Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[VanillaSunflowers]

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! *ROTFLMBO*!!!

I can't believe I used to believe nonsense like that...

Use to believe? Your profile indicates you still believe.

 

[samir]

Paul did not seem to think it a priority; he baptised only a handful of people and was glad he did not do many.
1 Cor 1
Divisions in the Church
10 Brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, I urge all of you to be in agreement and not to have divisions among you, so that you may be perfectly united in your understanding and opinions.
11 My brothers, some members of Chloe’s family have made it clear to me that there are quarrels among you.
12 This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to the Messiah.”
13 Is the Messiah divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? You weren’t baptized in Paul’s name, were you?
14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (Oh yes, I also baptized the family of Stephanas. Beyond that, I’m not sure whether I baptized anyone else.)
17 For the Messiah did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, so the cross of the Messiah won’t be emptied of its power.
Jesus did not baptise any (though his disciples did)....John 4:1-2.
So no, baptism in water is not necessary for salvation:
Ephesians 2
8 For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
9 and not the result of actions, to put a stop to all boasting.
But baptism in the Holy Spirit is necessary:
We need to know first that all Christians receive the Spirit upon their conversion and in this sense all Christians have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This means that they are saved and that they have all they need at that time to be able to live godly and holy lives. 1 Cor. 12:13 says, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." carm.org

Scripture says there are different roles in the church. Paul wasn't sent to baptize. Scripture says baptism is necessary for salvation and nothing you posted refutes that.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Once upon a time a Christian and a Muslim got together and were discussing the holy scriptures.

They both agreed that (1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true. Nodding their heads, they went on.

"(2) the Bible is God's word," said the Christian, and "(2) The Koran is God's word" said the muslim.

They had a nice long conversation about that and wound up deciding to hold their disagreement in abeyance while they went on to discuss other things.

(3) "Whatever God's word is, is therefore incontrovertably true", they both said, and agreed that, if they could just decide what WAS God's word, this would also be true.

(4) "Consider this challenge: Prove another source of incontrovertible truth." They each looked at the other, asking the other to prove, incontrovertably that the other's idea of scripture was indeed the word of God.

Strangely, they found that no matter what the other person said, the opposite party was fully capable of controverting their statements. Imagine that.

"(5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven. ", they considered and they looked all around in their libraries and wound up agreeing that they didn't see any other perfect scriptures wherever they looked. It may be that this conclusion was partly because no Hindu or Buddhist or Zorastrian was present to defend their own scriptures, but that's what these two good citizens did.
Then along came a scientist.

He told them that there were some things he could tell them for sure. Things such as how far away the stars were, how to build rockets that could travel to the moon and planets, how to cure diseases with medicines, and how to look up things on the internet. The pair were greatly interested. But then he told them that men were the result of evolution and the earth is billions of years old and at that the two debaters told him to leave, they weren't interested in his ideas any more.

Sadly, the scientist left them to their discussions, which were perhaps in some danger of becoming heated. "Its too bad", he said to himself, "That these good people won't listen to the direct revelations of God left to us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes".

Sola-natura was probably deemed anathema too. It just wasn't written down.

The problem as I see it is the either-or of it all. Believe in God but don't believe in nature and all that is told us by its own evolution. Or, believe science is the answer to real tangible source and prove no god had anything to do with it.

Though there are theistic evolutionists and religious scientists don't get me wrong.

The fascinating part of it is all sides believe there is one answer to everything. And everyone interested in a side are dedicated to optimism as they keep up their search. Having the faith, that the theories expounded upon thus far are cause enough to believe it is all worth a lifetime that is believed to be explained by the details provided by either side.

You evolved from what is ultimately a hominid.
God made you from the dust of the ground and breathed a soul into you to bring you to life.

For the religious the issue underlying it all is faith. Because we can't see the god or goddess we believe in. And if we ever did how would we know? Being their by nature superior to anything we are.
Including our imaginations about what constitutes deity.

And for science, well as far as the human species is concerned, there is a missing link still. It is what is not there that makes the problem for explaining exactly why we're here .

 

[samir]

No, because tradition is not God breathed nor revealed by the Holy Spirit. If it were it would be called Scripture.....

Scripture refers to God's word outside of scripture. Try again.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Scripture says baptism is necessary for salvation and nothing you posted refutes that.

Post it then.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Scripture refers to God's word outside of scripture. Try again.

Again, post it.....

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Post it then.....

John 3:3-5

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Scripture says there are different roles in the church. Paul wasn't sent to baptize. Scripture says baptism is necessary for salvation and nothing you posted refutes that.

Which scripture exactly says that please?

 

[samir]

I disagree. They claim that Tradition includes Scripture, which means that the inventions that go under the term Holy Tradition are thought to be amplifications of Scripture.

Scripture is the written Tradition so of course Tradition includes it. Christians consider both to be equal, unlike most sola scripturists who elevate their man-made traditions above scripture.

The Trinity is definitely indicated by Scripture, so try again.

It may be indicated but it's not clearly taught in scripture. Try again.

They're all to be found in Scripture, so you haven't shown--with even a single example--why "Tradition" would matter.

Tradition is necessary for the proper understanding of scripture. Heretics who rejected Holy Tradition are divided and confused, believing a variety of contradictory doctrines without any way of knowing the truth. One say scripture teaches infant baptism, another says scripture condemns infant baptism. One claims scripture says the Eucharist is Jesus, the others claim scripture says the Eucharist is just bread and nothing more than a symbol.

What I was saying is that anyone can say that they believe "God's word," but if one believes God's word to be the "highest" authority he can't logically insist that it can't stand on its own and that something else is equally authoritative. It cannot be both at once.

So I can't consider both the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of John to be the highest authority? I consider God's word to be the highest authority whether it is written or unwritten.

 

[samir]

Which scripture exactly says that please?

John 3 and Acts 2:38.

 

[samir]

True. But you said this:



Not the same, are they?

You said scripture is God's Word (with a capital W). I said Jesus is God's Word (with a capital W) and scripture is God's word (lower case W). Jesus and scripture are not identical.

 

[civilwarbuff]

John 3:3-5

Titus 3:5

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Titus 3:5

Which is through baptism.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There was only one Church at the time. This was before individuals thought that they should lean on their own understanding and leave the Church.

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

Before you add to the chorus of careless Catholic apologists who imagine that we follow Luther as a pope, or that he imagined himself to be one, then you should do a little research here.

See here this case, rather than Luther presuming ensured papal veracity, this quote was in the context of the warrant for his choice, and and two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb was that it was demanded by the context, and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him. Aquinas, Basil, Bellarmine, Bernard, Origen, etc.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

1 Timothy 3:15 15 so that, if I am slow in coming, thou mayest be in no doubt over the conduct that is expected of thee in God’s household. By that I mean the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation upon which the truth rests.

We Know that the Bible is The Truth Since the Church ratifies it as TRUE. In the Same Way, The Sacred Scripture is True since it endorses the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

We of Course say that The Church to which the Sacred Scripture Refers is the Only One True Church, The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So you also hold that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)\

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

 

[samir]

What did the church fathers use to argue their point for Trinitarian doctrine?

Tradition.

 

[Albion]

Ok, you jumped to conclusions, I responded that I felt that was irrational. Just because one who is a disciple of Christ yet sees the scripture as quite flawed does not mean one just believes whatever they want.

If I jumped, that would be wrong. However, I did take account of the whole posting and thought I saw a certain POV being expressed. So, I don't think it could rightly be called jumping to any conclusions. OTOH, even if I misread your thinking, I do not believe that calling me irrational and an authoritarian on this account makes any sense at all (not to mention gratuitously insulting).

 

[samir]

16 But if he (the non-Christian Jew) doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the (non-Christian Jewish) assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.

Interesting. Not sure why Jesus would preach Judaism in the New Covenant. Did any of the fathers interpret the passage that way?

 

[samir]

Post it then.....

John 3:5, Titus 3:5, and Acts 2:38 all teach the necessity of baptism for salvation.

 

[Albion]

Scripture is the written Tradition

Not according to Scripture.

Tradition is necessary for the proper understanding of scripture. Heretics who rejected Holy Tradition are divided and confused, believing a variety of contradictory doctrines without any way of knowing the truth.

Just so we're clear. I like participating in discussions, but I can find a copy of the Catechism any day and don't need someone to read it to me in lieu of contributing to the discussion.

So, exchange of ideas good, testimonials not appropriate.