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).

[Leoni]

Is your “Jesus”, God, equal to the Father in every way?

[conservativegramma]

You have no clue about the doctrine of infallibility.

Matter of perspective. I believe you have no clue about much of anything as you are completely deceived by a group of power mad apostates. So think what you will, I'll still pray that God will remove the blinders over your eyes so that you may be able to see truth before its too late for you.

In the meantime as already posted:

As long as you continue to worship Mary, pray to fallen sinners, and unite with pagan religious systems......

That's ALL I need to know as to WHO the real heretics are!

[Grunthor]

“Is your “Jesus”, God, equal to the Father in every way?”

Oh, you’ve met? Happy to hear it.

[Leoni]

Re: Do you believe a guy that goes out on Saturday night fornicating, stealing, murdering, drunken debauchery, etc. etc. then gets up the next day and says a few Hail Mary's to the priest, then leaves the confessional, goes right back to murdering, stealing, fornicating......rinse and repeat....is saved???

When Catholics confess their sins to a priest, they have to describe each mortal sin, and are asked questions about them by the priest. We don't "say a few Hail Mary's to the priest". If any of youjust one time went through the embarrassment of describing to a priest that you: masturbated, fornicated, aborted, and used contraceptives...etc (all things which Protestants do without confessing to anyone), you would not do it again for fear of having to go through that again. A Catholic of the type that you described, a CINO, would never go to confession, they don' want to tell their sins to anyone. Few Catholics today go to confession today. No Protestants at all confess their sins.

Anyone with one mortal sin on their soul looses God's Sanctifying Grace.

Re: ......rinse and repeat....is saved???

No Catholic can be so presumptuous as to say that they are saved. Only YOPIOS have such illusions.

[Leoni]

re:As long as you continue to worship Mary, pray to fallen sinners, and unite with pagan religious systems......

You forgot to put worship your pope, worship statues, worship bread, drink alcohol, cause bad weather,

One day I'm going to make a list of all these outburst that YOPIOS make when a light is shined on their own personal religion of one. Go worship your pope is still the #1.

[Grunthor]

(all things which Protestants do without confessing to anyone)

We confess our sins to Jesus.

[conservativegramma]

No Catholic can be so presumptuous as to say that they are saved. Only YOPIOS have such illusions.

Once again demonstrating biblical illiteracy. If you don't know if you're saved or not, chances are, you're not:

I John 5:11-13 -

11And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

It doesn't say, 'think you have eternal life'; 'hope you have eternal life'; 'maybe have eternal life'; 'Lord willing have eternal life'; but it says clearly - KNOW that you have eternal life.

2 Corinthians 13:5 - Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

If I were you I'd get off the computer and take the test.

[Grunthor]

“Once again demonstrating biblical illiteracy”

What need do they have of the Bible? Without someone to tell them what it means, is it not useless to them?

[BipolarBob]

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.

Isn't that the way it always is with "cunningly devised fables"? The basic truths (in the Bible) are simple enough for a child to grasp, but the richness of them can absorb one a lifetime. I love reading the Bible because it rings true and plain. If someone has to go into a long involved explanation and has to quote St. Clematis or whomever, then somethings wrong. Jesus taught using simple analogies that everyone could understand. The onerous burdens and repetitive manmade rituals were the trademarks of the Pharisees.

[conservativegramma]

One day I'm going to make a list of all these outburst that YOPIOS make when a light is shined on their own personal religion of one. Go worship your pope is still the #1.

Go right ahead. Still doesn't change the evidence that that IS what you do does it?

I'll let God handle this one. Exodus 20:4-5:

4"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Again: I'll let the LORD speak about how HE feels about this behavior:

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." -Isaiah 42:8

[conservativegramma]

What need do they have of the Bible? Without someone to tell them what it means, is it not useless to them?

Pretty much yeah. But it also exposes that the truth isn't in them. God's WORD will stand forever - the magisterium will not.

[CholeraJoe]

Those quotes are from the Old Testament and don’t apply any more. Don’t you know Paul the Apostle changed all that stuff about shrimp and sodomy being abomination? /sarc

[johngrace]

Its another branch.

[johngrace]

Then Moses made statues on the ark of the covenant. EXODUS 25: 17 “Make an atonement cover [a] of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. [b] 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends.” Its venerate and not worship otherwise why would God have Moses make statues. He is not that strict. He would have contradicted himself. Its doing it like the pagans do. Like sacrifice to the God In the statue.

[Leoni]

Orestes Brownson, a former Congregationalist minister. [O.A. Brownson: “Protestantism in a Nutshell,” Brownson’s Quarterly Review, October, 1849, Loc. Cit., pp.136-142.]

The works [on Protestantism] we have, excellent as they are in their way, and admirably fitted to guard the faithful against many of the devices of the enemy to detach them from the church, and to aid and instruct persons in heretical communions who are virtually prepared to return to the church, do not hit the reigning form of Protestantism; they do not reach the seat of the disease,, and are apparently written on the supposition of soundness, where there is , in fact only rottenness. The principles they assume as the basis of their refutation of Protestantism, though nominally professed or conceded by the majority of Protestants are not held with sufficient firmness to be used as the foundation of an argument that is to have any practical efficacy in their conversion. They all appear to assume that Protestants as a body really mean to be Christians, and err only in regard to some of the dogmas of Christianity and the method of determining the faith; that Protestantism is a specific heresy, a distinct and positive form of error, like Arianism or Pelagianism; and that its adherents would regard themselves as bound to reject it, if proved to be repugnant to Christianity, or contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This is a natural and a charitable supposition; but we are sorry to say, that if it was ever warrantable, it is not by any means warrantable in our times [October, 1849], except as to the small number of individuals in the several sects who are mere exceptions to the rule. Protestantism is no specific heresy, is not a distinct or positive form of error, but error in general, indifferent to forms, and receptive of any form or of all forms, as suits the convenience or the exigency of its friends. It is a veritable Proteus, and takes any and every shape judged to be proper to deceive the eyes or to elude the blows of the champions of truth. It is Lutheran, Calvinistic, Arminian, Unitarian, Pantheistic, Atheistic, Pyrrhonistic, each by turns or all at once, as is necessary to its purpose. The Protestant as such has, in the ordinary sense, no principles to maintain, no character to support, no consistency to preserve; and we are aware of no authority, no law, no usage, by which he will consent to be bound. Convict him from tradition, and he appeals to the Bible; convict him from the Bible, and he appeals to reason; convict him from reason, and he appeals to private sentiment; convict him from private sentiment, and he appeals to scepticism, or flies back to reason, to Scripture, or tradition, and alternately from one to the other, never scrupling to affirm, one moment, what he denied the moment before, nor blushing to be found maintaining that of contradictories both may be true. He is indifferent as to what he asserts or denies, if able for the moment to obtain an apparent covert from his pursuers.

Protestants do not study for the truth, and are never to be presumed willing to accept it, unless it chances to be where and what they wish it. They occasionally read our [Catholic] books and listen to our arguments, but rarely to ascertain our doctrines, or to learn what we are able to say against them or for ourselves. The thought, that we may possibly be right, seldom occurs to them; and when it does, it is instantly suppressed as an evil thought, as a temptation from the devil. They take it for granted, that, against us, they are right, and cannot be wrong. This is with them a 'fixed fact,' admitting no question. [b]They condescend to consult what doctrines they can profess, or what modifications they can introduce into those which they have professed, that will best enable them to elude our attacks, or give them the appearance of escaping conviction by the authorities from tradition, Scriptures, reason, and sentiment which we array against them. Candor or ingenuousness towards themselves even is a thing wholly foreign to their Protestant nature, and they are instinctively and habitually cavillers and sophisticators. They disdain to argue a question on its merits, and always, if they argue at all, argue it on some unimportant collateral. They never recognize it, unless it in their interest to do so, any distinction between a transeat and a concedo. and rarely fail to insist that the concession of an irrelevant point is a concession of the main issue. They have no sense of responsibility, no loyalty to truth, no mental chastity, no intellectual sincerity. What is for them is authority which no body must question; what is against them is no authority at all. Their own word if not in their favor, they refuse to accept; and the authority to which they professedly appeal they repudiate the moment it is seen not to sustain them. To reason with them as if they would stand by their own professions, or could or would acknowledge any authority but their own ever varying opinions, is entirely to mistake them, and to betray our own simplicity.

Undoubtedly, many of our friends, who have not, like ourselves, been brought up Protestants, and have not to blush at the knowledge their Protestant experience has given them, may feel that in this judgment we are rash and uncharitable. Would that we were so. We take no pleasure in thinking ill of any portion of our fellow men, and would always rather find ourselves wrong in our unfavorable judgments of them than right. But in this matter the evidence is too clear and conclusive to allow us even to hope that we are wrong. There is not a single Protestant doctrine opposed to Catholicity that even Protestants themselves have not over and over again completely refuted; there is not a single charge brought by Protestants against the church that some of them, as well as we, have not fully exploded; and no more conclusive vindication of the claims of Catholicity can be desired than may be, nay, than in fact has been collected from distinguished Protestant writers themselves. This is a fact which no Protestant, certainly no Catholic, can deny. How happens it, then, that the Protestant world still subsists, and that, for the last hundred and fifty years [we may add another hundred and fifty years to this figure. Ed.] we have made comparatively little progress in regaining Protestants to the Church?

We may, it is true, be referred to the obstinacy in error characteristic of all heretics; but, in the present case, unless what is meant is obstinacy in error in general, and not error in particular, this will not suffice as an answer; because, during this period, there has been no one particular form of error to which Protestants have uniformly adhered. No class of Protestants adheres today to the opinions it originally avowed. In this respect, there is a marked difference between the Protestant sects of modern times and the early Oriental sects. The Jacobite holds to day the same specific heresy which he held a thousand years ago; and the Nestorian of the nineteenth is substantially the Nestorian of the fourth century. But nothing analogous is true of any of the modern Protestant sects. Protestants boast, indeed. their glorious reformation. but they no longer hold the views of its authors. Luther. were he to ascend to the scenes of his earthly labors, would be utterly unable to recognize his teachings in the doctrines of the modern Lutherans; the Calvinist remains a Calvinist only in name; the Baptist disclaims his Anabaptist origin; the Unitarian points out the errors he detects In his Socinian ancestors; and the Transcendentalist looks down with pity on his Unitarian parents, while he considers it a cruel persecution to be excluded from the Unitarian family. No sect retains unmodified, unchanged, the precise form of error with which it set out. All the forms Protestantism has from time to time assumed have been developed, modified, altered, almost as soon as assumed, always as internal or external controversy made it necessary or expedient. Here is a fact nobody can deny, and it proves conclusively that the Protestant world does not subsist solely by virtue of its obstinate attachment to the views or opinions to which it has once committed itself, or in consequence of its aversion to change the doctrines it has once professed . . . .

A sort of honesty and sincerity we certainly concede to the generality of Protestants; but as to the end for which they profess their doctrines, rather than as to the doctrines themselves. The principle common to them, and the only one we can always be sure they will practically adhere to, is, that the end justifies the means. The end they propose is, neither to save their souls nor to discover and obey the truth, but to destroy or elude Catholicity. The spirit which possesses them maddens them against the church, and gives them an inward repugnance to everything not opposed to her. To overthrow her, to blot out her existence, or to prevent her from crushing them with the weight of her truth, is to them a praiseworthy end, at least a great and most desirable end: directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, it becomes the ruling passion after money getting of their lives, a passion in which they are confirmed and strengthened by all the blandishments of the world, and all the seductions of the flesh. Any means which tend to gratify this passion, to realize this end, they hold to be lawful, and they can adopt them, however base, detestable, or shocking in themselves, with a quiet conscience and admirable self complacency.

[conservativegramma]

Then Moses made statues on the ark of the covenant.

Statues????? LOL. Now you're really stretching on that one!

If that's a statue, then.....

guess I'm going to have to get rid of that hood ornament off my rolls. HA!

But back to the subject at hand. Show me a verse where the jews were bowing down to those cherubim and then you can support your position. You know....a picture like say THIS ONE:

[conservativegramma]

That’s the best you can do??? Quoting yet more magisterium ‘authority’?????

NO SCRIPTURE? I’m shocked.

[Grunthor]

Now now, he’s not PRAYING to a statue(idolatry) he’s obviously tying his shoe.

(sarc)

[BipolarBob]

"Orestes Brownson, a former Congregationalist minister

Here we go again. Orestes Brownson or OJ Simpson, I don't listen to them. Quote the Bible or give up.

"Protestants do not study for the truth, and are never to be presumed willing to accept it, unless it chances to be where and what they wish it. "

I really like being talked down to and told what I think and do, don't you?

" There is not a single Protestant doctrine opposed to Catholicity that even Protestants themselves have not over and over again completely refuted'

Do you really believe this? I'm opposed to burning heretics alive, imprisoning astronomers that claim the earth revolves around the sun, the selling of indulgences, praying to dead saints, bowing before statues, Marian worship, wearing crucifixes, rosary beads, etc . .

[Grunthor]

That’s the best you can do??? Quoting yet more magisterium ‘authority’?????

NO SCRIPTURE? I’m shocked.

---

Self justifying, extra biblical, beaurocrat-speak.