[MarMema]

Posted not as a bashing attempt!!! I am intensely interested in what others here think about the description of novelty as heresy in the last line.

This is an excerpt although I was unable to check it because it is so long. The rest of it at the site is not relevant imo.

[SoConPubbie]

I would think that the millions upon millions of men and women who were saved under the doctrine of “SOLA SCRIPTURA” in the various Protestant Churches and are now in Heaven rejoicing with their Lord and Savior would have something totally different to say on the subject.

As for me, God Saved my soul and changed my heart without the benifit of the Catholic Church’s “Tradition” and I know I’m going to heaven.

[ConservativeMind]

Well, let’s see, nothing in Scripture says priests can’t be pedophiles, and the word “priest” doesn’t even exist in Scripture, so, I’m guessing that those who think stuff not in Scripture think this perversion is okay, right?

[DarthVader]

2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

[pallis]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for corrections, for instruction in righteousness.... (2Tim. 3.16) There is plenty of room for traditions, differences among cultures and embellishments. If there is a question of correctness or permissibility, scripture rules. I don’t expect the churches of today to follow this, and some that try can’t agree on doctrine and theology, but any Christian who is serious about following Christ has no choice but to stand firmly on scripture. Anything else is something else.

[nralife]

bookmark

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Given the number of anti-sola scriptura threads today, I'd say it's attack sola scriptura day... As far as the actual position goes, see post 5 with the verse from 2 Tim 3:16-17. Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation. Scripture says so. Sola scriptura says that Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation. End of story.

[the_daug]

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

And the church (not just Catholic) has come to do likewise “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition” only if the church would hold tradition to the light of the word of God and do as the Bareans.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

[hondact200]

Have you read the works of the Protestant reformers Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, Hulydrych Zwingli they were written in Latin.

how are you interpreting Sola Scriptura here is an understanding that I learned in seminary regarding sola scriptura it is just one of the five pillars or fundamentals of the Protestant Reformers

here is how Sola scriptura is utilized the adjective Sola and the noun scriptura are in the ablative case rather than the nominative case to indicate that the Bible does not stand alone apart from God, but rather that its is the instruemnt of God by which he reveals himself for salvation through faith in Christ (solus Christus or solo Christo)
the five pillars are
sola Scriptura “by sripture alone”
sola fide “ by faith alone”
sola gratia “ by grace alone”
Solus Christus or Solo Christo “Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”
Solio deo Gloria “ glory to God Alone” post again with all five pillars and discussion.

Martin Luther posted 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Debate. I understand you seire a debate. but place the entire Five Pillars (Latin Phrases) online for debate and ask people whom are theologians from different protestant faiths, greek and russian orthodox and roman cathoilc and you may get a theological debate.

[Mrs. Don-o]

bttt

[Uncle Chip]

Is All Scripture given by inspiration of God, as Paul wrote, and thus profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, or are some other words, verbal or written?

Paul did not say this about the conversations that he and Timothy had in their fireside chats, or anything else, only Scripture, just Scripture, solely Scripture. It was "Scripture alone" that Paul said these things about -- nothing else.

[ctdonath2]

This is the very essence of heresy: novelty, arrogant personal opinion, and self-deception.

Pot, kettle, black.

[Nosterrex]

There is a difference between source and interpretation. We all agree that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, and that it is sufficient for showing us the way to salvation and how to live a godly life. The problem is interpretation. The Protestant idea that everyone has the authority to read and to interpret Scripture on his own has been a source of the fragmentation within Protestantism. Protestantism has no single teaching authority that determines the correct interpretation of Scripture and the development of doctrine. The only alternative that the Lutherans had was to advocate those educated in theological studies. It is a mess. The question is whether or not there is a viable alternative. Councils and church fathers are not without error. Apostolic succession is no guarantee of truth. As I see it, Christianity does not have a solution to this horrible problem

[FateAmenableToChange]

Posted not as a bashing attempt!!!

If that was your intent, then this would qualify as an Epic Fail.

Lame.

[CommerceComet]

I am intensely interested in what others here think about the description of novelty as heresy in the last line.

Personally, I think that there is lots in Scripture that is not well-understood, so novelty doesn't necessarily alarm me. The Bereans were commended in Scripture for taking new ideas, comparing them to Scripture, and ultimately accepting the ideas because they were Scriptural. We should do the same and not be so quick to label someone as a heretic until we have seriously considered their position.

One of the things that convinced me of the truth of the Gospel is its unique message. A message so profoundly simple that it can be grasped by a four-year-old and yet so profoundly complex that its depths cannot be exhaustively examined.

[count-your-change]

First neither Paul nor Christ was opposed to tradition as Christ used wine at the passover though there is no commandment to do so and Paul had his hair cut short as part of a vow, also something not a commandment required but apparently an acquired tradition.

Jesus’ words show the traditions he condemned were those that contravened God's word but that seems a distinction lost upon those like the author.

The New Testament writers recognized that their writing were part of Scripture so Paul's description of “all scripture” would include all the New Testament canon. (1 Peter 3:15-16)

Hence to support the unbiblical doctrines it teaches the Catholic Church must turn to traditions and extra-biblical sources and make the claim that it is responsible for setting the Bible canon.

[r9etb]

A good discussion overall... Although I will note that it’s sort of a straw-mannish discussion in places, and informed by something of the same animosity of which the author accuses the dreaded Protestants.

[Revolting cat!]

Solo Sculptura!

[count-your-change]

“For starters, we should ask what Paul is talking about when he speaks of the Scriptures that Timothy has known since he was a child. We can be sure that Paul is not referring to the New Testament, because the New Testament had not yet been written when Timothy was a child — in fact it was not nearly finished when Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy, much less collected together into the canon of the New Testament as we now know it. Obviously here, and in most references to “the Scriptures” that we find in the New Testament, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament; so if this passage is going to be used to set the limits on inspired authority, not only will Tradition be excluded but this passage itself and the entire New Testament.”

Not so. Paul’s words would include as authoritative Scripture his very own writings as he said to the Galatians that should even an angel declare something contrary to what Paul had passed on to them as good news that one should be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-10)

This was written perhaps as much as a dozen years before his comment to Timothy.
So “All Scripture” included Matthew, Luke, Acts, many of Paul's own letters, not just the Hebrew Scriptures and it how Timothy would have viewed those “holy writings”.

[Cvengr]

If the doctrine proposed were valid, the Church should rejoice when some believer anywhere seeks to come to God by what He has provided, yet the doctrine advocates believers not come to God through faith in Christ, in what He has provided in Scripture as the Word of God.

Whenever the doctrines being advocated seek to remove a believer from fellowship with God through faith in Christ, then the doctrine is false.

The repetitive obfuscation of His Word by those who seek to add their authority to simple faith in Him manifests the object of their hearts and desire.

[Belteshazzar]

I have little time tonight, and so I cannot to go into any of the details of some of the posts ... which I would like to do. But, I must say on a quick scanning of the 150 or so posts, this thread has a much better feel than most that have been posted on FR. Catholic and Protestant (even though I do not like how either term is used to our day, historically and linguistically speaking) are actual talking and listening to each other - with a few predictable exceptions. May such pursuit of real knowledge continue. And may God alone be glorified.