Sola Scriptura defined....

[tulipbee]

I know you are trying to be cute, and feel you are making points with other non-Catholics, and getting under the skin of Catholics by refurring to The Holy Catholic Church as " the Roman denomination", but as far as Catholics go...We have a 2000 plus year history, and we've heard it all, so you are not saying anything we havent heard before.

As for the Deuterocanonical books, (what you call the Apocrypha) it's because they have always been part of the Bible. For example.... the Golden Rule which Jesus cites — "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — is almost a direct quote from Tobit 4:15. Wisdom 2:12-20 is a stunning and detailed prophecy of Jesus's death. Hebrews 11:35-38, part of a series extolling Old Testament saints, is only found in 2 Maccabees 6:18 — 7:42.

Did you also know that The Assyrian Church of the East, the Syrian Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic, the Eastern Orthodox, and even the Ethiopian Jews (except for Ecclesiasticus)
accept these books into their canon, so this is not a recent Catholic innovation.

Are you also aware that Martin Luther included them in his first German translation? Not only that.....history shows.these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out! Like I have proved to Maj1 over and over again tulipbee..... Early Christian history is not a friend of Protestantism as you now know. As Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

My apologies to the OP for straying off topic. If this poster (tulipbee) wishes to continue on this subject futher, I ask that said poster start a new thread and I will particpate.

you used the word, "almost". not good enough

 

[tulipbee]

Not looking to derail this thread on Sola Scriptura, though I am most curious on what you believe an indulgence is? By the looks of this statement, I'm thinking yours and that of the Catholic Church's might be different. Maybe you could start a new thread on it.

problem with indulgences is that they negate the all-sufficiency of the cross. It was Jesus who took our punishment. He took our place so that we do not have to suffer any punishment for our sins so that we might be made right with God.

 

[tulipbee]

The indulgences' practice is not a biblical teaching.

 

[tulipbee]

But the question remains, where in scripture is the phrase "faith alone" or anything like it occurs in the bible?

salvation by works is not true. It is a false teaching. Not only that, salvation by faith and works is also a false doctrine. The Bible teaches that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

 

[Major1]

Hey Maj1! good to hear from ya.....does this mean your not upset with me any longer? Now as for your post, you know darn good and well I am no longer an adherent to the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura. (the bible alone) I could turn it around and ask you where is the word "Trinity" is in the bible. We both know its not there but we believe it, right?

Maybe you could answer the question of where the phrase 'faith alone' or anything like it occurs in the bible?

And since we are back on talking terms, would you care to answer the question I've asked you many, many times and have yet got an answer from you?

If two non-Denominantionalist are in disagreement of the interpretation or understanding of a certain passage in Scripture, to whom or what authority would/could they turn, to decide who was in error, and who was not?

Again, good to hear from you!

I am not upset with you at all.

I am however disappointed in you that as a man of obvious religious knowledge would feel the need to 'play games" with words and situations in order to promote your agenda.

I am just too old to do that. I deal in a more straight forward way.

Now to answer your question.. Yes you are correct. The word Trinity is NOT in the Scriptures.
The word Rapture is not in the Scriptures.

But the doctrine of "Implied Truth" teaches us that even though a specific word is not used, when everything else is taught then that thing that is taught must then in fact be true.


Now then, your question HAS been answered. That is one of the reason I am disappointed in you. YOU have asked and it has been answered so what is the point in continueing to ask it.
The words "FATH ALONE" appears only if James 2:24. However when one reads and studies the WHOLE Bible anyone one can see and understand what God says in many Scriptures, IF ONE WANTS TO LEARN:

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;"

Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;"

Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."

Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

All you need to do is look at the context. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.

James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14). In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith--a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a public confession of the mind and is not heartfelt. It is empty of life and action. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by actions. Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man but not to God. James writes of Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.

In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20). But, he is not contradicting the verses above that say salvation/justification is by faith alone.

Now then........since you are so focuses on Actual WORDS. will you please answer my question which has been asked more times than I can remember.......
Where in the Bible is the word ROASERY.
Where is the WORD, Pergatory in the Bible.

 

[Major1]

Frankly I can't remember asking for it. Perhaps I did. Admittedly, I do think I remember saying at least three times in this thread that nobody seems to really agree on what sola scriptura is or, crucially, how to apply it.

And as it happens, I remain correct about that.

I've always found that fact rather curious. Even back in my pre-Catholic days it seemed astonishing that people can read the same text but extract vastly different ideas from it; St. John 3 is a good example of this.

The struggle I had back then was figuring out why seemingly intelligent (or at least rational) adults couldn't agree on more than two or three points of doctrine. If these "truths" are so obvious as to be self-evident based upon a cursory (or even extensive) reading of the scriptures, it was puzzling that there was so little consensus. Forget about unanimity (we're way past that now), even basic doctrines are seemingly up for grabs among the various Protestant ecclesial communities.

Or, indeed, the canon which comprises the Bible.

A claim which sacred scripture doesn't make about itself, interestingly enough.

Golly, I came in to this thread expecting discussion and instead got psychoanalysis. SCORE!

But seriously though you, unfortunately, are mistaken. I was raised and practiced my faith in childhood and into adulthood in Protestant ecclesial communities. But, as is frequently the case, life happened. Long story short, I found myself studying Catholic doctrine from Catholic sources. I found some of the Church's teachings easy to believe in while others were more challenging. But ultimately I found them all persuasive. So during the Easter Vigil 2015 I was welcomed into the Church.

Remarks such as this are (somewhat passive-aggressive) appeals to authority. "You can think what you like but I just go by the Bible." The inference the reader is to draw is that your position is correct by virtue of the fact that your position seemingly aligns with sacred scripture, e.g., an inspired source. Thus the other side's position is de-legitimized due to the fact that, presumably, they disagree with sacred scripture.

All this to say that I do not find this type of rebuttal to be persuasive. Or, really, productive.

Then do not respond to the things I post. It is just that simple my friend and I do realize that the truth can be rather convicting.

Again, Sola Scriptura can not be accepted by the RCC/You because you as a Catholic do not practice following the Bible commandments. I can post all og the practices that the RCC endorsees and commands you to follow which are NOT found in the Bible again for you if need be.

Again, we can bat this back and forth all you want, we can say this and that and you can believe whatever you choose and you can say whatever you want to about me.......but the bottom line is that the Catholic religion does not follow the Bible but is an institution unto itself.

Because of that YOU must reject the Bible directions and Sola Scriptura.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Then do not respond to the things I post. It is just that simple my friend and I do realize that the truth can be rather convicting.

Again, Sola Scriptura can not be accepted by the RCC/You because you as a Catholic do not practice following the Bible commandments. I can post all og the practices that the RCC endorsees and commands you to follow which are NOT found in the Bible again for you if need be.

Again, we can bat this back and forth all you want, we can say this and that and you can believe whatever you choose and you can say whatever you want to about me.......but the bottom line is that the Catholic religion does not follow the Bible but is an institution unto itself.

Because of that YOU must reject the Bible directions and Sola Scriptura.

My Church has never believed in sola scriptura. The notion of regarding the written word as a higher authority than the spoken word may have some cachet these days but in the ancient world it never would've happened. They trusted in-person speakers more than written letters because people can be (and were) questioned.

But beyond that, the ancient Church mentioned tradition and/or oral teachings pretty frequently.

Irenaeus
"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same."

Athanasius
"Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, 'we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,' as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven."

Epiphanius of Salamis
"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition."

The early Church didn't believe that scripture was the sole rule of faith and sacred scripture makes no such claim about itself. Good thing, too, because it would've been impossible for most Christians to even read the scriptures until relatively recently. So my question for anybody who believes in sola scriptura is why exactly they believe in it, especially considering how relatively recently it was invented.

 

[Fidelibus]

you used the word, "almost". not good enough

Say's who, and by what authority? Or with all due respect tulipbee.... could this just be your way of saying you got nothing?

 

[Fidelibus]

problem with indulgences is that they negate the all-sufficiency of the cross. It was Jesus who took our punishment. He took our place so that we do not have to suffer any punishment for our sins so that we might be made right with God.

I'll let Catholicanswers.com address this statement from the anti-Catholic web-site Carm.org.

Despite the biblical underpinnings of indulgences, some are sharply critical of them and insist the doctrine supplants the work of Christ and turns us into our own saviors. This objection results from confusion about the nature of indulgences and about how Christ’s work is applied to us.

Indulgences apply only to temporal penalties, not to eternal ones. The Bible indicates that these penalties may remain after a sin has been forgiven and that God lessens these penalties as rewards to those who have pleased him. Since the Bible indicates this, Christ’s work cannot be said to have been supplanted by indulgences.

The merits of Christ, since they are infinite, comprise most of those in the treasury of merits. By applying these to believers, the Church acts as Christ’s servant in the application of what he has done for us, and we know from Scripture that Christ’s work is applied to us over time and not in one big lump (Phil. 2:12, 1 Pet. 1:9).

 

[Fidelibus]

salvation by works is not true. It is a false teaching.

Say's who, and by what authotity do you know this?

Not only that, salvation by faith and works is also a false doctrine.

Are you refurring to Gal 2:16?

The Bible teaches that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

Again, I'll ask the same question you keep ignoring:

where in scripture is the phrase "faith alone" or anything like it that occurs in the bible?

 

[Fidelibus]

The indulgences' practice is not a biblical teaching.

Type in..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TuyZej_SxQ, and click on "Are Indulgences Biblical" - YouTube. to see a 2 1/2 min. video for a Catholic responce.

Then, please get back to me on what you think an indulgence is, and we'll compare it to what the Catholic Church teaches it to be, okay?

Thank you.

 

[Fidelibus]

I am not upset with you at all.

Good to know maj1. I'll address this post later, for right now I'm off to watch my grandson's basketball game.

 

[tulipbee]

Type in..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TuyZej_SxQ, and click on "Are Indulgences Biblical" - YouTube. to see a 2 1/2 min. video for a Catholic responce.

Then, please get back to me on what you think an indulgence is, and we'll compare it to what the Catholic Church teaches it to be, okay?

Thank you.

I've wasted too much of my time from Roman catholic sources

 

[tulipbee]

Say's who, and by what authority? Or with all due respect tulipbee.... could this just be your way of saying you got nothing?

I like 100% true prophecy and a perfect 66 book bible. that's allll folks!

 

[Fidelibus]

I am however disappointed in you that as a man of obvious religious knowledge would feel the need to 'play games" with words and situations in order to promote your agenda.

No need to be diappointed maj, for I'm not playing games, just refuting anti-Catholic myths and lies.

I am just too old to do that. I deal in a more straight forward way.

Yeah..... me too.

Now to answer your question.. Yes you are correct. The word Trinity is NOT in the Scriptures. The word Rapture is not in the Scriptures.

Along with the phrase.." we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior", the practice of voting for pastors, the Altar Call, and the 'Sinners Prayer' to name a few.

But the doctrine of "Implied Truth" teaches us that even though a specific word is not used, when everything else is taught then that thing that is taught must then in fact be true.

I remember you using this phrase (implied truth) once before Maj. Now I have to ask,,, you as an admitted sola scripturists, where in scripture is this 'implied truth' spoken? if it's not in the bible, are you saying that you are using a doctrine or source outside if Scripture? Wouldn't that make your belief that all one needs to know for salvation is found in the bible alone null and void?

Did the Early Church Fathers teach this doctrine? If so, who and when? If not, Is this Doctrine something that came about after the Reformation? If so, by whom? Do all Protestant and non-Denominational sects believe and teach this doctrine? I don't mean to bombard you with so many questions, but I find this Doctrine of "Implied Truth" intriguing. Maybe it might be better left for another thread. Would you be willing to discuss it futher in a different thread?

Now then, your question HAS been answered. That is one of the reason I am disappointed in you. YOU have asked and it has been answered so what is the point in continueing to ask it.
The words "FATH ALONE" appears only if James 2:24. However when one reads and studies the WHOLE Bible anyone one can see and understand what God says in many Scriptures, IF ONE WANTS TO LEARN:

I am always willing to learn. Like I've told you many times before, I am constantly learning about my Catholic faith on a daily basis, sometimes with your help! How about you, are you willing to learn?

Lets take a look at one of the passage you posted, Rom.3:28-30. Were you aware that since the notion that works do not contribute to salvation in any way does in fact flatly contradict Scripture, Martin Luther had to actually change Scripture to support it, adding the word “alone” after “faith” in Rom. 3:28? Did you also know historicly, that the reference to "faith" in Rom. 3:28 had never before been translated as "faith alone" before Luther - no one had ever contended that that was an accurate translation of the Greek. And that's why your very own mainstream Protestant translations such as the King James and NIV do not include "alone" in the verse. Were you aware of this part of Christian history?

You and others may ask why is this relevant? Well, it's relevant because 'faith alone' is a new and novel belief of the majority of non-Catholics today. However, history shows not until Luther, was it ever taught or believed. As for James 2:24, you are indeed correct, the only place the phrase "faith alone" actually appears in Scripture is James 2:24: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Although I don't fully agree with your understanding of being in 'full context.'

The Catholic belief for one to actually get the full context of James 2:24, verses 14-23 must be included.

"[14] What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
[16] and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? [17] So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?"

So, "faith without works is dead". Even the devils have some sort of faith, for they believe that Christ exists and is God. (As Aquinas taught, their understanding of God is a sort of natural faith only; they are entirely bereft of the theological virtue of Faith.) When Christ speaks of salvation vs. damnation, He sometimes speaks of faith and sometimes of works, such as the rich man who was told to sell his belongings and those he told would be lost for turning a blind eye to their fellow men in need (Matt. 25:31-46).

Now then........since you are so focuses on Actual WORDS. will you please answer my question which has been asked more times than I can remember.......
Where in the Bible is the word ROASERY.
Where is the WORD, Pergatory in the Bible.

I'll address this after you focus on answering:

If two non-Denominantionalist are in disagreement of the interpretation or understanding of a certain passage in Scripture, to whom or what authority would/could they turn, to decide who was in error, and who was not?

 

[Fidelibus]

I've wasted too much of my time from Roman catholic sources

Oh... I see, so you are only willing to take the words from anti-Catholic web-sites? Hmmmm...

 

[Major1]

Good to know maj1. I'll address this post later, for right now I'm off to watch my grandson's basketball game.

I wish I was. I am off to do a funeral for an 85 year old deacon.

 

[Fidelibus]

I like 100% true prophecy and a perfect 66 book bible.

Then you are cheating yourself tulipbee adhering to this incomplete bible. Did you know Martin Luther removed seven books from the Bible that had been in the Christian canon since the canon was formed, and were in Christ’s Old Testament (the Septuagint) as well. And that's not all - he also, of course, derided James, calling it "an epistle of straw" (because of how clearly it refutes his teaching) and relegating it to a different place in the back of his Bible. His justification for these things: “Luther will have it so!”

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard. History is what it is tulipbee, you cant change it even if you don't like or agree with it. If you don't beleive me, look it up for yourself.

that's allll folks!

If that is your wish.

 

[Fidelibus]

I wish I was. I am off to do a funeral for an 85 year old deacon.

Sorry to hear that Maj. If you mind giving me his first name, I will pray for him at Mass tomorrow.

 

[tulipbee]

Oh... I see, so you are only willing to take the words from anti-Catholic web-sites? Hmmmm...

you should let Jesus save his people, alone. he doesn't need you to help him. yet you boast about yourself.