Is Sola Scriptura biblical? {Open)

www.cronos.com ^ | 31-May-2010 | Self Topic

[Cronos]

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

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

note that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is The Church of the Living God

7. Nowhere does Scripture reduce God's word down to Scripture ALONE. Instead the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is found in The Church: in Tradition (2 Th 2:15, 3:6) and in the Church teaching (1 Pet 1:25, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Mt 18:17). This supports the Church principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone'.

8. The New Testament was compiled at the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgements to Rome for the Pope's approval.

9. Yet, the people HAD the Canon, the Word of God before the scriptures were compiled, and even before some were written

10. Books that were revered in the 1st and 2nd centuries were left out of canon. Book slike the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. Why?

11. There were disputes over 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, yet they are in Scripture. Whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?

12. How are Protestants sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)?

13. Or do Protestants have a fallible collection of infallible documents? And how do they know that Jude is infallible? And how do they know that the Epistle of Barnabus is not?

14. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

[conservativegramma]

Please answer the question I posed before “What if I substituted Jews for Moslems in that CCC 841 quote, what do you think of that? Do you still feel it is heresy?

#1 - If 'Jews' for 'Moslems' were substituted it would still prove the fallibilty of the catechism, and thus the fallibility of RCC dogma. If the dogma is truly infallible logic dictates that the catechism also be infallible. But you tried to claim that the dogma was INFALLIBLE but the catechism was FALLIBLE and just forget it who knows what it means? Doesn't work that way. If one is fallible, BOTH must be fallible; if one is infallible BOTH must be infallible. Why? Because one comes from the other. God cannot ever issue an fallibe catechism can He? Why? Because He's infallible, omnisicent deity. Those who issue decrees in His Name may be fallible human beings, but none of their decrees may be fallible anymore than Scripture is fallible because these decrees ultimately derive from God according to your belief system. Therefore, when the magisterium issues any decrees or catechisms, they MUST pass this test of infallibility the same as Scripture, because they claim to speak in the Name of the Lord. Even more so since this same Magisterium decreed that all their creeds and sacraments are EQUAL to Scripture. Correct? (Again your belief system not mine). Therefore all creeds and sacraments and catechisms IF truly from God would HAVE to be infallible as God Himself is infallible. Logic dictates nothing less. To try and claim that the magisterium is infallible but the catechism is FALLIBLE, makes the magisterium itself FALLIBLE, and proves they do not speak for God in their decrees.

#2 - Now back to the question. Should the CCC #841 read 'Jew' instead of 'Moslem' heresy would not be the best term to use. Apostasy would be a better term at that point. It wouldn't be heresy in the sense that the God of Judaism IS in fact the God of Abraham. Allah is clearly NOT the God of Abraham; in spite of what is claimed, for a multiplicity of reasons too deep to get into in this post. (I can point you towards links that documents research which demonstrably proves Allah is in fact Baal of the Old Testament, or Hubal). Since Allah is a pagan deity, unification with Allah would be heresy in every sense of the word. But since the God of Abraham is the same God Christians worship, were the CCC #841 to say 'Jew' instead heresy wouldn't be the proper word at that point, but Apostasy would be in order. Why would it be Apostasy?

#3 - Why, if both Jews and Christians worship the God of Abraham would I say that? Because Judaism at the present time still rejects Christ. They have yet to accept Christ as the promised Messiah. Consequently, they themselves in denying Christ, Judaism as a rule denies the Trinity. There are some individual Jews who have accepted Christ (Example: The Jews for Jesus organization; who would because of their professed faith in Christ naturally be excluded even though they maintain being Jews), but Judaism in and of itself still rejects Him. Therefore, were the CCC to say 'Jew' it would still be a false decree because to unite with a group which denies Christ would be a reversal for a Church who for centuries have maintained a faith in and belief in Christ as the Messiah. That would be the classic definition of Apostasy.

In summary, were the above CCC #841 to read Judaism instead of Islam, I wouldn't say heresy as the more appropriate terminology at that point would be apostasy. However, the CCC #841 DOESN'T SAY JEW now does it? It says MOSLEM. So in effect what the RCC has done with this catechism is UNITE ITSELF WITH BAAL WORSHIPPERS! And that is definite heresy no matter how you slice it or try and excuse it away.

[OneWingedShark]

Unity in Essentials

The Incarnation

The Trinity

Jesus Christ is God equal to the Father in every way

While Jesus is God, He humbled/subordinated Himself to the Father.
Phil. 2:5-8

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
  Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
  but made himself nothing,
      taking the very nature of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
  And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      and became obedient to death—
         even death on a cross!

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Marriage is indissoluble

Matt 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Contraceptives are forbidden without exemption

Abortion forbidden in all cases.

and many other doctrines

I've given you the words of Jesus Himself to argue against some of your listed "Essential Doctrines."

Protestants can't even agree infallible if Jesus Christ is God equal to the Father in every way.

Please explain to me the meaning of Jesus' words in John 5:19 then.

"In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love" St. Augustine (354-430 AD)

I agree with Augustine, but I disagree with you.
Paul said, in 1 Cor 13:1 "I may speak in the languages of humans and of angels. But if I don’t have love, I am a loud gong or a clashing cymbal." [GOD’S WORD Translation]
You come across as noisy & clamorous; I daresay, like a loud gong and clashing cymbal...

[presently no screen name]

The Latin Mind cannot be indifferent the Saxon Mind can be and is. The Latin Mind clings to unity. The Saxon Mind sees actual disadvantages in unity. In a word, the Latin Mind simply cannot comprehend the mental processes of the Saxon Mind (and visa versa).

YEP! MAN and 'his' thinking - confusion and never truth.

God's WORD reigns supreme!

[OneWingedShark]

>YEP! MAN and ‘his’ thinking - confusion and never truth.

I disagree; God Himself says [in Isaiah, IIRC] “Come, let us reason together”
If man’s thinking were NEVER truth God would not ever appeal to man’s reason; yet He does.

>God’s WORD reigns supreme!

Agreed.

[mdmathis6]

“But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness;” 1 Corinthians 1:23

Ironically, Leoni, your posting inadvertantly illustrates the above verse in a very modern and tragic way! Just substitute the zealous Jews, steeped in the talmudic tradition regarding the Torah, for the zealous latin minds(as you have defined them) steeped in Catholic traditions regarding scriptues. Then, substitute the learned socratically trained greeks for the “wishy washy” saxon minds as you have defined them for whom truth is to be personally defined. You’ll see then what a sorry state Christendom finds itself....where the Resurrection for the apostate Catholic “latin intellectuals” has become a stumbling block while the Resurrection for the apostate liberal Protestants has come to mean foolishness.

The Resurrection of Christ is the key of it....not dead homilies describing a forever dying Christ nor new age platitudes in new age infested protestant churches admonishing all to find their own way to God!

Give me Christ and his living resurrection, the springs “of living water that splash forth from our bellies” not dead forms of worship, adherents of which having “forms of godliness but having no belief in the the power of God”

The Resurrection of Christ is not to be defined by man made traditions or speculative interminable arguing; it is to be defined directly by the Holy Spirit dwelling in each of us.

Give me that Christ, that Cross, that perfect sacrifice that destroys the power of death,and that Affirming Resurrection, that I might be a conduit of God’s love and grace or.... let my inner man crumble into nothingness! For indeed I am nothing without Christ! (so let it be done in Christ’s name)

[conservativegramma]

Amen!!!

[presently no screen name]

Stick to your own simpleton religion of one, you have no concept of the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.

You have no concept about a personal relationship with God. And that's what it is all about - Jesus dying rent the veil that we can go boldly to God in Jesus Name.

You have been told this relentlessly - so you are accountable for it. You can't say but the church told me this - that excuse won't fly. You made a choice to be deceived by man. Your church has put themselves in the place of God.

Your church is not your judge in the end. Man is fallible, just like Peter was, all the apostles, Moses, etc. God is the ONLY one who is infallible. For the church/pope to ever take that position is blasphemy and yet to see many just going along willingly with the blasphemy is like sheep to the slaughter. Mindless robots being controlled by lies.

God's WORD is true and every man a liar. HIS WORD never ends - when everything is destroyed HIS WORD still stands!

For JESUS IS THE TRUTH, JESUS is the LIVING WORD from the beginning to time - way before man was even created. HIS WORD created the universe. And you God's Word doesn't trump over all? Get your head out of the sand. It's because of His own WORD your pope or you are even alive - or any priest, cardinal, bishop or anyone who has ever lived. Don't think your blasphemous mindset won't be judged accordingly nor be let to rest here. Remember - SATAN has always wanted to be like God, also. Buy a clue. Your religion isn't the first to try it.

[presently no screen name]

Man’s truth - ANY truth man has comes from God. HE is the Source of ALL truth.

[Grunthor]

Just give me Jesus. You can have all your popes, your “extra biblical” writings, your self justifying beauracracy and your pretty, pretty statues.

I’ll take Jesus.

[OneWingedShark]

>Man’s truth - ANY truth man has comes from God. HE is the Source of ALL truth.

I believe I understand what you’re trying to say; however it might be more accurate to say ‘understanding’ or [possibly] ‘Wisdom’ rather than ‘truth’ in your previous statement.
{See James 3:13-18}

The reason I’m disagreeing with you on the particular wording is because truth is truth; to split it into classes such as “man’s truth” and “God’s truth” degrades the word. {Especially if, as you infer, “mans truth” is not true.}

The underlying axiom in Logic is called the Law of Non-Contradiction; simply stated it is:
A statement cannot be simultaneously true and false.

{Note that reinterpreting a statement is not “at the same time” as the first interpretation.}

[presently no screen name]

‘Wisdom’ rather than ‘truth’ in your previous statement.

Agreed and thanks.

[johngrace]

When you are left to interpret it your self. You are.

[Grunthor]

Bearing false witness, or lying is a sin. One of the big ten according to my Bible. Then again, no old guy in a pointy hat told me so, so I might be misinterpreting that.

[johngrace]

MATTHEW 16:18”And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” - Only one Church goes back 2000 years. Out in the public eye too. No other. The devil could not stop it. Man could not. No other Human organization can go that far back. Its only a miracle of God. He made a Church not writings. He left the church to people who wrote for the church that continues even today. And gates of hell will not prevail! He does not say scripture alone. He also said we would have the goats with the sheep.

[Grunthor]

Just give me Jesus. You can have all your popes, your extra biblical writings, your self justifying beauracracy and your pretty, pretty statues.

I’ll take Jesus.

[bkaycee]

MATTHEW 16:18”And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. ”Only one Church goes back 2000 years. Out in the public eye too. No other. The devil could not stop it. Man could not. No other Human organization can go that far back

Orthodox Church?

He made a Church not writings. He left the church to people who wrote for the church that continues even today

So, the church is writing scripture today?

He also said we would have the goats with the sheep.

Huh? What does that mean?

[johngrace]

So your from the orthodox church?

[johngrace]

He made a Church not writings. He left the church to people who wrote for the church that continues even today
So, the church is writing scripture today?No thats the original apostles. There are canon and other writings today as the church exists as Christ says in the comment bible verse I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. ”
He also said we would have the goats with the sheep.
Huh? What does that mean?That the real followers will be separated from the wicked. Yes even the church. MATTHHEW 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34”Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37”Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40”The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41”Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44”They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45”He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46”Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[bkaycee]

So your from the orthodox church?

No, but the Orthodox church is 2000 years old, your claim of uniqueness is obviously false.

"If you are Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." This is the greatest legacy that we can pass on to the young people of the new millennium."

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/history.shtml

[Leoni]

You have no clue about the doctrine of infallibility. Your misunderstandings are too vast and I don't have the time, you are not a Catholic, and, I would not even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that you know nothing of the subject.

Regarding substituting Jews for Muslim in #841, your Baal explanation is, your own belief.The Muslims believe they worship the God of Abraham, therefore, your prejudices against Muslims aside, there is no difference between putting Jew or Muslim.

I would not argue with you in your assessment that it is apostasy, a denial of the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ, God. However, the defenders of the quote say that it does not deny directly, it just focuses on God the Father.

In my opinion, is a deceptive half lie. Pope Honorius I (pope from 625-638)was excommunicated (the only pope ever excommunicated)40+ years after his death, for doing similarly in his straddling of the fence rather than fighting the heresy of Monothelites.