Evidence from Sola Scriptura - right from the Bible itself

[MennoSota]

What the lack of biblical data on this myth of Sola Scriptura? That isn't our doctrine that is yours.

We get it, Erose. You place your faith in the idea that God is continually providing unquestionable truths via apostolic succession. The problem is that you have nothing within the biblical text to strengthen your argument. All you have is folks in Rome who tell you this and you, unquestionably believe them...because that makes you a good papal lapdog.

You do this, despite the vast atrocities that have taken place by papal edict.

I commend you for your dogged faith in a fallible institution. I cannot, however, commend you for your critical thought regarding said institution.

 

[MennoSota]

Now you are just being silly. The Scriptures led me to the Catholic Church and away from your new faith traditions, so...

When St. Paul preached, he taught the Gospel of Christ, he didn't have the New Testament for inform his discussion, all he used was the Old and the teaching he received from the Apostles and Christ Himself.

Considering some of these points are not doctrine, others are not what we do, and so forth, one can assume you are talking of matters that you are ignorant of.

No. Solas are based upon someboby's interpretation of Scripture...except for one that has no basis in Scripture which is the Sola we are discussing.

The faith I have is clearly stated in the Bible. Had Augustine, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Newton, Edwards, etc..., never existed, the Scriptures would still remain true.

God's work of calling and adopting has nothing to do with tradition and everything to do with God's sovereign choice to save sinners. The pope and RC could forever cease to exist and God would still effectively do His work. He doesn't need us, Erose and he certainly doesn't need perverted traditions of men.

 

[Erose]

We get it, Erose. You place your faith in the idea that God is continually providing unquestionable truths via apostolic succession. The problem is that you have nothing within the biblical text to strengthen your argument. All you have is folks in Rome who tell you this and you, unquestionably believe them...because that makes you a good papal lapdog.

Actually you don't get it. I place my faith in God, Him alone, and that which He left us. What I don't place my faith in is the interpretation of that Faith by those who decided to reinterpret that faith 1500 years after the fact.

Look, in all reality I question everything. That is why I left Protestantism to begin with. I question my faith daily, and I test those questions, in fact that is the reason why I'm here, so that you guys can help me with it. If I was a good papal lapdog, I wouldn't be on this forum, but hey if you want to try to insult me to convert from Catholicism, I guess you can try; but you know what I'm would happily be the lapdog for God and His Church. Sadly I don't always meet that goal.

You do this, despite the vast atrocities that have taken place by papal edict.

You need to look in the mirror, buddy, Protestantism has had its fair share of atrocities as well. But you know the fact of the matter is that we human beings are messy. Heck look at the OT, look at how much of a mess that the Jews were at many periods of their history. Think about it the model of ideal kingship, King David, committed adultery and then killed the husband of the woman, and then married her. My point being is that as long as human beings are part of the Church and on this earth dealing with sin, there are going to be good and bad things. That is what we do. No one has (or should) ever claimed that Christians cease to be sinners. No there is a good reason, why the Church is considered the hospital for all poor souls.

I commend you for your dogged faith in a fallible institution. I cannot, however, commend you for your critical thought regarding said institution.

My faith is in an infallible institution established by Christ, that is ran by fallible men.

 

[Erose]

The faith I have is clearly stated in the Bible. Had Augustine, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Newton, Edwards, etc..., never existed, the Scriptures would still remain true.

The question isn't about the Scriptures remaining or not remaining true, but whether the interpretation of those Scriptures are true.

God's work of calling and adopting has nothing to do with tradition and everything to do with God's sovereign choice to save sinners. The pope and RC could forever cease to exist and God would still effectively do His work. He doesn't need us, Erose

Your right, He doesn't need us, but you know what He obviously prefers to do His work through us does He not?

and he certainly doesn't need perverted traditions of men.

Yep, your traditions are not needed.

 

[MennoSota]

The question isn't about the Scriptures remaining or not remaining true, but whether the interpretation of those Scriptures are true.

Your right, He doesn't need us, but you know what He obviously prefers to do His work through us does He not?

Yep, your traditions are not needed.

An easy rule of interpretation: When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.

Unfortunately, the papal crew comes up with interpretations that have no support and make little sense.

God does prefer that we act in obedience to His word. He doesn't want us to follow papal directions that are contrary to His word, however. One must understand that the Pope is no different than a local pastor in regard to his opinions. If the Bible does not support his opinion, then his opinion should...and must...be thrown out as anti-christ.

My views are biblical. Why is the Bible not needed?

 

[MennoSota]

Actually you don't get it. I place my faith in God, Him alone, and that which He left us. What I don't place my faith in is the interpretation of that Faith by those who decided to reinterpret that faith 1500 years after the fact.

Look, in all reality I question everything. That is why I left Protestantism to begin with. I question my faith daily, and I test those questions, in fact that is the reason why I'm here, so that you guys can help me with it. If I was a good papal lapdog, I wouldn't be on this forum, but hey if you want to try to insult me to convert from Catholicism, I guess you can try; but you know what I'm would happily be the lapdog for God and His Church. Sadly I don't always meet that goal.

You need to look in the mirror, buddy, Protestantism has had its fair share of atrocities as well. But you know the fact of the matter is that we human beings are messy. Heck look at the OT, look at how much of a mess that the Jews were at many periods of their history. Think about it the model of ideal kingship, King David, committed adultery and then killed the husband of the woman, and then married her. My point being is that as long as human beings are part of the Church and on this earth dealing with sin, there are going to be good and bad things. That is what we do. No one has (or should) ever claimed that Christians cease to be sinners. No there is a good reason, why the Church is considered the hospital for all poor souls.

My faith is in an infallible institution established by Christ, that is ran by fallible men.

Your faith should be in the infallible Christ. We, the church, are made righteous only by the atoning work of Christ. The physical church on earth is not infallible. The head of the church is.

This is an essential issue between us. You worship two things, Christ (good for you) and the Roman church (idol worship and bad for you).

 

[Standing Up]

Yeah, I wished you would stop that, and admit it ain't there in Scripture.

I did, you just deny that fact. There are plenty of things that Jesus said, that doesn't start with "It is written..."; in fact most of the things He says does not start with "It is written...".

From your link: The Gospel of Matthew explains that the title Nazarene is derived from the prophecy "He will be called a Nazorean",[4] but this has no obvious Old Testament source.

Where is it at in the OT?

Jerome had an explanation, from the same link.

Given the washings, why would you think John's baptism was different from Aaronic ones?

Point remains there's no evidence Christ used tradition as a source of doctrine or practice.

 

[Erose]

Jerome had an explanation, from the same link.

Perhaps, people have explanations, but no where in the OT does it claim that Jesus will be a Nazarene. That passage just doesn't exist.

Given the washings, why would you think John's baptism was different from Aaronic ones?

Because the priestly washing never claimed to be nothing more that a purification ritual in the Temple. John's is a baptism of repentance, and doesn't really claim to be anything more than that; and it was done in a river.

Point remains there's no evidence Christ used tradition as a source of doctrine or practice.

No your point has been lost. I notice you have given up on the others.

 

[Erose]

An easy rule of interpretation: When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.

I agree, so why do Protestants constantly break this rule?

Unfortunately, the papal crew comes up with interpretations that have no support and make little sense.

Actually they make perfect sense. That is the beauty of the paradigm of the Catholic Church, the teachings of the Church never contradict, and they are perfectly in line with Scripture. Both Tradition and Scripture make a perfect work of art.

God does prefer that we act in obedience to His word. He doesn't want us to follow papal directions that are contrary to His word, however.

Lk 10: [16] He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

One must understand that the Pope is no different than a local pastor in regard to his opinions. If the Bible does not support his opinion, then his opinion should...and must...be thrown out as anti-christ.

Your right, his opinions are no different that anyone's opinions. They are opinions. Our Church's doctrines are not built upon the opinions of popes. That is a fallacy.

My views are biblical. Why is the Bible not needed?

Your views are an interpretation of Scripture. That is the point. We can go back and forth all day, on this matter. I also view my understanding of the Faith as Biblical as well. There is nothing that I believe that contradicts Scripture. Absolutely nothing. Obviously you have the same view. But also just as obvious is that there are quite a few things we probably would disagree on, so why is that? The reason is that no matter how much we want reject the idea, we all read Scripture through a set of glasses call our faith tradition. I'm really not sure why folks want to keep rejecting this obvious fact.

 

[Erose]

Your faith should be in the infallible Christ.

Which it is.

We, the church, are made righteous only by the atoning work of Christ.

True.

The physical church on earth is not infallible. The head of the church is.

The difference in our understanding here is that, I believe that the members of the Church here on earth are fallible. The Church isn't. Why? Because of certain fact that Christ taught us about His Church, and that is that the Church is His Body. His Body. The Church has a Spirit. His Spirit. Claiming that the Body of Christ is fallible, is saying that Christ is fallible. That is what you are claiming. That is what you are accepting.

Look we can argue all day on which Church is the True Church, and that is fine; but to argue that there really isn't a true Church, is something I'm not going to accept. When one claims that there isn't a True Church, or that True Church is fallible, that is saying something about Christ, and it is also accepting the possibility, that all of this is wrong. I'm not willing to accept that, you shouldn't either.

This is an essential issue between us. You worship two things, Christ (good for you) and the Roman church (idol worship and bad for you).

No the essential issue between us, is that you don't trust Christ and what He said; and you don't believe that Christ has the power to protect His Church, even though members of His Body are sinners.

 

[MennoSota]

Which it is.

True.

The difference in our understanding here is that, I believe that the members of the Church here on earth are fallible. The Church isn't. Why? Because of certain fact that Christ taught us about His Church, and that is that the Church is His Body. His Body. The Church has a Spirit. His Spirit. Claiming that the Body of Christ is fallible, is saying that Christ is fallible. That is what you are claiming. That is what you are accepting.

Look we can argue all day on which Church is the True Church, and that is fine; but to argue that there really isn't a true Church, is something I'm not going to accept. When one claims that there isn't a True Church, or that True Church is fallible, that is saying something about Christ, and it is also accepting the possibility, that all of this is wrong. I'm not willing to accept that, you shouldn't either.

No the essential issue between us, is that you don't trust Christ and what He said; and you don't believe that Christ has the power to protect His Church, even though members of His Body are sinners.

You nailed where we differ.

You desperately want the Roman church to be The Church, which is the body of Christ.

I reject that as a human claim with zero biblical support.

I state that only the head of the Church (Christ Jesus) knows who makes up His body (the Church). He reveals to us how we might know we are found in Christ within the Scriptures. The Roman Church's views are only relevant when they match the Scriptures views. When they are in conflict, and they often are in conflict, the views of the Roman church must be rejected as being created by fallible men and not coming from God.
Jesus, as the head, will judge those who claimed to be a part of His body and either keep them or toss them away. Self-identification as a part of the body is meaningless. Many people from all denominations will find themselves tossed out. Christ calls us, he chooses us and he adopts us to be a part of His body. The ceremonies of the Roman church are meaninglessness in regard to being members of Christ's body, the Church.
Christ's body, the Church, is not solely the Roman church. There is an elect within the Rc that are redeemed. There are many who are deceived who will be tossed away on the day of judgment. That is a sad fact.

Your view, that the Rc is THE Church that makes up the body of Christ, is a fallacy presented by an anti-christ leadership designed to enslave people to their legalistic rules and regulations, which have no spiritual power, but masquerade as angels of light.

The Church, is chosen by Christ and Christ alone.

I reject Rome as being The Church. There is zero Biblical evidence for your claim. Your leaders have made it up from their fallible brains, not from God's Spirit.

 

[Erose]

You nailed where we differ.

Of course,

You desperately want the Roman church to be The Church, which is the body of Christ.

Don't have to be desperate for something that is already true.

I reject that as a human claim with zero biblical support.

one would assume that you would, if not then you would have to become Catholic.

I state that only the head of the Church (Christ Jesus) knows who makes up His body (the Church).

Actually that isn't true. Everyone who has been properly Baptized is a member of the Body of Christ. Pretty simple really.

He reveals to us how we might know we are found in Christ within the Scriptures.

Yes He does.

The Roman Church's views are only relevant when they match the Scriptures views. When they are in conflict, and they often are in conflict, the views of the Roman church must be rejected as being created by fallible men and not coming from God.

Good thing the Catholic Church and Scripture are never in contradiction then.

Jesus, as the head, will judge those who claimed to be a part of His body and either keep them or toss them away.

Amen.

Self-identification as a part of the body is meaningless.

It can be, but I think it would be very difficult to be saved without the support structure of a Church.

Many people from all denominations will find themselves tossed out. Christ calls us, he chooses us and he adopts us to be a part of His body.

. I agree.

The ceremonies of the Roman church are meaninglessness in regard to being members of Christ's body, the Church.

Actually no, unless you think that what Christ has given us is meaningless. I myself wouldn't be that arrogant.

Christ's body, the Church, is not solely the Roman church. There is an elect within the Rc that are redeemed. There are many who are deceived who will be tossed away on the day of judgment. That is a sad fact.

Yes there are many who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church who members of Christ's body. Like I wrote above, all validly baptized people are members of His Body. And sadly there are going to be many who will be deceived and led away. On both accounts I agree.

The Church, is chosen by Christ and Christ alone.

Interesting Enugu that is exactly what the Council of Trent states.

I reject Rome as being The Church. There is zero Biblical evidence for your claim. Your leaders have made it up from their fallible brains, not from God's Spirit.

Like I wrote above, if you thought any differently then you would have to become Catholic.

But thanks for proving many of my points in this thread. Thanks for showing that Sola Scriptura is a fallacy.

 

[MennoSota]

Of course,
Don't have to be desperate for something that is already true.

one would assume that you would, if not then you would have to become Catholic.

Actually that isn't true. Everyone who has been properly Baptized is a member of the Body of Christ. Pretty simple really.

Yes He does.


Good thing the Catholic Church and Scripture are never in contradiction then.
Amen.

It can be, but I think it would be very difficult to be saved without the support structure of a Church.

. I agree.


Actually no, unless you think that what Christ has given us is meaningless. I myself wouldn't be that arrogant.
Yes there are many who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church who members of Christ's body. Like I wrote above, all validly baptized people are members of His Body. And sadly there are going to be many who will be deceived and led away. On both accounts I agree.


Interesting Enugu that is exactly what the Council of Trent states.


Like I wrote above, if you thought any differently then you would have to become Catholic.

But thanks for proving many of my points in this thread. Thanks for showing that Sola Scriptura is a fallacy.

Erose, there are so many arrogant statements you make in the above comments, which are not found in the Bible. In so doing, you place your faith in fallible human teachings while contradicting God's word in the process. Sadly, you are so consumed with following fallible leadership that you are blind to the serious disregard your leaders have for the Bible.

God knows whether you are placing your faith in Rome or if your faith is in Christ. The two are not mutually the same, despite your arrogant assertions that have no biblical support. I leave you to God. I just hope you aren't clinging to your baptism as your means of salvation. All your piety down the drain because your faith was misplace. That would be a shame.
Perhaps one day you will do a thorough compare and contrast between the Bible and Rome. If so, you'll see the glaring contradictions in Rome. If not, I hope you have a good time here on earth.

 

[BobRyan]

Good thing the Catholic Church and Scripture are never in contradiction then. .

That is the beauty of the paradigm of the Catholic Church, the teachings of the Church never contradict, and they are perfectly in line with Scripture. Both Tradition and Scripture make a perfect work of art.

Every time the subject comes up - about using scripture to see what church doctrine/tradition agrees or differs -- who is it that complains??

 

[BobRyan]

MennoSota said: ↑
An easy rule of interpretation: When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.
I agree, so why do Protestants constantly break this rule?

I agree, so why do Protestants constantly break this rule?

We DO hold to that rule -- so then
1. no purgatory
2. no "communion with the DEAD" CCC 958
3. No images to bow down before nor to serve
4. No "Doctrine of Discovery".
5. No "exterminating Jews and heretics"
6. Yes - to Mark 7:6-13, Acts 17:11, Is 8:20 "sola scriptura" testing

And of course Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3 "seven days"

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Unfortunately, the papal crew comes up with interpretations that have no support and make little sense.

Sorry couldn't resist..
.

 

[Erose]

Every time the subject comes up - about using scripture to see what church doctrine/tradition agrees or differs -- who is it that complains??

It looks like you.

 

[Erose]

Erose, there are so many arrogant statements you make in the above comments, which are not found in the Bible. In so doing, you place your faith in fallible human teachings while contradicting God's word in the process. Sadly, you are so consumed with following fallible leadership that you are blind to the serious disregard your leaders have for the Bible.

. You know one of the issues you have, and why your arguments fall flat is that you don't have a clue about what I believe, even though you pretend to think so. Honestly I don't expect you to read our Catechism or anything like that, you really don't have to know what our Faith is, but don't pretend you do. You see our leadership doesn't make Doctrine, it never has. In fact the truth to be told our leadership hates new doctrines. We avoid new doctrines as if they were the plague, we call them heresy for a reason. That is why we will never adhere to these new doctrines such as Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. They have never been taught by the Church and never will. No matter how much your faith traditions twist Scripture to your whims, it will never happen.

My point being is that our leaderships primary function when it comes to doctrine, is to preserve what we have and reject what is new. It is as simple as that. There has never been a pope who has created a new doctrine, and never will be.

God knows whether you are placing your faith in Rome or if your faith is in Christ. The two are not mutually the same, despite your arrogant assertions that have no biblical support. I leave you to God. I just hope you aren't clinging to your baptism as your means of salvation. All your piety down the drain because your faith was misplace. That would be a shame.

Sir, I have no clue what denomination you belong to; but I bet top dollar that it isn't very old, and it should be thanking Gos that the Catholic Church was around to make sure you had a Bible to misinterpret.

Perhaps one day you will do a thorough compare and contrast between the Bible and Rome. If so, you'll see the glaring contradictions in Rome. If not, I hope you have a good time here on earth.

Already have, that why I'm no longer Protestant.

 

[Erose]

We DO hold to that rule -- so then
1. no purgatory

Actually it's there and it is supported.

2. no "communion with the DEAD" CCC 958

Bob, you do realize that to post in this forum, you are suppose to adhere to the Nicene-Constantinople creed.

3. No images to bow down before nor to serve

Don't serve images and never met a Catholic who did.

4. No "Doctrine of Discovery".

Don't know what that is...

5. No "exterminating Jews and heretics"

You still around, so what's up with that?

6. Yes - to Mark 7:6-13, Acts 17:11, Is 8:20 "sola scriptura" testing

Considering that we have been down this road of you completely twisting these Scriptures completely out of context, I won't go back down them.

And of course Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3 "seven days"

Uh... The Catholic Church not adhering to a seven day week is news to me. When did that happen?

 

[BobRyan]

MennoSota said: ↑
An easy rule of interpretation: When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.
I agree, so why do Protestants constantly break this rule?

I agree, so why do Protestants constantly break this rule?

We DO hold to that rule -- so then
1. no purgatory
2. no "communion with the DEAD" CCC 958
3. No images to bow down before nor to serve
4. No "Doctrine of Discovery".
5. No "exterminating Jews and heretics"
6. Yes - to Mark 7:6-13, Acts 17:11, Is 8:20 "sola scriptura" testing

And of course Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3 "seven days"

Actually it's there and it is supported.

well.. not in real life -- just like your comment does not quote the Bible to support the claim - in real life.

Bob, you do realize that to post in this forum, you are suppose to adhere to the Nicene-Constantinople creed.

Did you find some part of the Nicene Creed opposed to the Bible??? Some way to exclude Protestants??

Don't serve images and never met a Catholic who did.

All religions that bow down before and serve them - do not claim to serve the "piece of wood" but rather the being it represents -- that is true in all cases.


Hence no reference in the NT to Christians listed in the Bible as bowing down to - or serving beings represented by graven images

or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:

KJV - (Not Muslim)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


======================================

And of course Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3 "seven days"

Uh... The Catholic Church not adhering to a seven day week is news to me. When did that happen?

Indeed many Catholics do read those two texts and find 7 days there. I would not claim that everything in the list I gave has to be something where every Catholic opposes it.

in Christ,

Bob