Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JacksBratt]

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.

Where does scripture say that baptism is necessary for salvation? Did the thief on the cross got to paradise? Was he baptized?

 

[Albion]

Tradition.

Show us some place where they did that during the days of the Apostolic church. Traditions are theoretically supposed to be from the beginning of the church.

 

[chilehed]

Use to believe? Your profile indicates you still believe.

What, that the Catholic Church at some point taught that Sacred Scripture is a thing to be detested ,loathed, cursed, and consigned to damnation or destruction? I stopped believing that kind of Chick-tract nonsense once I stopped learning about Catholic belief from folks who had no idea what they were talking about.

But that's not relevant to the topic. I answered the challenge of the OP, and proved that either there is a source of incontrovertible truth outside of Sacred Scripture, or else that we can't really be guaranteed of knowing what the true canon of Scripture is. So far no one's even pretended to rebut the logic of my argument.

 

[JacksBratt]

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

This is taken from : https://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation

It explains, quite easily, the fact that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

The reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is that we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8) and not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11). You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone. In the Bible circumcision was a ceremony where one person performed a religious rite on another person. Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person; but, we are saved by faith alone, and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help.

If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe and not when we get baptized, otherwise, we are not saved by faith. Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died. This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions--otherwise it isn't necessary.

 

[chilehed]

Applying your "logic" to the Pharisees of Jesus' day and you can see how baseless it is to assume truth/authority above God's word, from those assigned to be leaders of the church. The Pharisees failed miserably at this and Jesus called them out for forcing their traditions on the Church.

The Jews were responsible for giving us the OT. And the NT credits them for this. In the same chapter Paul says this does not guarantee that they persist in or always speak the truth.

You Catholics are grasping at straws because you can't prove what you believe. You think we must prove scripture is true. Again, look at Jesus' teaching. He did not have to prove the OT. He proved that he was fulfilled prophecy in the OT. God's people did not question scripture. They followed it because they followed God.

I take it you don't have any logical rebuttal to my argument.

 

[sculleywr]

Opinion??? Wha.....???

It is. Scripture never directly says that Scripture is God's Word. In point of fact, the only Logos directly called the Logos is Christ, not the Bible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What, that the Catholic Church at some point taught that Sacred Scripture is a thing to be detested ,loathed, cursed, and consigned to damnation or destruction? I stopped believing that kind of Chick-tract nonsense once I stopped learning about Catholic belief from folks who had no idea what they were talking about.

But that's not relevant to the topic. I answered the challenge of the OP, and proved that either there is a source of incontrovertible truth outside of Sacred Scripture, or else that we can't really be guaranteed of knowing what the true canon of Scripture is. So far no one's even pretended to rebut the logic of my argument.

Why do we have to accept the idea that there is, anywhere, a source of incontrovertable truth?

Perhaps we could assert that we accept our ideas as, not necessarily incontrovertable, but sufficiently probable as to warrant our faith. Then we could further point out reasons for accepting ideas.

 

[Albion]

But that's not relevant to the topic. I answered the challenge of the OP, and proved that either there is a source of incontrovertible truth outside of Sacred Scripture, or else that we can't really be guaranteed of knowing what the true canon of Scripture is. So far no one's even pretended to rebut the logic of my argument.

That's probably because we aren't really "guaranteed of knowing" what the canon of Scripture is.

The decision was made by several ordinary church councils, not Ecumenical Councils, and more or less accepted. I say more or less because there are a dozen different canons in use among the Christian churches of the world and even the RCatholic Church considered some of the books to be questionable for over a thousand years and then did actually alter the canon during the Counter-Reformation. Yet many Catholics think that it was set in stone during the 300s AD and never touched or questioned until Martin Luther.

 

[samir]

This is taken from : https://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation

It explains, quite easily, the fact that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

The reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is that we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8) and not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11). You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone. In the Bible circumcision was a ceremony where one person performed a religious rite on another person. Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person; but, we are saved by faith alone, and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help.

If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe and not when we get baptized, otherwise, we are not saved by faith. Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died. This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions--otherwise it isn't necessary.

None of that refutes what scripture says about baptism being necessary for salvation. Most of that very poorly written explanation is false and illogical. Luther knew it was necessary using scripture alone along with Protestant denominations today that still adhere to scripture when it comes to baptism.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

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?

the Sacred Scripture Clearly Teaches us in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles What is the way that the Holy Spirit Uses to Drive the Church which is the mystical body of Christ, The Catholic Church is Both Human and Divine, and the Book of acts of the Apostles shows that in the Catholic Church there may be disagreements, like between Paul and James, but that Christ left us an order, and a comunion of Principals, And ahead of all of them is Peter, The chapter 15 of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles tells on how both James and Paul thought that they were doing what the Holy Spirit inspired them, but Only Peter Ended Contentions. His Authority came from Christ himself, Christ Left us a PRIMUS an apostle who is the FIRST. An to that Apostle the whole Church listens and obeys. Such Apostle is not "infalible" in all his doings, BUT HE IS IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE.

The Holy Spirit Guides, vivifies and sanctifies the Church and thus makes it Holy and Divine, But we as humans are sinners and Falible, we catholics claim that the Church leaded by Peter has the Doctrinal Authority which comes from GOD himself. Who Created it for the salvation of the human kind and for the salvation of sinners who repent.

The Lord Jesus, Didn't write any book. He founded on the Apostles the Church the Catholic Church.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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.
I consider God's word to be the highest authority whether it is written or unwritten.

So you know that some of the word of God existed outside Scripture because wholly inspired Scripture includes some of it, thus or because non-inspired men in the church said that even something as sketchy as the Assumption said it was the word of God?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

This is taken from : https://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation

It explains, quite easily, the fact that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

The reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is that we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8) and not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11). You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone. In the Bible circumcision was a ceremony where one person performed a religious rite on another person. Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person; but, we are saved by faith alone, and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help.

If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe and not when we get baptized, otherwise, we are not saved by faith. Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died. This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions--otherwise it isn't necessary.

baptism is mandatory, if you are in possibilities of getting Baptized and yet you refuse to do it you are then REJECTING TO OBEY CHRIST, GOD HIMSELF:

John 3:5 is clear Paul NEVER denies Baptism Not even in the Romans letter which you so much distort from its content.

Romans 6:3-11

3 You know well enough that we who were taken up into Christ by baptism have been taken up, all of us, into his death.
4 In our baptism, we have been buried with him, died like him, that so, just as Christ was raised up by his Father’s power from the dead, we too might live and move in a new life.
5 We have to be closely fitted into the pattern of his resurrection, as we have been into the pattern of his death;[1]
6 we have to be sure of this, that our former nature has been crucified with him, and the living power of our guilt annihilated, so that we are the slaves of guilt no longer.[2]
7 Guilt makes no more claim on a man who is dead.[3]
8 And if we have died with Christ, we have faith to believe that we shall share his life.
9 We know that Christ, now he has risen from the dead, cannot die any more; death has no more power over him;
10 the death he died was a death, once for all, to sin; the life he now lives is a life that looks towards God.[4]
11 And you, too, must think of yourselves as dead to sin, and alive with a life that looks towards God, through Christ Jesus our Lord.

The ONLY exception to Baptism is the INABILITY of th believer to find some christian who may provide him the Baptism in the Trinitarian Form.

If one person in the Middle of China where no christian reach is Willing to Be Christian and to be part of the Church, That Pure willing is Worth his Baptism nd if he Dies he will be received and taken as christian. But If you Believe but reject to be baptized despite being able to receive baptism from the Church of Christ, then you are not renouncing to your Will and the Original sinn remains in You deceaving you to believe that you are owner of the knowledge of Good and Evil. That is the True meaning of Adam and Eve Story, They wanted to Rule their lives and didn't want to OBEY God's desings. The same way that you do when challenging God's ORDER for us to be baptized.

Being Baptized means renouncing following the Disobedience of ADAM and EVE and follow the Obedience of Christ.

 

[samir]

So you know that some of the word of God existed outside Scripture because wholly inspired Scripture includes some of it

No. The reverse is true. I know some of the word of God exists in scripture because the tradition of the church says it does. If scripture wasn't part of the church's tradition, I would not accept it.

thus or because non-inspired men in the church said that even something as sketchy as the Assumption said it was the word of God?

I do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine. That's what Protestants do.

 

[JacksBratt]

No. The reverse is true. I know some of the word of God exists in scripture because the tradition of the church says it does. If scripture wasn't part of the church's tradition, I would not accept it.



I do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine. That's what Protestants do.

So, do you rely on "inspired" men. If so, how are you to tell the difference?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Jesus clearly gave the Church his authority.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Matt 16
18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Do you know the difference between one authority and ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH? The authority to "forgive" sins is from God and given to the Church. Don't be so simple minded to infer that all authority in heaven and earth that was given to Jesus was also given to any man. Does the Church command the weather? Does the Church do the miracles that Jesus and the apostles did? Does the Church continue in creating scripture?

And again, you won't answer where Jesus said the specific authorities given could be transferred.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

In other words, you can't answer these two questions:

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?

Why did Jesus give Simon alone the keys to the Kingdom?

Why don't you just say what doctrine you infer from the text instead of me saying something I don't agree with. The OP begs one to prove another truth besides scripture. You wish to just throw out a few scripture verses and think your case proven. Then, when one makes a point that Peter was not inerrant, you just ignore that argument because you can't get that scripture to agree with what your doctrine is pushing.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Scripture is incontrovertibly true = this cannot be proven or held to the same standard of proof you are asking of others.


Solo Scriptura is probably what you are advocating, where tradition is lower than Biblical authority.

I already had a thread on the supreme authority of scripture. Scripture won.

My OP states a defense of SS, not a proof of it. Why do I think I don't have to prove my first 3 points? Because Jesus didn't prove OT scripture was true. He certainly did affirm it was true though. He also pointed out those things that testified that he was the Messiah. So now 2000 years later, why do we argue about "proving scripture is true"? I think it absurd that Christians use this as a cop out for their lack of being able to prove their doctrine. Every Christian should agree to the truth of scripture. The Christians that don't hold to SS just add to the truths of scripture and then interpret them differently.

 

[samir]

So, do you rely on "inspired" men. If so, how are you to tell the difference?

I rely on the church because Jesus promised the gates of hell won't prevail against it. I recognize false doctrine by comparing it to the ancient Christian faith. If it's an innovation that conflicts with what Christians have always believed because the church taught it from the beginning then I know it is false.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I answered the challenge of the OP, and proved that either there is a source of incontrovertible truth outside of Sacred Scripture, or else that we can't really be guaranteed of knowing what the true canon of Scripture is. So far no one's even pretended to rebut the logic of my argument.

I take it you don't have any logical rebuttal to my argument.

Your argument is as simple minded as:
I read God's word. I approved God's word. I am inerrant.

It proves nothing.
There is no great inspiration in that argument; it has been tried and refuted multiple times.

And you, don't even attempt an illogical rebuttal to my response. Learn from the Pharisees who while ordained to lead the OT church, failed miserably in following the truth.

Keep on screaming from your soap box and you will convince many.

 

[samir]

Where does scripture say that baptism is necessary for salvation?

John 3:5, Titus 3:5, and Acts 2:38

Did the thief on the cross got to paradise?

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, I believe he joined the OT saints in paradise/limbo of the fathers where the righteous dead went in the Old Covenant before Jesus rose from the dead and brought them to heaven.

Was he baptized?

I have no idea. Scripture doesn't say either way. Why does that matter?