Is Sola Scriptura biblical? {Open)

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

[Dr. Eckleburg]

8~)

[Cronos]

That's the list as held by the community of believers known as The Church, yes.

Purgatory --> All Christians agree that we won’t be sinning in heaven. Sin and final glorification are utterly incompatible. Therefore, between the sinfulness of this life and the glories of heaven, we must be made pure. Between death and glory there is a purification.

The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.

Orthodox Jews to this day believe in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer called the Mourner’s Kaddish for their loved one’s purification.

NOTE: It doesn't contradict scripture and it is implied in scripture. And, here's from The ACts of Paul and Thecla

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

--> I'm sure you thought that purgatory was a place, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God. Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular "place" in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines

[Cronos]

For the doctrines on Christ's earthly mother, I already wrote about this in post #973

You do have the doctrines in the Church from Apostolic times. These are referred in the Transitus Mariae (Passage of Mary)

Many scholars place the Syriac fragments of the Transitus stories as far back as the third century

Secondly, the Early Christians kept relics of saints, yet there is no mention of any relic of Mary -- isn't that strange? An argument from silence? Yes, but what a profound silence! How is it that in the 400 years before the Council of Ephesus not one Christian was so obliging as to venerate one bone and thus imply belief in something other than what is recounted in the Transitus Mariae literature?

[Cronos]

Who exactly is attacking scripture? I'm not. Read the article please

Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.

The notion, "The Bible is all I need," is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory of SOLA Scriptura is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition.

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles’ successors, the bishops.

The WORD OF GOD is Christ and glory be to God alone. The WORD of GOD is not just ONLY scriptures -- and I am objecting to that man-made tradition called "SOLA Scriptura". The Word of God is more, much, much more.

[Cronos]

LAdy, travel to India once. I've been there and while the government may try to push through women and dalit priests, that isn't working. Secondly, your link is NOT to that particular woman, but to an article from 2005 -- after JPII met that LAdy.

Show me PROOF that that lady is a "Hindu priest" --> I tell you that that is no Hindu priest, that is an ordinary Indian woman (maybe Hindu, maybe Christian) in a sari

Do you deny that?

[conservativegramma]

Moderator notified - STOP pinging me!

[xone]

Now I understand the need for tradition in Catholicism, to introduce and support non-scriptural doctrines and dogmas. Perhaps the cry of the Catholic should be Sola Tradition!

2. There is the implicit reference to it (akin to the implicit references of the Trinity) in the angel’s greeting to Mary

Really, akin to Trinitarian references? That is a reach even for a Catholic.

[Cronos]

Actually no, we've remained true to Christ for 2000 years while all the heresies have died away. The heresies that club themselves under the Protestant umbrella too will die away as they are man-made.

These Protestant, manmade groups are without excuse as the truth has been shown over and over on this thread. The prideful 'trust only in the pastors individual authority' prevents Protestant groupings from seeing the truth.

Turn away from the false teachings of the Assemblies, of Calvin and of the ECUSA. As we read in Proverbs 28:9 -"He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, [Scripture] Even his prayer is an abomination." Also, Psalm 66:18 - "If I regard wickedness in my heart, The Lord will not hear;".

Reject the worship of incorrect things, reject the false pastor and return to Christ.

Oh, and don't trot out the familiar links to the Democratic Underground affiliated sites. They're equally false

Turn away from the false teachings of your pastor.

[Religion Moderator]

If you don’t want to read his posts, just IGNORE him.

[Cronos]

And remember — sola scriptura is non-biblical. Ask Benny Hinn that.

[daniel1212]

Yes, I do indeed mean Sola Scriptura, as clarified here (again):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2524569/posts?page=884#884 and which is derived from the Bible.

Your means of argumentation is to continue to use a misrepresentation that has often been corrected, as well to post statements that have been refuted.

Now before you post more of the same, you can respond to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2524569/posts?page=203#203 for starters, which you ignored, and while you are at it, please tell me how (upon what basis) a person is to know for sure that the RCC is infallible?

[Cronos]

? You are the one that posted to me, lady.

[Cronos]

(2Tim. 3:16) states that Scripture is good, it does not state that it is ONLY scripture. And check my posts above -- what you've stated as your interpretation of Sola scriptura ties in with Church teachings on scripture -- as critical and a place for verification of truth.

Your means of argumentation is to continue to use a misrepresentation that has often been corrected, as well to post statements that have been refuted.

Post 203 -- what's the question in it?

[daniel1212]

Your tactics are getting old. If you read my replies, you should have understood that issue is not whether 2Tim. 3:16 states Scripture is simply “good”, but that Scripture is the only objective (material) authority that is affirmed to be 100% inspired by God, and able to enable one to be saved, and to reprove, correct, instruct, That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2ti. 3:15-17)

The authority of the Scriptures, which are inspired of God whether recognized by men or not, provides for the church magisterium, (Eph. 4:11) but whose teaching we not assured will always be infallible because it speaks according to a formula, but whose teachings in the N.T. are Scripturally substantiated, and noble souls examine even apostolic teachings by the Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) rather than giving them implicit trust, as Rome requires.

“Post 203 — what’s the question in it?”

I did not say there was a question in it. What are you reading? It is not questions, but refutations of your attempted polemic, including your reliance upon the fallacious argument that is something is not explicitly stated, then it is not valid. From a man who believes in transubstantiation no less.

[sr4402]

Thanks for your reply, but I still believe you are attacking Christ. Your first part regarding the inerrancy of Scripture is correct. The nullification of Scripture by the Traditions of Men is not.

The sinfulness of man and his suppression of the truth (Romans 1) indicates that man by his very nature will use tradition, just as the Pharasees did to nullify the Word of God. He warned the severely regarding even on the simple part of giving a gift to the synagog rather to parents.

God's Word is indeed written by God and is preserved by God despite the Traditions of man; including a ban on Scripture (which was an attempt to ban Christ).

The attack upon Christ here is upon His preeminence and an attempt to supplant the Holy Scriptures with the Traditions of Men.

[conservativegramma]

The attack upon Christ here is upon His preeminence and an attempt to supplant the Holy Scriptures with the Traditions of Men.

Very well stated, I think you nailed it. The whole Mariology dogma the RCC has is also an attack on Christ. Think about it: Mary has replaced Christ as mediator, she has replaced him in prayer, she has even been made equal to Him as a co-redemptrix!

[papertyger]

So why wasn’t her post deleted?

[papertyger]

You seem to be having trouble with my apt analogy...

No, I'm having trouble with your "fingers in the ears" posture.

The only analogy I can compare is that of a petulant teenage girl who perceives another girl as a rival for "her" boyfriend. No matter how clear the boyfriend makes it he is pursuing the other girl, the teenager bends and twists every particle of reality to fit her desire to be the favored one. Further, she actively denies anything that doesn't fit that model.

It's actually really creepy.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Your autobiography sounds pretty grim. Good luck with the movie rights.

[Religion Moderator]

The warning was enough.