Is Sola Scriptura biblical? {Open)

1. Where does the Bible claim sola scriptura?

2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." --> it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable i.e. helpful. the entire verse from 14 to 17 says "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 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. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"
3. Where else do we have the term "sola scriptura" in the Bible?

4. Matthew 15 - Jesus condemns corrupt tradition, not all tradition. At no point is the basic notion of traidition condemned

5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brehtern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"

6. 1 Timothy 3:14-15

I'm not the one denying Christ, you are. You place Christ second to Mary. His position as mediator as been usurped as one example of his usurpation. All to follow after the pelagian heresy denounced by the early fathers.

Your belief in the sinlessness of Mary and all the other abominable doctrines revolving around Mary did not originate with the Apostles, it originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church, as evidenced by its rejection by Augustine and Gregory the Great, and in later centuries by Anselm, Bernard of Clairveaux, and Thomas Aquinas. The Roman Catholic patristic scholar, Walter Burghardt, confirms the patristic and papal rejection of this doctrine historically:

"Pelagius and Celestius used Mary, the mother of Jesus, as an example of one born free of original sin. Vincent of Lerins points out the origin of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception with these words: 'Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before the profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards every good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Celestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?' (Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 24.62, Series Two, vol. XI, of Schaff and Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 149-50).

Again, I'm not the one following heresies: YOU ARE.

You don't really know about The Church at all -- your statements are indication of that -- your pastors have fed you their lies. Like for instance your statement that You place Christ second to Mary. If you did attend a mass, you'd find Christ mentioned throughout and Mary may be mentioned once or twice (depending on the readings for that day). Secondly, Mary is considered as co-operating with Christ in Her salvation -- co-operating in the sense that she said YES when the angel came to her.

The sinlessness of Mary -- another point which you have been fed false propaganda. Mary was sinless not because of anything she did or any power of her own but BECAUSE OF GOD's GRACE. Mary owes everything in her position to God. God purified the ark in which was placed the first covenant, and He did the same with the second ark -- when the angel comes, he calls Mary "filled with grace" -- filled with the Grace of God. And anyone filled to the brim with God's grace cannot sin --> God's grace saves us even when we are touched by it, how much more would God's grace filled to the brim save another creature, a creature like Mary?

The belief in the sinlessness of Mary dates back to the time when the Gospels say the angel called her "filled with Grace" -- this, as I said, is a favor of God on one of His creatures. This in no way contradicts scripture and is in fact written in scripture. ("filled with grace").

Your statement that it was Pelegius who quoted it is again a symbol of how much propaganda your pastors have fed. Pelegius believed that we could save ourselves with works alone. This was and is rejected by The Church. If Pelegius believed that we could save ourselves and didn't need God's grace, then for him to admit the sinlessness of MAry is to deny his own theorem - he would have contradicted himself

And again you are wearing blinders. And Lerins was correctly quoted, you just refuse to see because it might cause you to question your sainted magisterium.

You just don't get it. You can't believe there was even so much as ONE sinless person (including Mary) without embracing pelagianism. Since we know there is indeed the doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN, there CANNOT be even ONE person exempted. PERIOD. When your sainted magisterium lays claim to that ONE person named Mary who was suddenly conceived WITHOUT SIN, then you have denied the time honored dogma of original sin. By doing so you have embraced heresy.

There is absolutely NO Scriptural support for Mary's immaculate conception. Even you Catholics admit this from the Catholic Encylopdia. Key phrase: "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."

The only vague Scripture you twist to try and show some scriptural support for this heretical dogma is Luke 1:28. But "full of grace" in that passage can not possibly mean conceived without sin, for the very same word is used in Ephesians 1:6 referring to ALL believers.

Contrary to the Roman Catholic teaching, Scripture plainly teaches that all Adam's descendents share his sinful nature: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). Therefore all Adam's children need to be saved. Mary herself, a natural descendant of Adam, calls God "my savior" (Luke 1:47). Evidently she did not know the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception!

It is Christ alone, the eternal Son who was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin woman, it is ever expressly stated that He was "without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). Christ alone is immaculate from conception; therefore He alone is qualified to die in the place of sinners. Christ, who knew no sin, "bore our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24).

Take the blinders off. The unbiblical dogmas taught by the RCC supplant Christ, they deny Him His glory, His majesty, His power, and His saving work on the Cross. They are HERESY and have been heresy since the 5th century when such ideas were FIRST introduced!!

The Church disagrees with that. Mary was an exception, a creature created for a specific purpose, as an ark.

Prove that from Scripture. No where does God in His Word EVER say Mary would be an exception to the rule. Mary herself said, "God MY SAVIOR" (Luke 1:47). If she were sinless and an 'exception' she would have NO need of a Savior. Scripture and more importantly Mary herself contradicts the RCC.

Secondly, this whole doctrine is in fact fairly new and not an apostolic tradition. It was first in 1547, at the council of Trent that the Catholic Church announced the sinlessness of Mary enabling her to avoid venial sins. In 1620 Pope Paul the 5th forbade anything contrary to the teaching of Mary's immaculate conception to be said publicly under threat of excommunication. In 1622 Pope Gregory the 15th forbade any contradictory statements of her immaculate conception to be made in private. And so began the official elevation of this servant woman the mother of the humanity of the Lord. When? Not until the 16th century!!!!!

Then Pope Pius IX in 1854 proclaimed, “Let all the children of the Catholic Church ... Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, conceived without original sin"), but that the reason she never sinned at any time during her life was because she was unable to sin.” Then in 1950 Pius the 12th said, “Mary the immaculate perpetual virgin mother of God after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

So.....to quote words from you.....the church managed to survive over 1500 years before mandating a belief in the immaculate conception, and it wasn't until 1854 it became official dogma. In fact it was heresy to believe IN the immaculate conception prior to the Council of Trent:

“God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (Tertullian, 215 A.D.; The Soul 41:3).

Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”

Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

"If the Scriptures be duly considered, and the saying of the doctors ancient and modern, who have been most devoted to the glorious Virgin, it is plain from their words that she was conceived in sin,” (Cardinal Cajetan, De Loc TheoI. parts c. 2.)

“For he (Christ) alone was truly born holy” (Gregory the Great Bened. Edit. page 598).

" Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.)"

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2) When the immaculate conception was first presented in the year 1140 it was opposed by Bernard of Clairvaux also Thomas Aquinas adamantly taught Mary was a sinner, and that any contrary view was heresy.

Third, In Luke 2:49-50 When Mary and Joseph after a day's journey found out that Jesus was missing from their company they went back to find Him. After two more days they found Him teaching in the temple teaching. Mary then asks Jesus why he did not leave with them, they looked high and low for him? His response is, why did you look all over for me? Did you not know that I must be about my fathers business (work)?”

Lk.2:50: “But they (both Mary and Joseph) did not understand the words he spoke to them.” Notice in both accounts Mary does not understand the things of God. Someone who is sinless would know God’s ways and not need a explanation! It is sin that corrupts ones understanding of spiritual things. What did they not understand? That Jesus would be about His Fathers business. In this account we see Mary equal with Joseph in not understanding.

In Luke 2:21-24 Mary brought a sacrifice of two turtledoves in accord to Jewish law in Leviticus chapter 12. One was for a burnt offering, the other was for a sin offering. This couldn’t have been for the child who was the Holy one, the sinless spotless lamb of God. This offering was for her own uncleanness as prescribed by Levitical Law. Mary's conformity to the law is an admission she was a sinner needing to be restored by the cleansing, only sinners need cleansing.

Fourth, yet another point of contention between the dogma of the immaculate conception and Scripture: If Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 as Roman Catholics say, it describes her with birth pains which according to the Bible is a judgment on sinners (Gen. 3:15-16). If Mary were immaculately conceived and sinless she would have had NO birth pangs.

Fifth, Mary did not need to BE sinless to conceive the sinless Son of God. Sin is transmitted through the seed of the man not the woman:

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (cf I Timothy 2:14)

Christ's sinlessness was not dependent on Mary being sinless, she didn’t need to be preserved from sin. Biblically the sin nature is passed on through the man. This is why it was not passed on to Jesus: He had no human Father to be part of His conception, but was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible teaches that sin is present at conception, as David the Psalmist stated, “in sin did my mother conceive me”, also in Job 14:4; “no one can make something clean out of something unclean.” This is why God gives man a new nature to rule over his sin nature.

Last, Mary had a human father, not Divine, (Luke 3:23) therefore she was in no way shape or form sinless or an exception. She herself would have had to have had a Divine father to be conceived without sin. Such teaching is heresy. Pope Gregory called it heresy, St. Augustine called it heresy, Jerome called it heresy, it was heresy in the 4th century when first introduced by Pelagious and it remains heresy in 2010 and you believe such lies at your own peril.

>1. The Apostles preached one body of truth when they were alive. They wrote the truth and preached the truth. Both were authoritative.

And what is that truth?
It was, and is, and will always be Jesus as the Savior. Without Jesus being the Savior, we could not be saved in any way, and thus it is that Jesus fills the role of Intercessor; “Immanuel, meaning God with Us.”
This is ALSO the primary purpose of Jesus’s role as Priest; being God He CAN and DOES represent God to Man; being Priest He, as Man, represents Man to God.
Jesus’s role as Prophet is similar: to beat testimony of God and His message[s].

With such Perfect Awesomeness, how can we NOT declare Him to be Worthy of being King?

Now, if Jesus is the Word made flesh (according to John) then I must ask how can the Word of God (the Scriptures) NOT be held in that prominent position?

I hear a lot of “pissing and moaning” about how Sola Scriptura seeks to limit Jesus by limiting Him to the [written] Word; but I ask this, isn’t such an assumption limiting the Holy Spirit? Isn’t the Holy Spirit, the Comforter that Christ sent, supposed to lead us into all knowledge? Isn’t the Holy Spirit supposed to show us Truth?

[The jailer] “brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:30-31)

If that is the case, how can you exalt tradition, of any sort, over the Word (which IS Jesus)? Furthermore, nothing is said about any tradition, or even scripture, in order to be saved. So, Jesus is supreme and essential.

Likewise, the early church had this to say to the Gentiles who were, at the time, being told that salvation was conditional upon adopting all the Jewish customs & rituals:
[Acts 15:28,29] — It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.