Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JacksBratt]

You're asking a person who's going to Atlanta from Jacksonville how he plans to deal with the Miami traffic. I'm not going to deal with the Miami traffic because only a total idiot goes to Miami thinking it's on the way from Jax to Atlanta. It's a nonexistent problem because, as I said, making it big because you apparently do not know what it means:

Confession does not confer the forgiveness at the location of the priest!!!!!!

Get that piece of information in your head, and then you will understand why you are not even on the logical course of thought. Your question is a STRAWMAN! It has no relevance to confession because you're asking if water has hydrogen in it without someone observing the existence of the hydrogen in it.

This is far far far from a strawman. This is a very possible and real situation that can and does, daily, arise.
All over this earth, Catholics die with sins that are unconfessed.

I stated, in post # 687 that:

When a Christian repents and believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, all of their sins, past, present, and future are immediately forgiven!

You responded with:

The fact is that sin that has not yet been confessed cannot be forgiven,

No matter how you slice it, with your statement, your view, you could end up at the feet of your savior, in glory, at your judgement, with unforgiven sins.

There is no way around it.

You went on to say:

This is why Sanctification is not a separate thing from salvation. It is part and parcel of salvation.

So, stop all the avoidance. This is a real situation. You are being judged by your creator. A God who cannot exist around sin or unrighteousness.....You have unforgiven sins.

There are only two options.

1/ I am correct and all your past present and future sins are forgiven when you achieve salvation.

OR

2/ You are a sinner and unforiven and uncofessed. Your future sins were not forgiven and now you cannot enter paradise.

There is no other option.

Which is it....??????????

 

[redleghunter]

An Anglican Perspective
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Which Westminster is very similar :


http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

 

[FireDragon76]

I find it hard to believe the Catholic idea of the Immaculate Conception comes from us, seeing as how we deny it.

Much of 20th century Orthodox theology of the style of Florovsky, Romanides, Maximovitch, etc., is polemically anti-western, romantic, and a distortion of the actual history of the development of doctrine. Though certain western fathers such as Augustine believed Mary was without sin on account of Christ, the feast day of the Immaculate Conception definitely originates from the Byzantines, which is why Bernard of Clairvaux, who denied that Mary was immaculately conceived, commented that the feast day was a foreign custom contrary to the tradition of the Latin church. Aquinas also denied the doctrine. But it does seem that many eastern theologians affirmed elements of this doctrine. It's just not something the Orthodox Church can say is a dogma, because dogma is defined by conciliar decree.

Though this is not the only source I have read researching this topic, this is the most concise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#Eastern_and_Oriental_Orthodox

 

[sculleywr]

This is far far far from a strawman. This is a very possible and real situation that can and does, daily, arise.
All over this earth, Catholics die with sins that are unconfessed.

I stated, in post # 687 that:

When a Christian repents and believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, all of their sins, past, present, and future are immediately forgiven!

You responded with:

The fact is that sin that has not yet been confessed cannot be forgiven,

No matter how you slice it, with your statement, your view, you could end up at the feet of your savior, in glory, at your judgement, with unforgiven sins.

There is no way around it.

You went on to say:

This is why Sanctification is not a separate thing from salvation. It is part and parcel of salvation.

So, stop all the avoidance. This is a real situation. You are being judged by your creator. A God who cannot exist around sin or unrighteousness.....You have unforgiven sins.

There are only two options.

1/ I am correct and all your past present and future sins are forgiven when you achieve salvation.

OR

2/ You are a sinner and unforiven and uncofessed. Your future sins were not forgiven and now you cannot enter paradise.

There is no other option.

Which is it....??????????

Did I stutter? No. I said, and now I will make it the only thing I say really really big because it answers your question:

Confession is not about receiving forgiveness from God. So no, your false dichotomy is not a real one! I will not answer this question again. Am I clear? Or is it not clear that Confession is not about receiving forgiveness in the Sacrament? How many ways do I need to reword the answer?

Move on. The answer has been given, and all you're doing is creating a strawman. Here is a list of the false premises it is based on:

1.You think that in order to be forgiven, I believe you must go to Confession. I have told you three times this is not true.
2. You think that your false situation could possibly exist, which it can't.

Based on those, you are attacking something that is NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

 

[fhansen]

That is true and I've viewed statements here that the one true church is not headquartered in Rome.

Well, at least we got to the "one church". That's a start.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Much of 20th century Orthodox theology of the style of Florovsky, Romanides, Maximovitch, etc., is polemically anti-western, romantic, and a distortion of the actual history of the development of doctrine. Though certain western fathers such as Augustine believed Mary was without sin on account of Christ, the feast day of the Immaculate Conception definitely originates from the Byzantines, which is why Bernard of Clairvaux, who denied that Mary was immaculately conceived, commented that the feast day was a foreign custom contrary to the tradition of the Latin church. Aquinas also denied the doctrine. But it does seem that many eastern theologians affirmed elements of this doctrine. It's just not something the Orthodox Church can say is a dogma, because dogma is defined by conciliar decree.

Though this is not the only source I have read researching this topic, this is the most concise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#Eastern_and_Oriental_Orthodox

20th and 19th Century Orthodox theology is very anti-West because it is a reaction to massive movement in 18th and 17th Centuries among the Orthodox to emulate Latin theology as much as possible, which was itself a reaction to Protestants coming to the East and trying to spread their theology.

There was never a feast day of the Immaculate Conception among the Byzantines. The entire doctrine of the Immaculate Conception rests on Augustine's harmartology, and his works weren't even translated into Greek until the second millennium, and at that point a major crisis was uncovered regarding the Filioque. There are no Eastern theologians who pushed the idea that sin is transmitted through conception (save for maybe some of the crypto-Uniates of Russia during that movement's popularity). We DO celebrate Mary's birth and conception, but the latter is not referred to as 'immaculate' and never was.

 

[fhansen]

The below may clarify :

There are some basic principles of good exegesis which serious students of the Bible will follow:

1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.

Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.

2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.

3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.

The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.

4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

None of that came close to answering my question. Do you think all those employing best exegetical principles will necessarily agree on doctrine?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Bible was not written by the Church, as only the NT was, while your reasoning logically means that the 1st century souls should have submitted to the instruments and stewards of Scripture under their magisterium, as you require us to do.

In the first century there was not New Testament compiled as we have it now, and You are a bit mistaken if you think that the Old testament is Not also a Legacy of the Church, Because The Church is The New Covenant that is heir of the Ancient Covenant. The Old testament Proclaims the coming of the New covenant, The Church itself.

You evidently fail to understand the facts and argument i presented. You claimed the Catholic wrote the Bible, not even just the NT, and thus you know the Bible is true. And by implication means that we need to look to Rome and her magisterium to know what is of God.

Which logically means that to be consistent, since Israel wrote, discerned and preserved the OT writings which the NT church validated its claims by, then 1st century souls should have submitted to their magisterium to know what is of God and what is not. Which effectively nukes the church.

Instead of knowing the Bible is true because it was written by the Church, which assurance would be upon the premise of ensured ecclesiastical veracity, souls ascertained both men and writings as being of God, before a church of Rome ever presumed it was essential for this. And thus 1st century souls could know (as we can - and that Rome is in error) that the church was true because the scriptural substantiation of its preaching, to which it appealed.

The Catholic Church in the first millenium was Strongly supported in the Successor of Peter,

Irrelevant. I am referring to how the NT church in Scripture established its Truth claims, not the progressive deformation of Catholicism.
For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

Wrong, wrong and wrong again and again and again. The Old Testament Was Anouncing the New testamen, and the New Covenant, The prophets anounced the old covenant comming into an end.

Wrong again for nothing you said refutes the fact that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And who rejected the itinerant preachers called the Nazarenes and their Leader, but who overcome this rejection upon scriptural substantiation.

Moreover, the OT was not simply announcing the NT, but it provided the doctrinal and prophetic foundation for it. And thus the NT had to conflate and complement the OT, and thus apostolic preaching was subject to testing by the OT, which is said to be used for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

The Church is The community of the Apostles which Christ, God Himself settled to began the New Covenant anounced since the times of the Prophets. The Old covenant was betrayed by the Jews to the point of satanism as we read in Ezequiel, God anounced to Ezequiel de coming of the Castizement and the mark of the saved ones. The New Covenant was being awaited.

Of course the Old covenant was betrayed by a majority of the Jews, like as the New Covenant has by a majority of those called Christian, esp. the Catholic and liberal Prot kind.

But the point is that the Scribes and Pharisees yet sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and to whom the Lord enjoined conditional obedience to. (Mt. 23:3; Acts 4:19) And thus the itinerant preachers they rejected had to show that these magisterial stewards were not to be followed in all things, which they did upon Scriptural substantiation, not the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

There would have been no NT church unless they and established their Truth claims thereby, as the Church and Christ were no more than rejected itinerant preachers by those who sat in the seat of Moses.

Moreover, your assertion that you know that the Bible is true rests upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, Scripture was not written by your magisterium, in which case the scholarly doubts and disagreements would not have continued for centuries and right into Trent.

On the contrary, Paul was pharisee himself, All the Apostles were Jews,

That is not contrary to what I said, and upon what basis did he establish his Truth claims to the stewards of Scripture?

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

Instead, NT souls came to ascertain what was of God just as OT souls did and we can, which in essence is due to the heavenly qualities and attestation of it. )

The New Covenant is made to Fullfill the promises of the Old Covenant. There is only one Flock, Not two.

Indeed, and which includes OT saints, and all of the people of God, which do not all belong to one visible church, as cults believe.

This requires overcoming the competition by Scriptural means, not by the autocratic decrees of Rome,"but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

"Rome is the Principal see of the Church, from the very begining since Saint PETER moved there, as well as Saint Paul."

Once again, how does this relate to what i said? And your statement is mere propaganda in the light of Scripture. Peter is nowhere mentioned as even being in Rome, and is not even named among the over 30 people Paul salutes or mentions in the letter to the church at Rome!

Your florid words do not give you reason.

Your prolix propaganda provides no reason to support Rome, but is an argument against here.

 

[samir]

Are you saying the Pope is divinely inspired?

No.

 

[samir]

IMHO I believe you are trying hard to downplay the important teachings of your church on Sacred Scriptures.

From your CCC:

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8L 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9L 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).

138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.

139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.

140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.

141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "


Third time I posted this to a Catholic member on this thread. I gather no responses given the above is very close to what every non Catholic is arguing on this thread.

You are correct that Catholics believe what the catechism teaches and consider scripture the highest authority. One thing I really like about the catholic church is they don't subject the word of God to man-made traditions like we see in Protestantism where God's word is always subordinate to the Protestant's faith alone tradition. Whenever scripture says works are necessary for justification, Protestants dismiss, ignore, reinterpret, explain away, and reject the scriptural teaching in favor of their tradition.

 

[samir]

The Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox don't agree just by looking at their canon.

I notice you make lots of claims but never provide any evidence to support them. I wonder why.

 

[FireDragon76]

There was never a feast day of the Immaculate Conception among the Byzantines. There are no Eastern theologians who pushed the idea that sin is transmitted through conception (save for maybe some of the crypto-Uniates of Russia during that movement's popularity). We DO celebrate Mary's birth and conception, but the latter is not referred to as 'immaculate' and never was.

The Immaculate Conception as a doctrine may be framed in Latin theological language, but the very idea for a feast day for Mary's conception came from the east. And much of eastern theology is consistent with the development of this doctrine, until the Reformation caused all Christian confessions to become much more polemical in their theology.

 

[samir]

You just professed that coping God's word gives no indication of authority or truth to the one copying it. Anyone can do it. This is the reason why it is excusable for language experts that are not necessarily Christian or Christian doctrine experts to translate scripture. The truth of scripture comes from the original source. So much for the RCC writing the Bible.

And, to take your example to the extreme:
If the church of Satan wrote a book that contained all God's words, would it still be a Satanic book?

It would depend on what else is included.

If the RCC compiled a book that contained all God's words, would it be an RCC book?

Yes.

Now if the church of Satan wrote a book that was exactly the same as the Bible, except they changed one verse. Matthew 4:10 to "Jesus said to Satan, 'Sure lets work together for two are mightier than one.'"

Could we still use that book as scripture? There is a reason for the duplication of major concepts in scripture. There is a reason for 3 synoptic gospels saying the same thing but a little bit differently. Don't you think that one familiar with the whole Bible would have no difficulty in identifying the error of this one verse and disregarding it?

Now this example was an extreme one, but it serves my point that the Bible still contains God's word and is still true despite any slight "errors" injected from copying, translations and such.

It's God's word to the extend it is still God's word. The errors wouldn't be God's word but the verses copies correctly would be God's word.

 

[buzuxi02]

The only incontrovertible truth is mathematics.

 

[samir]

Obviously my argument presumed you knew what Scripture was, and thus if the Lord referred to it as the word of God, then it was, not as simply containing the word of God as you tried to reduce it to. And by your own admission here your bold denial is reduced to what you think capitalization teaches.

Which is a distinction without a difference except in form. A word is an expression, and both Christ as the express visible expression of the invisible God, as well as His own words are both the Word of God.

The distinction is necessary because some Protestants told me they think Jesus is a book. That's why I felt it necessary to say the bible is not the Word meaning it's not Jesus Christ.

Which is just as absurd as before. Again, the Lord quotes Scripture as authorative that one is to live by every word of God to contrast to obeying the counsel of the devil, yet you have Him teaching that the very command to live by every word of God is not the word of God!

Protestants have some strange "logic" which is why I don't trust Protestants to interpret anything.

You mean i wrongly presumed that you believed that Scripture was wholly inspired of God, and thus quoting it as the word of God was not simply referring to it containing the word of God, but as being the word of God.

Incorrect. More bizarre logic again. Not sure how to respond to that.

 

[samir]

They did not write down the oracles of God?

Irrelevant.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Immaculate Conception as a doctrine may be framed in Latin theological language, but the very idea for a feast day for Mary's conception came from the east. And much of eastern theology is consistent with the development of this doctrine, until the Reformation caused all Christian confessions to become much more polemical in their theology.

The feast day for Mary's conception is hardly the same as the doctrine of an immaculate conception.

No, Eastern harmartology is completely incompatible with it, since sin doesn't pass through conception in Eastern harmartology.

 

[PapaZoom]

The only incontrovertible truth is mathematics.

I wonder then if your statement can be denied because it's not based on a mathematical equation but is philosophical in nature.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The only incontrovertible truth is mathematics.

Mathematics aren't truth, let alone incontrovertible. They're just a sorting language.

 

[samir]

Except that they do not teach the "same Gospel" as each other!

A proclamation without any evidence. How Protestant.