Doctrinal Origin from Pope Gregory I

[Swordman007]

You protestants need to take the Bible as a whole, you can't just cherry pick verses.

You protestants? I'm a biblicist. If you're going to slap inappropriate labels on everyone around you, then it looks like we're not going to have a productive conversation.

 

[Cis.jd]

deleted

 

[LightLoveHope]

It is not mandated by Scripture or Tradition, if that is what you mean. There have always been married priests within the Catholic Church, although for the last 1000 years or so the celibacy vow has been the norm for clergy. Whether it is a good idea today as a matter of prudence, or if it was a good idea at any point, that is an open question for me personally. I can see good arguments on both sides.

Well I don't think its been established that leading a celibate life is a cause of pedophilia. I would need to look at the evidence, but the last time I looked it appeared to me that the rate of improper conduct among celibates was no higher than the general population.

You certainly see some things in Scripture where St. Paul appears to encourage celibacy so I don't think we can say that the choice is categorically wrong. If you think about it, many practicing Christians are celibate for a substantial period, before they are married. Nobody suggests that they are more likely to go out and abuse children, and that they should all marry the day that they turn 18, because to wait will cause them molest children. But that is essentially the same form of argument that you are making. You are just applying the argument to a different class of people (priests).

Thanks. May God bless you too.

You made a connection between celibacy and pedophilia. I was connecting celibacy with inappropriate relationships with adults, outside of marriage. Paul himself talks against celibacy as a virture for spirituality, rather it is a gift if you are suited to it. Equally marriage is not a perfect solution either as often couples end up an antagonistic compromise, as the optimism fades into the stresses of normal life and its difficulties.

God bless you

 

[Swag365]

You made a connection between celibacy and pedophilia. I was connecting celibacy with inappropriate relationships with adults, outside of marriage. Paul himself talks against celibacy as a virture for spirituality, rather it is a gift if you are suited to it. Equally marriage is not a perfect solution either as often couples end up an antagonistic compromise, as the optimism fades into the stresses of normal life and its difficulties.

God bless you

You are asserting that a choice to lead a celibate life causes people to have pre-marital sex? There is no evidence to support that assertion anywhere in the known world.

Friend, somewhere around 50% of people in marriages commit adultery. What percentage of the general population, those who have not made a choice for celibacy, engage in pre-marital sex? That is a huge number, even among professed Christians.

What, you think that the number of Catholic priests sleeping with adult parishoners is greater than the number of married Baptist pastors who engage in sexual shenanigans with their flock? Anyone who grew up in a Baptist church (as I did) should find the very idea of that to be laughable.

 

[Valletta]

Ok, so where does the Bible name "purgatory"? Mine doesn't have that name in any language.

English had not been invented at the time the Bible was written. Also realize that much of the God inspired text cannot be translated word for word. Translators compromise. Still, many people misunderstand portions of the Bible because of a lack of knowledge of Jewish idioms. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, nor is the word "Bible" in the Bible. You should not assume because words are not in the Bible that means there is no reality in those words.
Purgatory is simply the purification just before Heaven. I suppose the closest one word is purification, but one word, as with so much of the Bible, is not sufficient.

 

[Swordman007]

English had not been invented at the time the Bible was written. Also realize that much of the God inspired text cannot be translated word for word. Translators compromise. Still, many people misunderstand portions of the Bible because of a lack of knowledge of Jewish idioms. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, nor is the word "Bible" in the Bible. You should not assume because words are not in the Bible that means there is no reality in those words.
Purgatory is simply the purification just before Heaven. I suppose the closest one word is purification, but one word, as with so much of the Bible, is not sufficient.

Perhaps, then, I should have phrased it in another way. I don't even see the concept of a required purging in the text anywhere, in spite of the added words in the English to fill in the grammar that translates the thought into our language. Yes, I have gone back and looked at the references made in this thread, but I still don't see it as going beyond merely suggestive by injection rather than extraction.

Does that make more sense? Nobody has taken any one verse, broken it down, and shown where one can extract (exegete) the concept of a purging. What can be extracted is forgiveness...period. There is no hint of a partial forgiveness:

[Act 5:31] Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
[Act 13:38] Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
[Act 26:18] To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
[Eph 1:7] In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
[Col 1:14] In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:

Assuming the extent of a language barrier in spite of today's vast scholarship and understanding of languages such as Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, et al, it remains significant that the concept of a purging is still not absolutely defined in the text. The ancients certainly had the ability to convey such in their languages, but the silence is profound. The lingual and precise expression of so many other complex truths is plentiful throughout, and the absence of this particular doctrine, among others, just doesn't organically rise up from the soil of the contexts.

[2 Cor. 5:21] For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

We can break that verse down, keeping its context fully intact, and never arrive at any hint of its lack in sufficiency. In other words, I have no reason to believe that Jesus was made only partially sin for us, but that He took it all upon Him fully. If we sin after the point of being born again:

[1 John 2:1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

With there being an advocacy with the Father, again, no hint of any lack in that supreme power of the advocacy of Christ Jesus to the point that we would have to be purged. The apostle had every opportunity to write into this and many other verses throughout, repeating key doctrines that one CAN extract from the text, such as the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.

[1 John 1:9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

As we can see, it's not SOME, or MOST, but ALL unrighteousness. Is it not true that what the purging allegedly purges is unrighteous thoughts and actions since the purging is obviously believed to not include righteous thought and deeds? To my thinking, there is no middle ground. Either thoughts and deeds are righteous, or they are unrighteous.

So, can you break down any of the verses you believe one can extract from it/them an unmistakable, precise, exegetical understanding for some need of a purging prior to entry into Heaven?

 

[Valletta]

If I don't answer your question completely please ask clarification questions tomorrow or the next day, I had a vaccine shot yesterday that is muddling my mind a bit. Now I used the word purification and you used purging.

1 Cor 3:11-15 For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
Rev 21:27 says: "but nothing unclean will enter it nor any who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."

[1 John 1:9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

As we can see, it's not SOME, or MOST, but ALL unrighteousness. Is it not true that what the purging allegedly purges is unrighteous thoughts and actions since the purging is obviously believed to not include righteous thought and deeds? To my thinking, there is no middle ground. Either thoughts and deeds are righteous, or they are unrighteous.
So, can you break down any of the verses you believe one can extract from it/them an unmistakable, precise, exegetical understanding for some need of a purging prior to entry into Heaven?

It appears to me that you confusion is based upon the sola scriptura idea. The book as sole authority idea caught fire from two Christians (William of Ockam and Marsilius of Padua) who were quite taken by an Arab theologian who pushed the Quran as the sole authority. The Bible itself says, as the Catholic Church teaches,: “Hold onto the tradition which you were taught, whether by word or by letter" 2 Thes. 2:15 Ockam and Marislius lived over nine hundred years after the Catholic Church settled on the 73 books of the Bible.

 

[Swordman007]

If I don't answer your question completely please ask clarification questions tomorrow or the next day, I had a vaccine shot yesterday that is muddling my mind a bit.

Oh, my. I don't trust vaccines any more. We just found out that the Hepatitis, Polio, Measle and a number of other vaccines use cells from aborted fetuses, and the recent influenza shot my wife got utilized cells from a canine pancreas. A recent medical journal stated also that the COVID vaccines, some of which are aborted fetal cells (Pfizer and one other company I can't recall at the moment), may contain materials from exploded cells, which can be toxic.

Now I used the word purification and you used purging.

Is there a difference, or at least enough difference that they cannot be talked about in the same topic?

1 Cor 3:11-15 For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

If I may, I'd like to first address “infallible” definition of purgatory. The catechism says “As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.” In the passage above that you quoted, v. 14 says a person will receive a "wage". The purpose for the fire here is to reveal each person’s "works." Yet, purgatory is supposed to be for those who need their sins (“certain lesser faults”) purified by fire.

How can they receive a reward? The definition of purgatory makes no mention of receiving a reward, mainly because it's not even about rewards.

This part of the quotation is speaking about the rewards a Christian can look forward to in heaven. In fact, this is even mentioned in the verses immediately preceding this verse: “8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” From this, it’s pretty clear that Paul is speaking about "rewards" in the verses that follow.

The quality of our works will be tested "as though by fire." Those works done with the right motivation for the glory of God, and in the power of the Spirit, they will survive the fires of testing (God's perfect justice), just as gold, silver and precious stones would survive a fire. For these works, we receive a reward. Our works done out of a selfish motivation and not for God’s glory will not survive the testing fire of His justice to serve as a reward. It says nothing about that fire being upon and around us, causing torment of any kind.

So, we will suffer loss in that we will receive no reward. More importantly, notice where the text says that we will be saved, even if we have no works worthy of a reward. This passage, therefore, says nothing about purifying our sins.

If I may introduce into this mix a related passage is in 1 Peter 1: “6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

God gives us trials to demonstrate the proof of our faith. This will produce works tested by fire, and that will survive so that, when our Lord comes, He will give us praise for these works.

The fire in this passage, therefore, reveals the quality of a believers’ works where some are burned up and others pass the test for a reward. The way the fire of "purgatory" is defined is to "purify" a person’s sins. If the intent for this passage were to support "purgatory," it would speak of a fire that purifies the gold, wood, hay, etc. Therefore, this argument doesn't support "purgatory" so far as I can see. It's apples to oranges.

It also seems to me that the doctrine of purgatory begs the question: If God intended for us to believe in "purgatory," why would He cloak this teaching in such veiled verses that the catechism and its apologists suggest? Why would the defenders of the doctrine not simply explain it as the Catholic church has in the catechism above? I'm simply unable to glean that the doctrine of "purgatory" is true...not from the texts I've seen presented from the Bible in this thread so far.

What I think we can both agree upon is that the Catholic teaching, concerning purgatory, is anything but good news. Scripture says the gospel is good news because Christ has paid, once and for all, for every sin we have committed or will commit, and because we are declared righteous in God’s eyes because He has credited Jesus’ righteousness to us after having made Jesus sin for us.

Rev 21:27 says: "but nothing unclean will enter it nor any who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."

The use of this verse, among many others, suggests that the Blood of Christ Jesus is inadequate at doing what scripture demands is the power of His Blood"

[1 John 1:9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

It appears to me that you confusion is based upon the sola scriptura idea. The book as sole authority idea caught fire from two Christians (William of Ockam and Marsilius of Padua) who were quite taken by an Arab theologian who pushed the Quran as the sole authority. The Bible itself says, as the Catholic Church teaches,: “Hold onto the tradition which you were taught, whether by word or by letter" 2 Thes. 2:15 Ockam and Marislius lived over nine hundred years after the Catholic Church settled on the 73 books of the Bible.

Well, I don't know those people, and never read their works. What I DO believe is what the apostles said:

[2 Timothy 3:16] All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now, granted, that verse doesn't say that other assumed authorities can't come along and claim to be on the same level as scripture, but what you called "sola scriptura" is the baseline authority for any and all acid tests for anything and everything that comes along laying claim to said authority.

Does that sound reasonable to you? That verse above lays claim to the fact that scripture is sufficient for our instruction "in righteousness." There is no indication that it only instructs partial righteousness, but that is instructs us in what is righteousness. If we're so easily going to draw inferences from verses throughout, then this one leaves us no wiggle room than to assume that the scriptures instruct us in ALL righteousness that is at the level of pleasing unto the Lord.

 

[chilehed]

I don't even see the concept of a required purging in the text anywhere...

And so you conclude that it must not be there, because your sight and reasoning are perfect?

That's pretty arrogant.

 

[LightLoveHope]

English had not been invented at the time the Bible was written. Also realize that much of the God inspired text cannot be translated word for word. Translators compromise. Still, many people misunderstand portions of the Bible because of a lack of knowledge of Jewish idioms. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, nor is the word "Bible" in the Bible. You should not assume because words are not in the Bible that means there is no reality in those words.
Purgatory is simply the purification just before Heaven. I suppose the closest one word is purification, but one word, as with so much of the Bible, is not sufficient.

Thank you for this.
In my discussions with Free Grace followers they hold they are secure in Christ no matter what the state of their hearts. My argument against such a position is how a sinner can be transformed into a saint and enter heaven, or are sinners also in heaven?

They believed in a magical transformation that made a rebellious sinner into a loving saint against their will. They held Jesus cleansed them and the Father did not see their sin because it was covered by Jesus, like a Jesus paint job.

The unbelief that is common is that we cannot be acceptable and loved as we are today, in the middle of our contradictions and struggles. What I would highlight is Samson and David as examples of Gods heart reaching out to people. On Peters denial and reconciliation with Jesus. The layers of transformation walking with Jesus are profound, so the need for purgatory suggests to me unbelief in the reality of our walk with Jesus here on earth today.

God bless you

 

[Valletta]

Thank you for this.
In my discussions with Free Grace followers they hold they are secure in Christ no matter what the state of their hearts. My argument against such a position is how a sinner can be transformed into a saint and enter heaven, or are sinners also in heaven?

They believed in a magical transformation that made a rebellious sinner into a loving saint against their will. They held Jesus cleansed them and the Father did not see their sin because it was covered by Jesus, like a Jesus paint job.

The unbelief that is common is that we cannot be acceptable and loved as we are today, in the middle of our contradictions and struggles. What I would highlight is Samson and David as examples of Gods heart reaching out to people. On Peters denial and reconciliation with Jesus. The layers of transformation walking with Jesus are profound, so the need for purgatory suggests to me unbelief in the reality of our walk with Jesus here on earth today.

God bless you

Oh, my. I don't trust vaccines any more. We just found out that the Hepatitis, Polio, Measle and a number of other vaccines use cells from aborted fetuses, and the recent influenza shot my wife got utilized cells from a canine pancreas. A recent medical journal stated also that the COVID vaccines, some of which are aborted fetal cells (Pfizer and one other company I can't recall at the moment), may contain materials from exploded cells, which can be toxic.



Is there a difference, or at least enough difference that they cannot be talked about in the same topic?



If I may, I'd like to first address “infallible” definition of purgatory. The catechism says “As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.” In the passage above that you quoted, v. 14 says a person will receive a "wage". The purpose for the fire here is to reveal each person’s "works." Yet, purgatory is supposed to be for those who need their sins (“certain lesser faults”) purified by fire.

How can they receive a reward? The definition of purgatory makes no mention of receiving a reward, mainly because it's not even about rewards.

This part of the quotation is speaking about the rewards a Christian can look forward to in heaven. In fact, this is even mentioned in the verses immediately preceding this verse: “8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” From this, it’s pretty clear that Paul is speaking about "rewards" in the verses that follow.

The quality of our works will be tested "as though by fire." Those works done with the right motivation for the glory of God, and in the power of the Spirit, they will survive the fires of testing (God's perfect justice), just as gold, silver and precious stones would survive a fire. For these works, we receive a reward. Our works done out of a selfish motivation and not for God’s glory will not survive the testing fire of His justice to serve as a reward. It says nothing about that fire being upon and around us, causing torment of any kind.

So, we will suffer loss in that we will receive no reward. More importantly, notice where the text says that we will be saved, even if we have no works worthy of a reward. This passage, therefore, says nothing about purifying our sins.

If I may introduce into this mix a related passage is in 1 Peter 1: “6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

God gives us trials to demonstrate the proof of our faith. This will produce works tested by fire, and that will survive so that, when our Lord comes, He will give us praise for these works.

The fire in this passage, therefore, reveals the quality of a believers’ works where some are burned up and others pass the test for a reward. The way the fire of "purgatory" is defined is to "purify" a person’s sins. If the intent for this passage were to support "purgatory," it would speak of a fire that purifies the gold, wood, hay, etc. Therefore, this argument doesn't support "purgatory" so far as I can see. It's apples to oranges.

It also seems to me that the doctrine of purgatory begs the question: If God intended for us to believe in "purgatory," why would He cloak this teaching in such veiled verses that the catechism and its apologists suggest? Why would the defenders of the doctrine not simply explain it as the Catholic church has in the catechism above? I'm simply unable to glean that the doctrine of "purgatory" is true...not from the texts I've seen presented from the Bible in this thread so far.

What I think we can both agree upon is that the Catholic teaching, concerning purgatory, is anything but good news. Scripture says the gospel is good news because Christ has paid, once and for all, for every sin we have committed or will commit, and because we are declared righteous in God’s eyes because He has credited Jesus’ righteousness to us after having made Jesus sin for us.



The use of this verse, among many others, suggests that the Blood of Christ Jesus is inadequate at doing what scripture demands is the power of His Blood"

[1 John 1:9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.



Well, I don't know those people, and never read their works. What I DO believe is what the apostles said:

[2 Timothy 3:16] All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now, granted, that verse doesn't say that other assumed authorities can't come along and claim to be on the same level as scripture, but what you called "sola scriptura" is the baseline authority for any and all acid tests for anything and everything that comes along laying claim to said authority.

Does that sound reasonable to you? That verse above lays claim to the fact that scripture is sufficient for our instruction "in righteousness." There is no indication that it only instructs partial righteousness, but that is instructs us in what is righteousness. If we're so easily going to draw inferences from verses throughout, then this one leaves us no wiggle room than to assume that the scriptures instruct us in ALL righteousness that is at the level of pleasing unto the Lord.

Oh, my. I don't trust vaccines any more. We just found out that the Hepatitis, Polio, Measle and a number of other vaccines use cells from aborted fetuses, and the recent influenza shot my wife got utilized cells from a canine pancreas. A recent medical journal stated also that the COVID vaccines, some of which are aborted fetal cells (Pfizer and one other company I can't recall at the moment), may contain materials from exploded cells, which can be toxic.



Is there a difference, or at least enough difference that they cannot be talked about in the same topic?



If I may, I'd like to first address “infallible” definition of purgatory. The catechism says “As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.” In the passage above that you quoted, v. 14 says a person will receive a "wage". The purpose for the fire here is to reveal each person’s "works." Yet, purgatory is supposed to be for those who need their sins (“certain lesser faults”) purified by fire.

How can they receive a reward? The definition of purgatory makes no mention of receiving a reward, mainly because it's not even about rewards.

This part of the quotation is speaking about the rewards a Christian can look forward to in heaven. In fact, this is even mentioned in the verses immediately preceding this verse: “8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” From this, it’s pretty clear that Paul is speaking about "rewards" in the verses that follow.

The quality of our works will be tested "as though by fire." Those works done with the right motivation for the glory of God, and in the power of the Spirit, they will survive the fires of testing (God's perfect justice), just as gold, silver and precious stones would survive a fire. For these works, we receive a reward. Our works done out of a selfish motivation and not for God’s glory will not survive the testing fire of His justice to serve as a reward. It says nothing about that fire being upon and around us, causing torment of any kind.

So, we will suffer loss in that we will receive no reward. More importantly, notice where the text says that we will be saved, even if we have no works worthy of a reward. This passage, therefore, says nothing about purifying our sins.

If I may introduce into this mix a related passage is in 1 Peter 1: “6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

God gives us trials to demonstrate the proof of our faith. This will produce works tested by fire, and that will survive so that, when our Lord comes, He will give us praise for these works.

The fire in this passage, therefore, reveals the quality of a believers’ works where some are burned up and others pass the test for a reward. The way the fire of "purgatory" is defined is to "purify" a person’s sins. If the intent for this passage were to support "purgatory," it would speak of a fire that purifies the gold, wood, hay, etc. Therefore, this argument doesn't support "purgatory" so far as I can see. It's apples to oranges.

It also seems to me that the doctrine of purgatory begs the question: If God intended for us to believe in "purgatory," why would He cloak this teaching in such veiled verses that the catechism and its apologists suggest? Why would the defenders of the doctrine not simply explain it as the Catholic church has in the catechism above? I'm simply unable to glean that the doctrine of "purgatory" is true...not from the texts I've seen presented from the Bible in this thread so far.

What I think we can both agree upon is that the Catholic teaching, concerning purgatory, is anything but good news. Scripture says the gospel is good news because Christ has paid, once and for all, for every sin we have committed or will commit, and because we are declared righteous in God’s eyes because He has credited Jesus’ righteousness to us after having made Jesus sin for us.



The use of this verse, among many others, suggests that the Blood of Christ Jesus is inadequate at doing what scripture demands is the power of His Blood"

[1 John 1:9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.



Well, I don't know those people, and never read their works. What I DO believe is what the apostles said:

[2 Timothy 3:16] All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now, granted, that verse doesn't say that other assumed authorities can't come along and claim to be on the same level as scripture, but what you called "sola scriptura" is the baseline authority for any and all acid tests for anything and everything that comes along laying claim to said authority.

Does that sound reasonable to you? That verse above lays claim to the fact that scripture is sufficient for our instruction "in righteousness." There is no indication that it only instructs partial righteousness, but that is instructs us in what is righteousness. If we're so easily going to draw inferences from verses throughout, then this one leaves us no wiggle room than to assume that the scriptures instruct us in ALL righteousness that is at the level of pleasing unto the Lord.

I 100 percent believe Timothy 3:16. And if God had wanted to say "Only Scripture" instead of "All Scripture" God would have.