Self-proclaimed authority as the Catholic church has done, is not valid either.
Authority must be conferred to one from a higher authority.
So the *Church* appeals to the very Scripture they tell us cannot be trusted on its own.
So Scripture declaring itself to be authoritative doesn’t work in the eyes of Catholics, but the Church declaring itself authoritative does work in the eyes of Catholics?
Say what????
So show us where scripture commended someone to go to something other than scripture to see “if these things were so”. If you can’t, Acts 15:11 should suffice to prove where to go as the only source to check.
Not quite.
That's how the RCC states it.
WE state it thus:
"If something isn't in the Bible, then it isn't NECCESSARY FOR salvation".
It's all over the bible...Just because you guys refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make your claim true...Numerous scriptures have been posted on here countless times...Perhaps you guys have been blinded to the truth...
Third: sola Scriptura leaves all (I'll borrow the acronym from NYer!) "YOPIOS" (Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture) users without any final guide for knowing whether their interpretation is RIGHT or not.
We've got the guide all right...And it's not a matter of interpretation...It's a matter of belief...
Nope...The question is why don't you believe that...Most of you guys claim you are still under the law...Seems like that would be right up your alley...
Again, it's a matter of believing 'all' of the scriptures...As with the Catholics, the Seventh Day Adventists have to leave out tons of scripture to come up with their theology...
The Bible of the Reformation was the King James Bible...It is responsible for leading millions upon millions of sinners to Jesus Christ...
The KJV is not a Catholic bible...Never has been...Never will be...Your claim is false...
Indeed, (Acts 17:11) as doctrine must be formally or materially evidenced, with the degree of Scriptural substantiation determining the validity and degree of assurance. But which is contrary to Rome, for which actual Scriptural substantiation is not needed for her doctrines, nor the degree of which for assurance, only that they do not contradict Scripture, but which is according to the interpretation of Rome, who has infallibly declared herself infallible, and that only her interpretation has authority.
sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
That is false, as Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the assured wholly inspired Word of God, unlike all the church will teach.
Moreover, it , materially provides for a canon by evidencing that writing's were progressively established as being from God, like as men of God were, due to their unique Scriptural substantiation in Divine qualities, attestation and conflation with had been written (Moses was the first writer, being first affirmed by supernatural means and holiness confirmatory of the faith of Abraham). Like the Divine incense, there is none like unto it. Thus in principle it provides for recognition of a body of inspired writings and lack of any more.
Secondly: anti-Catholic Protestants who appeal to "sola Scriptura" already have the Bible... but from where? They inherited it from the very Catholic Church Whom they attack and malign.
Which polemic presumes the RCC of today is what it claism, but even then, it presumes that being the steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent requires or means such is infallible, and that those iot rejects have no valid authority, which is simply false.
Riddle me this: you say, for example, that the Second Book of Maccabees (which praises prayers for the dead, and is the clearest Scriptural proof for the idea of Purgatory,
But which (2Mac. 12) only teaches that prayers and sacrifices for the dead are efficacious, perhaps that God would have mercy on them on judgment day, and supports praying for dead idolaters, who were slain for being so , which is a mortal sin according to Rome, for which there is no purgatory. Thus it "proves" more than you want, and forces RC apologists to engage in special pleading.
is NOT inspired Scripture, and that it doesn't belong in the Bible. Why not? And why does the Book of James (which Martin Luther despised as "an epistle of straw, without the character of true Scripture") BELONG in the Bible? From where did the "table of contents" come? Do you know? Have you looked? The answer might surprise you.
Indeed, there much a Catholic would be surprised to read, if laymen could engage in objective examination to determine the validity of RC doctrine, which they are not to do (and at one time were forbidden to engage in debates as this) One of the surprises would be that there simply was not infallible, indisputable canon for Luther to dissent from. Thus in his debate with "There is no proof of Purgatory in any portion of sacred Scripture, for the book of Maccabees not being in the Canon, is of weight with the faithful, but avails nothing with the obstinate"
As James Swan, whose extensive work on Luther and the canon is the place you ought to study, comments , "Luther was heavily schooled with the Glossa ordinaria. When commenting on the apocryphal books, this work prefixes this introduction to them: Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. ...he followed a tradition which denied the Deuterocanonicals authority to establish doctrine.
And as has been extensively substantiated many times here in refuting the Catholic canard that the canon was settled until a maverick named Luther dissented from it, the fact is that despite early local councils affirming the canon of Trent (possibly with one exception), scholarly doubt and dissent regarding apocryphal books continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon after Luther died (1546).
As for Luther and James, Luther did include it in his Bible, but separately following an ancient tradition for questionable books, and Luther was not teaching as a pope, but as CFs did (sometimes differing with each others or perhaps even themselves in developing their views), he was giving his present judgement, yet he also wrote that he cannot include James among his “chief books though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. ”
And while many RCs cannot seem to comprehend how we cannot follow Luther as a pope, the fact is that we do not, and thus includes James. As for why, and where the "table of contents" comes from, or results from, the answer to that question is found in the answer to who writings became established as Scripture before Rome presumed it alone had the power to authoritatively determine what Scripture consists of, and its meaning, thus effectively making herself the supreme and autocratic authority.
Do you know? Have you looked? The answer might surprise you. And if an infallible Rome is necessary to determine what truth is, then how could souls have assurance prior to that?
Third: sola Scriptura leaves all (I'll borrow the acronym from NYer!) "YOPIOS" (Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture) users without any final guide for knowing whether their interpretation is RIGHT or not. A pastor might be misinterpreting this-or-that passage of Scripture and leading his flock on the primrose path to hell, for all he knows... and he will be answerable to God for it.
Which actually describes Rome, which is the epitome of individual assertion of veracity, with Popes leading their flock on the primrose path to hell, while hastening some to Heaven by teaching torture and killing of theological non-conformists is right, even if contradicted by later individual popes.
Meanwhile, SS does not reject the need for the magisterium, but that as seen in Scripture, they do not posses assuredly infallibility, but establishment of truth is based upon Scriptural substantiation. This does result in competing claims, but requires truth to overcome evil with good, as seen in Scripture. However, if the Roman model is right, then no one who dissents from its formal judgment can be right or have authority. Which is Scripturally untenable.
Think about this: Seventh Day Adventists teach that all sincere Protestants (evangelical or otherwise) who worship on Sunday are headed for hell, for violating the Third Commandment (i.e. observing Sunday, rather than the actual Sabbath, which was Saturday). Do you believe that? If not, WHY not?...Why do they differ from you, while still using "sola Scriptura", just as you do?
I do not believe that because it is not what the New Covenant collectively teaches, but they esp. - fundamentalist SDA's - typically do because like Rome, their movement is the result of thinking of men (or a women) above that which is written, and essentially making their writings equal in authority to Rome. And the more SDA's marginalize Ellen and reject the elitist spirit behind her writings and humble themselves before Scripture, then the less likely they are to make this a salvific issue, and even respect evangelicals. Nor do i make the day one worships a salvific issue, though i have contended against it and the spirit that often drives it.
Their position is backed up by Scripture; is yours?
Indeed , for Scriptural reasons, which was behind the ruling of Acts 15, and not because some authority of Rome has infallible authority. Likewise we contend for many core doctrines Rome also affirms, because they are Scriptural.
The fact is that the Lord and His church established its claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) not on the premise of a infallible magisterium, but in dissent from those, who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity above that which is written. (Mk. 7:2-16; 11:27-33)