christian who had died? Stephen was the first to die. Are there any prayers to him in the NT?

Canto
Where don’t they teach Mary’s assumption?

How would they teach something that never happened? Keep in mind there is not even a hint from the NT she was assumed.

Have you read the comments we’ve posted on TRADITION?

Some of them.

When Jesus died on the cross, do you think anyone would have prayed for him?

Yes. I suspect His mother, the other women and John were.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
So For example since the assumption of Mary was never taught by the apostles its not an apostolic tradition. It would not be a Sacred Tradition.

Canto
Oh so you’ve met Peter and Paul and the whole gang of Apostles, you know everything they taught, everything.

As we’ve pointed out a million times
Not everything is written down (gospel of John)
Oral tradition is commanded to us (Paul’s epistles)

Paul handed tradition onto Titus and Philemon and Timothy, would they not handed it on and the handing on continue all the way down to the Church today or did it stop?

All we know of the apostles writings is found in the NT. If you want to claim they wrote other things outside the NT then you are going to have to show me where these documents can be found.

 

[Canto]

All we know of the apostles writings is found in the NT. If you want to claim they wrote other things outside the NT then you are going to have to show me where these documents can be found.

Not so, again TRADITION.
Where in the bible does it say all Tradition is contained herein?

Where in the bible does Jesus say “wilt thou nowest that everything thou needs is contained in this book which I shall calleth the Bible. Forgeth any Tradition or tradition. Ignoreth the Church. Ignoreth common logic. All that thou needest is this Holy Book and this book alone”
???

As for the assumption if God assumpted people from the Old Testament why not the mum of his Son.

Rev 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars

Now you may say the above quote is about Jerusalem or the Church but which verse in the bible says the woman is actually “the Church” or “Jerusalem”

“[A]n effable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s Assumption is something unique among men.” Gallican Sacramentary, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).

“God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.” Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).

“[T]he virgin is up to now immortal, as He who lived, translated her into the place of reception.” Timotheus of Jerusalem (**8th Century). **

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

“It was fitting …that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory …should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

 

[epostle]

OS believes that only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the bible are trustworthy.

If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes.” That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

“All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.” This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”

OS is in a logically invalid position here as is most of Protestantism.

Contary to OS claim, there is not one single Early Church Father who believed in the sole sufficiency of scripture. His confusion lies in not knowing the difference between MATERIAL sufficiency, which has always been taught by the Church, and SOLE sufficiency, a 400 year old invention that has ripped Protestantism to shreds.

I challenge OS, or anyone else, to demonstrate for me how, where, or when sola scriptura was used that resulted in greater unity among Protestants.

I challenge OS, or anyone else, to name ONE Early Church Father who believed in sola scriptura the way it was invented in the 16th century. This claim is a blatant lie.

Marian Dogmas were not burning issues because they were not fully understood, and the Bible was not a burning issue as a ‘rule of faith’ because there was no “Bible” as we know it. There are other reasons the Assumption of Mary is not explicit in scripture. Since the Assumption took place AFTER St. Paul wrote his Epistles, it is grossly unfair to demand scriptures to prove the event took place.

Second, Paul was not writing devotional works for his audience. He was writing theological and pastoral documents to patch crises that were going on in the different local churches. The amount of devotional material in his letters is small compared to the amount of doctrinal and moral material, and none of his epistles is a devotional meditation on anything, much less on Mary.

Third, Mary was still on earth during most or all of the time Paul was writing his epistles (the last of which was penned in the early to mid-A.D. 60s). Because of this, if a person wished to ask Mary to pray on his behalf, he would have to go to Jerusalem (or wherever else Mary traveled) and ask her personally. Since Mary was not yet in heaven, she did not yet have the ability (apart from a special miracle) to be aware of prayer requests made from the far corners of the globe.

Mary was thus primarily the subject of local rather than global devotion at the time, seeing as how there were no telephones, faxes, or email to easily let her know of devotion people in distant lands had to her and to her example.

It’s not only unfair to demand proof texts, it’s plain dishonest. The Assumption is true because the Church says its true, the same Church that canonized 27 books of the New Testament.

Mariology did not become a central concern in systematic theology until the Nestorian controversy where the title “Christotokos” was proposed instead of “Theotokos.” It was after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD realized that the Marian Title “Theotokos” was crucial to an orthodox Christology that the importance of the BVM in dogmatics was recognized. From that time onwards, an orthodox Mariology has been the first line of defense to an orthodox Christology. Mary bashers confuse development of orthodox Mariology with invention, and as a result, end up committing serious Christological errors in the process.

Most evangelicals are Nestorian, but won’t admit it.

 

[CentralFLJames]

These questions are not off topic. They fit the title of this thread very well.

The question was why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? The early church fathers believed Scripture held all truth, why don’t Catholics of today? When did you stop accepting Scripture as the truth and the only truth?

Would Irenæus believe the assumption of Mary if he couldn’t prove it by Scripture? I can answer that one for you—No!

Giving you right back your circular reasoning: Do you believe everything Irenaeus says or just the stuff that you want to hear?
BTW Why are you reading Irenaeus when scripture is all you need?

Again you are misrepresenting what the early Church fathers believed through a private interpretation both of scripture and tradtion. We come full circle again to what I originally mentioned hundreds of posts ago - why should anyone take your interpretation as infallible over any other person? Why should you even take yourself serious?

There are dozens of unanswered questions that you have ignored and left unanswered.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Lets test the Scriptures with some of the teachings of the church.
Where do the Scriptures teach Mary’s assumption?

Where do we see anyone in the NT praying to a Christian who had died? Stephen was the first to die. Are there any prayers to him in the NT?

Where do you see anyone reading the NT 400 years before it was created? And least we forget the most obvious Christian we have been praying to from day one is Jesus.

Where in the New Testament does it tell us not to be concerned about heretics and false teachers and to wait for 1500 years for Luther to fix all the things that we might want a 2nd opinion on?

As for prayers for Stephen - do you have the least doubt that Paul did not pray for him after recognizing the guilty in murdering him when Jesus confronted him and asked him why he was persecuting Him & His Church?

James

 

[justasking4]

epostle;3288821]OS believes that only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the bible are trustworthy.

If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes.” That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

“All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.” This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”

Do you believe that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired?

Are the Scriptures themselves adequate or strong enough for doctrines to be based on?

OS is in a logically invalid position here as is most of Protestantism.

Contary to OS claim, there is not one single Early Church Father who believed in the sole sufficiency of scripture. His confusion lies in not knowing the difference between MATERIAL sufficiency, which has always been taught by the Church, and SOLE sufficiency, a 400 year old invention that has ripped Protestantism to shreds.

What do you think of this quote from Basil of Caesaria:
"We ought to carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered to us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. (Prolegomena, 2, Work 3, Ascetic (iii) )

This man certainly supports sola scriptura.

I challenge OS, or anyone else, to demonstrate for me how, where, or when sola scriptura was used that resulted in greater unity among Protestants.

Do all orthodox protestants believe:
1- Christ is God?
2- died for the sins of the world?
3- that ministers can marry?

I challenge OS, or anyone else, to name ONE Early Church Father who believed in sola scriptura the way it was invented in the 16th century. This claim is a blatant lie.

Not sure Basil of Caesaria was a father but he certainly did.

Marian Dogmas were not burning issues because they were not fully understood, and the Bible was not a burning issue as a ‘rule of faith’ because there was no “Bible” as we know it. There are other reasons the Assumption of Mary is not explicit in scripture. Since the Assumption took place AFTER St. Paul wrote his Epistles, it is grossly unfair to demand scriptures to prove the event took place.

So we agree that its not taught in scripture?

Second, Paul was not writing devotional works for his audience. He was writing theological and pastoral documents to patch crises that were going on in the different local churches. The amount of devotional material in his letters is small compared to the amount of doctrinal and moral material, and none of his epistles is a devotional meditation on anything, much less on Mary.

True. However Paul is not the only writer either.

Third, Mary was still on earth during most or all of the time Paul was writing his epistles (the last of which was penned in the early to mid-A.D. 60s). Because of this, if a person wished to ask Mary to pray on his behalf, he would have to go to Jerusalem (or wherever else Mary traveled) and ask her personally. Since Mary was not yet in heaven, she did not yet have the ability (apart from a special miracle) to be aware of prayer requests made from the far corners of the globe.

How about any prayers to her in the second century? Do any fathers in this period encourage prayer to her?

Mary was thus primarily the subject of local rather than global devotion at the time, seeing as how there were no telephones, faxes, or email to easily let her know of devotion people in distant lands had to her and to her example.

It’s not only unfair to demand proof texts, it’s plain dishonest.

What dishonest is to claim its an apostolic teaching.

The Assumption is true because the Church says its true,

Not so. Just because an authority claims something to be true does not make it so. In this case there is no evidence from the from the first century. It fails not only on biblical grounds (see above) but also on historical grounds.

the same Church that canonized 27 books of the New Testament.

Different issue and one that has a tremendous amount of support.

Mariology did not become a central concern in systematic theology until the Nestorian controversy where the title “Christotokos” was proposed instead of “Theotokos.” It was after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD realized that the Marian Title “Theotokos” was crucial to an orthodox Christology that the importance of the BVM in dogmatics was recognized. From that time onwards, an orthodox Mariology has been the first line of defense to an orthodox Christology. Mary bashers confuse development of orthodox Mariology with invention, and as a result, end up committing serious Christological errors in the process.

Actually the error is on the catholic side by making her out to be something the scriptures never do.

Most evangelicals are Nestorian, but won’t admit it.

What do you mean by this?

 

[CentralFLJames]

OS believes that only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the bible are trustworthy.

If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes.” That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

“All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.” This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”

OS is in a logically invalid position here as is most of Protestantism.

Contary to OS claim, there is not one single Early Church Father who believed in the sole sufficiency of scripture. His confusion lies in not knowing the difference between MATERIAL sufficiency, which has always been taught by the Church, and SOLE sufficiency, a 400 year old invention that has ripped Protestantism to shreds.

I challenge OS, or anyone else, to demonstrate for me how, where, or when sola scriptura was used that resulted in greater unity among Protestants.

I challenge OS, or anyone else, to name ONE Early Church Father who believed in sola scriptura the way it was invented in the 16th century. This claim is a blatant lie.

Marian Dogmas were not burning issues because they were not fully understood, and the Bible was not a burning issue as a ‘rule of faith’ because there was no “Bible” as we know it. There are other reasons the Assumption of Mary is not explicit in scripture. Since the Assumption took place AFTER St. Paul wrote his Epistles, it is grossly unfair to demand scriptures to prove the event took place.

Second, Paul was not writing devotional works for his audience. He was writing theological and pastoral documents to patch crises that were going on in the different local churches. The amount of devotional material in his letters is small compared to the amount of doctrinal and moral material, and none of his epistles is a devotional meditation on anything, much less on Mary.

Third, Mary was still on earth during most or all of the time Paul was writing his epistles (the last of which was penned in the early to mid-A.D. 60s). Because of this, if a person wished to ask Mary to pray on his behalf, he would have to go to Jerusalem (or wherever else Mary traveled) and ask her personally. Since Mary was not yet in heaven, she did not yet have the ability (apart from a special miracle) to be aware of prayer requests made from the far corners of the globe.

Mary was thus primarily the subject of local rather than global devotion at the time, seeing as how there were no telephones, faxes, or email to easily let her know of devotion people in distant lands had to her and to her example.

It’s not only unfair to demand proof texts, it’s plain dishonest. The Assumption is true because the Church says its true, the same Church that canonized 27 books of the New Testament.

Mariology did not become a central concern in systematic theology until the Nestorian controversy where the title “Christotokos” was proposed instead of “Theotokos.” It was after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD realized that the Marian Title “Theotokos” was crucial to an orthodox Christology that the importance of the BVM in dogmatics was recognized. From that time onwards, an orthodox Mariology has been the first line of defense to an orthodox Christology. Mary bashers confuse development of orthodox Mariology with invention, and as a result, end up committing serious Christological errors in the process.

Most evangelicals are Nestorian, but won’t admit it.

Epostle - thanks! That was amazingly well said!

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Do you believe that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired?

Are the Scriptures themselves adequate or strong enough for doctrines to be based on?

What do you think of this quote from Basil of Caesaria:
"We ought to carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered to us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. (Prolegomena, 2, Work 3, Ascetic (iii)

This man certainly supports sola scriptura.

Do all orthodox protestants believe:
1- Christ is God?
2- died for the sins of the world?
3- that ministers can marry?

Not sure Basil of Caesaria was a father but he certainly did.

So we agree that its not taught in scripture?

True. However Paul is not the only writer either.

How about any prayers to her in the second century? Do any fathers in this period encourage prayer to her?

What dishonest is to claim its an apostolic teaching.

Not so. Just because an authority claims something to be true does not make it so. In this case there is no evidence from the from the first century. It fails not only on biblical grounds (see above) but also on historical grounds.

Different issue and one that has a tremendous amount of support.

Actually the error is on the catholic side by making her out to be something the scriptures never do.

What do you mean by this?

Give it up JA4 - you are in way over your head here and outside the wading pool.

So now you, a strong advocate of Sola Scriptura want to go outside Scripture to look for extra biblical sources that contain fragments of teaching that support your position. Your desperation to keep your head above water is only overcome by the humor in not recognizing that all you have to do is see the truth in standing up to not drown in this ridiculous line reasoning.

James

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3289021
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you believe that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired?

Are the Scriptures themselves adequate or strong enough for doctrines to be based on?

What do you think of this quote from Basil of Caesaria:
"We ought to carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered to us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. (Prolegomena, 2, Work 3, Ascetic (iii)

This man certainly supports sola scriptura.

Do all orthodox protestants believe:
1- Christ is God?
2- died for the sins of the world?
3- that ministers can marry?

Not sure Basil of Caesaria was a father but he certainly did.

So we agree that its not taught in scripture?

True. However Paul is not the only writer either.

How about any prayers to her in the second century? Do any fathers in this period encourage prayer to her?

What dishonest is to claim its an apostolic teaching.

Not so. Just because an authority claims something to be true does not make it so. In this case there is no evidence from the from the first century. It fails not only on biblical grounds (see above) but also on historical grounds.

Different issue and one that has a tremendous amount of support.

Actually the error is on the catholic side by making her out to be something the scriptures never do.

What do you mean by this?

CentralFLJames
]Give it up JA4 - you are in way over your head here and outside the wading pool.

If i’m over my head here then why didn’t you answer any of my questions or at least try to refute me with some facts? Slogans won’t get you anywhere.

So now you, a strong advocate of Sola Scriptura want to go outside Scripture to look for extra biblical sources that contain fragments of teaching that support your position.

Can you clarify? Not sure what you mean.

Your desperation to keep your head above water is only overcome by the humor in not recognizing that all you have to do is see the truth in standing up to not drown in this ridiculous line reasoning.

i take this that you have no real counter arguments or defense for your position.

James

 

[wisdomseeker]

If i’m over my head here then why didn’t you answer any of my questions or at least try to refute me with some facts? Slogans won’t get you anywhere.

Can you clarify? Not sure what you mean.

i take this that you have no real counter arguments or defense for your position.

as far as i am concerned the sola scriptures people can believe in whatever they want. sola scriptures. sola fide. and whatevermore. these are pointless arguments. those outside the True Church can not ever understand this Church and these arguments will never ever make them understand.

“Evangelize, if necessary use words.”

 

[Ignatius]

Your comments?

Well, to the thread topic, now I may have brought this up before, but . . . . .

As I pointed out earlier, when Paul referred to the inspiration of Scripture in 2 Tim 3:16 he said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

Now, you should be aware that at that time, the New Testament had not been written. Paul was therefore referring to the Old Testament. And the Old Testament used where he went (in Greece and the middle East) at the time was the Septuagint version and had been for 200 years before Christ and contains the Deuterocanonical books. So, by 2 Tim 3: 16, Paul supports the Deuterocanon as inspired. This is straight from the pen of the Apostle himself. Also, almost every time that the OT is quoted in the New Testament Greek, the Greek is an quote of the Septuagent Greek text. This pretty much affirms the Deuterocanon as scriptural.

So, having addressed that issue, I ask you, on what basis do you believe the New Testament to be inspired?
Also, how do you determine which writings should be in the New Testament?

And, if you still hold to Sola Scriptura, I would also like to ask you to prove that the Bible was intended to be the sole rule of faith, since the Bible itself makes no such claim—in fact, it denies it.

I guess I have no choice but to conclude that you are unable to answer the questions I posed above.

May the Peace of Christ be with you brother

Your servant in Christ.

 

[CentralFLJames]

If i’m over my head here then why didn’t you answer any of my questions or at least try to refute me with some facts? Slogans won’t get you anywhere.

Can you clarify? Not sure what you mean.

i take this that you have no real counter arguments or defense for your position.

Clarifying: you attempted to go extra-biblical to reference Basil of Caesaria to support Sola Scriptura. As a Sola Scriptura advocate you should limit yourself to purely scriptural references or you expose yourself to somone else’s teaching and tradition. Do you agree with everything Basil said? Also, are you now willing to accept the tradition and teaching of early church father’s to refute the validity of “scripture only”?

On these questions.
Do all orthodox protestants believe:
1- Christ is God?
2- died for the sins of the world?
3- that ministers can marry?

I won’t bother to answer them since you try to unite protestants around a new term called “orthodox” that has no recognized spokesperson or cannon. In other words its a mythological entity and a fabrication. So you argue from a hypotehetical condition that does not exist and never will.

I will take note that in trying to find the least common denominator of common Protestant belief you expose more weakness to your argument and further fracture Protestantism. Your 3rd question is only true in that Protestants believe that ministers may marry but may also marry multiple times through divorce and often without any regard to gender. All of this is an abomination to the Lord. So you unwittingly construct an example of a unifying principal that unites around the same kinds of abominable error and sin. So question #3 becomes yet another example of disunity in protestant belief since each faction makes its own rules up as to “what kind of marriage” is permitted.

James

 

[MrS]

“Evangelize, if necessary use words.”

And if REALLY necessary, use written words.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Do you believe that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired?

Are the Scriptures themselves adequate or strong enough for doctrines to be based on?

What do you think of this quote from Basil of Caesaria:
This man certainly supports sola scriptura.

Do all orthodox protestants believe:
1- Christ is God?
2- died for the sins of the world?
3- that ministers can marry?

How about any prayers to her in the second century? Do any fathers in this period encourage prayer to her?

Actually the error is on the catholic side by making her out to be something the scriptures never do.

I believe that Scripture canonized by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is inerrant and inspired. Do you?

I believe that the same authority that canonized the Bible is adequate and sufficient to promulgate doctrine. Do you believe that authority for canonization of Scripture has no authority on “lesser matters?”

I think that you have a poor understanding of what Basil said and its context. Do you believe you have sufficient authority to interpret this man’s words in conflict with the whole work of this man’s life?

Since the Scripture calls on its leaders to interpret Christ to the greatest extent possible, why do you believe that ministers SHOULD marry when Scrpture makes no mention of Christ marrying?

Why you so opposed to giving special honor to the mother of Jesus when there are so many instances of Christ Himself giving her honor and request? Do you so cavelierly resist all of Christ’s example?

Do you believe that those who go to Heaven are alive and obviously lived a life of good example? Do you have the same standard with regard to resisting Christian conversation, asking them to pray for you, and seeing as good example those in your earthly life? If so, you are opposing Scripture which called us to associate with Christians, ask for them to pray for us, and look up to those worthy. If not, you are a hypocrite.

Like epostle said that of Old Scholar, you have painted yourself into a corner based on logical fallacies.