Can you really live by Sola Scriptura?

[chevyontheriver]

to put it another way. How do you know your Bible is The Bible.

That would be in the inspired Table of Contents. Wait! What inspired Table of Contents? There is no such thing in the Bible Alone.

How would anybody other than the Catholics and Orthodox have any surety that a given book actually belongs in the Bible? James? Wisdom? 2 Peter? Enoch? Gospel of Thomas? Tobit?

To play Sola Scriptura one needs to be exceptionally certain what is and what is not Bible.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That would be in the inspired Table of Contents. Wait! What inspired Table of Contents? There is no such thing in the Bible Alone.

How would anybody other than the Catholics and Orthodox have any surety that a given book actually belongs in the Bible? James? Wisdom? 2 Peter? Enoch? Gospel of Thomas? Tobit?

To play Sola Scriptura one needs to be exceptionally certain what is and what is not Bible.

The bible is made up of the Hebrew writings of Moses and the prophets agreed on as scripture by the Jews. The new testament include the four gospels of the life and teachings of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles all of known origins. All of which are known to be God's inspired words. Do you really want to try and argue that God in not in control of His Word and scriptures given to us in the bible? To play "Sola Scriptura" simply means to believe and follow what Gods' Word says alone because our salvation comes from faith and faith from the Word of God (scripture). There is therefore no salvation outside of faith in Gods' Word according to the scriptures. Therefore scripture alone is the only rue of faith and what is true and what is not true.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As posted above When Paul says all have sinned and again all the world is guilty before God, he is talking about all man kind which include all men and all women here which also includes Mary who is a sinner in need of a Savior just like everyone of us. In order for you to prove that Mary was sinless you would need to provide scripture for that teaching and there is none. Then you would need to harmonize what Paul says in Romans 3:9-23. Although that will never happen as there is no scripture that says Mary is sinless. So you have a problem here in your belief that Mary was sinless as it is a teaching that is not biblical or supported in the scriptures. As shown above everything you have posted about Mary being sinless and God's greatest creation is not supported in the scriptures so the human inference here is your side as your claims are not supported by scripture. If you have no scripture to support your view just say so. There is no scripture that says Mary was sinless and scripture says all mankind have sinned. Nothing more here really to talk about in my view. We either believe God's Word (the scriptures) or you do not and the scriptures provided here are in disagreement with you as shown above.

I noticed you didn't bother to address the question of boughtwithaprice, who asked you: "What is your view of the word Kecharitomene, which is applied only to Mary?"

You instead went on a ramble about how you conclude there is no Scripture that says Mary was sinless. But had you tried to answer the question you might have found the Biblical rationale for Catholics saying Mary was sinless. You a priori denied the existence of evidence contrary to your conclusion. Is that how Sola Scriptura works?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I noticed you didn't bother to address the question of boughtwithaprice, who asked you: "What is your view of the word Kecharitomene, which is applied only to Mary?"

You instead went on a ramble about how you conclude there is no Scripture that says Mary was sinless. But had you tried to answer the question you might have found the Biblical rationale for Catholics saying Mary was sinless. You a priori denied the existence of evidence contrary to your conclusion. Is that how Sola Scriptura works?

Correct because I wanted to stay on the claims that Mary was sinless and your friend was trying to state the scriptures do not state that Mary was a sinner when they do. So moving to another topic when the OP is about can we live by Sola Scriptura is simply an off topic distraction when the scriptures teach all have sinned and fall short of Gods' glory and all the world stands guilty before God of sin. God's Word therefore is not ramble it is scripture and Gods' Word and we should believe and follow what it says. Anything else outside of the scripture is not scripture and is ramble in my view because our opinions do not mean much in Gods eye because only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them (see Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29).

 

[chevyontheriver]

The bible is made up of the Hebrew writings of Moses and the prophets agreed on as scripture by the Jews.

Sort of. The LXX was the Bible used by New Testament authors and quoted in the New Testament most of the time. And the LXX included books that were written in Greek originals.

The new testament include the four gospels of the life and teachings of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles all of known origins.

Do you know who wrote the book of Hebrews? What does the book of Hebrews say about who wrote the book of Hebrews? What does any inspired Table of Contents say about who wrote the book of Hebrews?

All of which are known to be God's inspired words.

How do you know what is and is not the inspired Word of God? Really. Outside of Catholic and Orthodox Tradition, how do you know? Does James really belong? Why doesn't the Gospel of Thomas belong? Why does Esther belong? Why in your own opinion might not Sirach belong? How do YOU know, other than by following some tradition? How do you know from the Bible alone?

Do you really want to try and argue that God in not in control of His Word and scriptures given to us in the bible?

Not going to argue that at all. But I know what belongs in the Bible because the Catholic Church declared what books belong there. I know what belongs and that I can trust the Bible. How do you know what books belong and do not belong? Luther thought James and even Hebrews didn't belong. He chose his theology first and then decided what books to remove. Other more sane Lutherans talked him out of ripping out parts of the New Testament. But the Old Testament got scalped.

To play "Sola Scriptura" simply means to believe and follow what Gods' Word says alone because our salvation comes from faith and faith from the Word of God. There is therefore no salvation outside of faith in Gods' Word according to the scriptures. Therefore scripture alone is the only rue of faith and what is true and what is not true.

I'm sure you are convinced of that. And I'm sure you have your strong opinions of what the Bible means to you. I'll betcha you would call it unbiblical to confess your sins to a priest even though Paul said in 2 Cor 5: 17-20 that he had the ministry of reconciliation. Then there is Jn 20: 23. I'm betting you would still say there is zero Biblical basis for confessing sins to a priest. Because Sola Scriptura?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

“I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” I realize the question was not intended for me, but I love that Dominical statement.

That is good but I was thinking of humility as opposed to pride as the primary virtue. Our Lord entered the world in humility, Satan loves pride
The other was I desire obedience rather than sacrifice.
I love your quote as mercy encompasses humility and obedience

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes the issues in communication is based on what we believe. You believe that Church tradition and the teachings of men supersedes Gods' Word.

Here, in relatively simple English, is what Catholics believe about the Bible and the Word of God:

Dei verbum

You can read it for yourself to see whether you are in fact telling the truth about what Catholics believe.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Correct because I wanted to stay on the claims that Mary was sinless and your friend was trying to state the scriptures do not state this when they do.

You (again) failed to even address the question of boughtwithaprice, who asked you: "What is your view of the word Kecharitomene, which is applied only to Mary?"

You instead doubled down on denying Biblical evidence contrary to your view. I think it comes down to 'Sola some Scripture but not other Scripture'. You have been, so far, unwilling to address the Bible teaching about Mary as kecharitomene. Will you bother to do so now?

 

[fhansen]

Your not seriously going to try and argue that the very Words of God (Jesus) and the Apostles in the new testament are not scripture and not profitable and God breathed and inspired by God and scripture now are you? Please think your argument through.

If you're relying on Scripture to support your position then you haven't cited a verse that applies. But, yes, of course I believe those things about Scripture; the Christian Church canonized those writings. None of that makes Scripture the exclusive rule of faith in any case.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Well that is not true at all. Romans 3:9-23 does not mention my name either but they are talking to me because I am a part of all mankind. Are you really going to try and argue that if a scripture does not mention someones name then it is not talking to them? Where is the scripture for your claim that Mary was sinless? - There is none. Therefore Mary as being a part of the human race is included in the scriptures below just as we are.

Romans 3:9-23 says​

• Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin - Romans 3:9
• There is none righteous no not one - Romans 3:10
• None seek after God - Romans 3:11
• All have gone out of the way - Romans 3:12
• None that does good no not one - Romans 3:12
• All the world is guilty before God - Romans 3:19
• All have sinned - Romans 6:23

As posted above When Paul says all have sinned and again all the world is guilty before God, he is talking about all man kind which include all men and all women here which also includes Mary who is a sinner in need of a Savior just like everyone of us. In order for you to prove that Mary was sinless you would need to provide scripture for that teaching and there is none. Then you would need to harmonize what Paul says in Romans 3:9-23. Although that will never happen as there is no scripture that says Mary is sinless. So you have a problem here in your belief that Mary was sinless as it is a teaching that is not biblical or supported in the scriptures. As shown above everything you have posted about Mary being sinless and God's greatest creation is not supported in the scriptures so the human inference here is your side as your claims are not supported by scripture. If you have no scripture to support your view just say so. There is no scripture that says Mary was sinless and scripture says all mankind have sinned. Nothing more here really to talk about in my view. We either believe God's Word (the scriptures) or you do not and the scriptures provided here are in disagreement with you as shown above.

Take Care.

So are you saying that sin is more powerful than God’s grace. Mary possessed it in full measure as we will in glory, but even God can’t prevent sin?
I already stated that the scriptures are true there are none righteous, that it by nature.
Mary knows this and is also the most humble of God’s creatures. She knows she is immaculate by God’s grace.
Song of Songs talks about the love between Jesus and Mary. You should study that a little more

we are taking about scripture here, all of scripture. You have only shown proof texts but have not harmonized the word of truth. Think what you say

 

[chevyontheriver]

If you're relying on Scripture to support your position then you haven't cited a verse that applies. But, yes, of course I believe those things about Scripture; the Christian Church canonized those writings. None of that makes Scripture the exclusive rule of faith in any case.

I think what is going on here is that LoveGodsWord sees anything but Sola Scriptura to be Nulla Scriptura. Our Catholic position of Scripture first, with Tradition, and with Apostolic Authority (the three legged stool) is so alien to LoveGodsWord that it seems to them a total abandonment of Scripture. We know better. We know that Tradition is a complement to new study of the Word, as a 2000 year commentary on that Word.

It also completes what the Bible does not cover. For example, there is almost no liturgical instruction in the New Testament. Why? Because the Church was formed in persecution. Liturgy was underground mostly, and kept in confidence rather than being written down. The community knew it's liturgy from the Apostles, carried on to the bishops and the priests. It was Tradition that held the liturgy, aside from the briefest NT information. Without Tradition we don't know Christian liturgy. Which is why the most anti-liturgical Christians follow the massively incomplete liturgical instructions from the NT alone. We Catholics and the Orthodox can keep to the entirety of NT liturgical information, appreciate the OT liturgical information, and follow the instructions of the apostles with regard to liturgy. We don't have to be stuck with a 'Sola Scriptura liturgy', which would be a liturgy way too minimized to be recognized by the Apostles as faithful to the teaching of Jesus the Lord.

 

[fhansen]

I think what is going on here is that LoveGodsWord sees anything but Sola Scriptura to be Nulla Scriptura. Our Catholic position of Scripture first, with Tradition, and with Apostolic Authority (the three legged stool) is so alien to LoveGodsWord that it seems to them a total abandonment of Scripture. We know better. We know that Tradition is a complement to new study of the Word, as a 2000 year commentary on that Word.

It also completes what the Bible does not cover. For example, there is almost no liturgical instruction in the New Testament. Why? Because the Church was formed in persecution. Liturgy was underground mostly, and kept in confidence rather than being written down. The community knew it's liturgy from the Apostles, carried on to the bishops and the priests. It was Tradition that held the liturgy, aside from the briefest NT information. Without Tradition we don't know Christian liturgy. Which is why the most anti-liturgical Christians follow the massively incomplete liturgical instructions from the NT alone. We Catholics and the Orthodox can keep to the entirety of NT liturgical information, appreciate the OT liturgical information, and follow the instructions of the apostles with regard to liturgy. We don't have to be stuck with a 'Sola Scriptura liturgy', which would be a liturgy way too minimized to be recognized by the Apostles as faithful to the teaching of Jesus the Lord.

Yes, without Tradition we don't know a lot of things, things that become sort of guess-work if going by Scripture alone, things that Protestants often argue with each other over.

I used to believe in SS until I saw through the fallacy after arguing in circles with others often having quite reasonable interpretations opposed to my own. And neither Scripture or Tradition come first; they both stand on equal ground as separate streams of God's authoritative revelation. And the Church's teaching authority is considered to be the servant of both.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If I were to claim sola scriptura and ignore 2000 years of Church history, it would be as if I point to God and tell Him the He did not know what He was doing for the last 2000 years. Everyone else was apostate till I came along. They were ignorant, I am wise. They were fools, and God loves me better. Even though I am claiming sola scriptura, I just don’t see that position being biblical or pleasing to God. It would be my arrogance or pride, and we know pride is a sin.
The three greatest virtues that a Christian can live by are poverty, chastity and obedience.
As Jesus says, Blessed are the poor in spirit, Blessed are the pure of heart, and Blessed are the meek. Do those around you teach you that? (We all need to reflect on this and not point fingers at each other)
The Catholic Church teaches Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salles (sp) or outside the Church there is no salvation. This means that there is one holy universal(catholic) and apostolic Church. There are not two or three or 40,000 churches. There is one and only one, as Paul implies Christ has one body and laments Is Christ divided? I am of Paul I am of Apollos I am of Christ.
No, we do not reform the Church by rebellion and starting over, we reform the Church from
within by poverty, chastity, and obedience. Humility is the greatest virtue, as David said, I will not lift my hand against God’s anointed.
The Catholic Church has many problems in the twenty first century, I’ll give you that, but would we think any different? Does not Satan want to bring down the Church in all his fury? Yes, he wants to and it is not hard to identify his attacks. We know that and do not accept everything said just because it is purported to be from a catholic, we test what is said against the Catholic magisterium, the traditional teaching of the Church, which includes scripture
and tradition. We have 2000 years of history! Is that to be ignored? God forbid. The Church has problems but we do not rebel against her, we stay, we pray, we fast and obey

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread has had a cleaning. Keep it non-personal. STOP telling one another that God is going to judge them, stop making it personal and making "you" statements.

ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[LoveGodsWord]

None of those scriptures, that you posted, say that Mary sinned. They do not even mention her name.

Correct, none of those scriptures from Romans 3:9-23 posted in post # 76 linked, use anyone's name. Their application is to all mankind, everyone, the whole world and every human being accept Jesus.

That is...

1. Both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin - Romans 3:9
2. There is none righteous, no, not one - Romans 3:10
3. None that understands, there is none that seeks after God - Romans 3:11
4. Destruction and misery are in their ways - Romans 3:16
5. All the world may become guilty of sin before God - Romans 3:19-20
6. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23

The above scriptures include all mankind and the human race. Which of course includes Mary. Now unless you can show me a single scripture that says Mary was sinless then who should I believe you or God? For me only God's Words are true and we should believe and follow them according to Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29.

What is your view of Genesis 3:15? What is your view of the word Kecharitomene, which is applied only to Mary? Which is the primary virtue? What does God desire above sacrifice? No one possesses righteousness by nature, except God. We can and will possess righteousness by grace. Mary was the first to experience this. We will too, if we ask, unless you say we will sin in heaven. Go back and read the scriptures again, you seem to be missing something

I do not believe I am missing anything to be honest with you. I provided scripture for my views in regards to your question on if I thought Mary was sinless or not when you claimed there was no scripture for this view when there clearly is as shown above. There is no scripture in the bible that says Mary was sinless. For me I am not really interested in a discussion to be honest as posted earlier on if Mary was sinless or not, as I see it is a distraction to the OP which was over the question ""Can you really live by scripture alone?" I am interested in this topic as I believe that our salvation is dependent on living by the scriptures alone. Anything that is in contradiction to the scriptures is a contradiction to Gods' Word and leads us away from God and His Word that we are to have faith in and to believe and follow. Gods' Word therefore is the only rule of faith because it leads us to faith and salvation that only comes from Gods' Word. Jesus warns us about following the teachings and traditions of men that lead us away from Gods' Word to break the commandments of God in Matthew 15:3-9 and I believe them. If you want to start up another topic about Mary go and do so. I am sure you might have other people interested in discussing it with you. So let's agree to disagree on this one.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ The bible is made up of the Hebrew writings of Moses and the prophets agreed on as scripture by the Jews. The new testament include the four gospels of the life and teachings of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles all of known origins. All of which are known to be God's inspired words. Do you really want to try and argue that God in not in control of His Word and scriptures given to us in the bible? To play "Sola Scriptura" simply means to believe and follow what Gods' Word says alone because our salvation comes from faith and faith from the Word of God. There is therefore no salvation outside of faith in Gods' Word according to the scriptures. Therefore scripture alone is the only rue of faith and what is true and what is not true.

Your response here...

Sort of. The LXX was the Bible used by New Testament authors and quoted in the New Testament most of the time. And the LXX included books that were written in Greek originals.

As posted above the bible is made up of the Hebrew writings of Moses and the prophets agreed on as scripture by the Jews.

Do you know who wrote the book of Hebrews? What does the book of Hebrews say about who wrote the book of Hebrews? What does any inspired Table of Contents say about who wrote the book of Hebrews?

A question often debated through speculation. The book of Hebrews does not mention the authors name, but was traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle. Most of the Ancient Greek manuscripts, the Old Syriac Peshitto and some of the Old Latin manuscripts have the epistle to the Hebrews among Paul's letters. For me I am not interested in following speculation here as no one knows for sure and these kinds of discussions tends to be a rabbit hole going nowhere.

How do you know what is and is not the inspired Word of God? Really. Outside of Catholic and Orthodox Tradition, how do you know? Does James really belong? Why doesn't the Gospel of Thomas belong? Why does Esther belong? Why in your own opinion might not Sirach belong? How do YOU know, other than by following some tradition? How do you know from the Bible alone?

Quite easily. The old testament scriptures from Moses and the prophets include the direct spoken words of God and are considered the inspired Word of God (scripture *see 2 Timothy 3:15), all pointing to Jesus as the promised Messiah and savior of the world. The new testament scriptures are made up of in the four gospels of the life and spoken words and teachings of Jesus as the promised Messiah and the living Word of God and the God of creation and the rest of the new testament scriptures are from the Apostles who God (Jesus) gave His Word to the whole world *Matthew 29:29-30.

Let's talk about the Apocrypha. To be clear, no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha. Old Testament’ as we have it today is basically the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh; but when Christians first developed an official canon, the Jews didn't have one—the ‘official canon’ concept was kind of novel. When Jews did get around to settling on a canon, and they considered roughly the same set of books, but accepted only ones written in Hebrew. The ‘Catholic’ canon also includes some scriptures from Jewish diaspora communities originally composed in other languages (generally or maybe universally Greek, the scholarly lingua franca of the Roman Empire). Protestants excluded the ‘Old Testament’ texts that weren't included by the Jews (so, disregarding compilation and translation choices, the standard Protestant OT is exactly the same material as the Tanakh). At the time of the Reformation, Protestants recognized as canonical books of the Bible the 39 Hebrew books recognized by the Jews and called by Christians the Old Testament, and the 27 Greek books universally accepted by Christians as the New Testament. In dispute were 12 books or parts of books written in Greek and referred to by Protestants as the Apocrypha, because their origins were “hidden”, that is, unknown.

The fundamental difference here is that the books of the Apocrypha are not included in the Hebrew Bible. The books of the Apocrypha only exist in Greek; there are no Hebrew texts of these books. Obviously they do not belong to the Old Testament, but also, neither do they belong to the New Testament as they were written and compiled before the birth of Christ. So in summary, the Old testament is the same as the Jewish Hebrew bible while the new testament is simply the writing and life of Jesus as the promised Messiah that the old testament scriptures pointed to and the writings of the Apostles that Jesus gave His Words to give to the world. The Apocrypha books do not fit in the Hebrew old testament and neither do they fit in the Greek or Aramaic new testament. That is why they are called Apocrypha because they do not fit in the old or new testament that make up the bible. Do you think that God is not in control of His Word and what he wants in the bible?

Not going to argue that at all. But I know what belongs in the Bible because the Catholic Church declared what books belong there. I know what belongs and that I can trust the Bible. How do you know what books belong and do not belong? Luther thought James and even Hebrews didn't belong. He chose his theology first and then decided what books to remove. Other more sane Lutherans talked him out of ripping out parts of the New Testament. But the Old Testament got scalped.

For me it does not matter what man thinks. What matters is what God thinks and I believe God is in control of His Word and what should be in His Word

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ To play "Sola Scriptura" simply means to believe and follow what Gods' Word says alone because our salvation comes from faith and faith from the Word of God. There is therefore no salvation outside of faith in Gods' Word according to the scriptures. Therefore scripture alone is the only rue of faith and what is true and what is not true.

Your response here...

I'm sure you are convinced of that. And I'm sure you have your strong opinions of what the Bible means to you. I'll betcha you would call it unbiblical to confess your sins to a priest even though Paul said in 2 Cor 5: 17-20 that he had the ministry of reconciliation. Then there is Jn 20: 23. I'm betting you would still say there is zero Biblical basis for confessing sins to a priest. Because Sola Scriptura?

The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:17-20

[17], Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
[18], And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
[19], To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
[20], Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
​

The reconciliation here being spoken of is that of the believing the gospel not of having to go out and seek a Priest and confess your sins to them.

John 20:23, is in regards to Church authority and ministration given to the Apostles in regards to who can stay in the Church and who can be excommunicated out of the Church for sin. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

"The New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as “a kingdom of priests.” In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can now approach God’s throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus’ death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15; 10:21) and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9), deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) – but not priests. Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. 1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (Source)

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Here, in relatively simple English, is what Catholics believe about the Bible and the Word of God:

Dei verbum

You can read it for yourself to see whether you are in fact telling the truth about what Catholics believe.

Yes thank you I believe I am telling the truth by sharing God's Word *see John 17:17.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Your not seriously going to try and argue that the very Words of God (Jesus) and the Apostles in the new testament are not scripture and not profitable and God breathed and inspired by God and scripture now are you? Please think your argument through.

Your response here...

If you're relying on Scripture to support your position then you haven't cited a verse that applies.

And what position have I not provided scripture in support of? I have provided scripture that supports everything that has been shared here in this OP. If you disagree please post me a link where I have not provided scripture that supports my position? You were provided scripture in 2 Timothy 3:15 showing that all the old testament is scripture and God's inspired word. The new testament is the very words of Jesus who is God's living Word of God that he gave His Words and teachings and the Apostles *John 1:1-4; 14; Matthew 28:19-20. So please tell me how I have not provided scripture showing that both the old an new testament are God's Word?

But, yes, of course I believe those things about Scripture; the Christian Church canonized those writings. None of that makes Scripture the exclusive rule of faith in any case.

The scriptures are the only rule of faith because they are Gods' inspired word that we are to believe and follow. Think it through. If our salvation comes by Gods' grace that we receive through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), how can we have God's salvation we are not living by faith in God's Word alone when faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God? There is no eternal life outside of faith in Gods Word because whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23) and without faith it is impossible to please God *Hebrews 11:6 and without God's Word there is no faith *Romans 10:17. Therefore the scriptures alone are the only rule of faith that we are to live by. These of course are Gods' Words not mine.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Well that is not true at all. Romans 3:9-23 does not mention my name either but they are talking to me because I am a part of all mankind. Are you really going to try and argue that if a scripture does not mention someones name then it is not talking to them? Where is the scripture for your claim that Mary was sinless? - There is none. Therefore Mary as being a part of the human race is included in the scriptures below just as we are.

Romans 3:9-23 says

• Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin - Romans 3:9
• There is none righteous no not one - Romans 3:10
• None seek after God - Romans 3:11
• All have gone out of the way - Romans 3:12
• None that does good no not one - Romans 3:12
• All the world is guilty before God - Romans 3:19
• All have sinned - Romans 6:23

As posted above When Paul says all have sinned and again all the world is guilty before God, he is talking about all man kind which include all men and all women here which also includes Mary who is a sinner in need of a Savior just like everyone of us. In order for you to prove that Mary was sinless you would need to provide scripture for that teaching and there is none. Then you would need to harmonize what Paul says in Romans 3:9-23. Although that will never happen as there is no scripture that says Mary is sinless. So you have a problem here in your belief that Mary was sinless as it is a teaching that is not biblical or supported in the scriptures. As shown above everything you have posted about Mary being sinless and God's greatest creation is not supported in the scriptures so the human inference here is your side as your claims are not supported by scripture. If you have no scripture to support your view just say so. There is no scripture that says Mary was sinless and scripture says all mankind have sinned. Nothing more here really to talk about in my view. We either believe God's Word (the scriptures) or you do not and the scriptures provided here are in disagreement with you as shown above.

Your response here...

So are you saying that sin is more powerful than God’s grace.

I never said anything such thing and always stated the opposite. How would you get that our of the post you are responding to and if I have never said that sin is more powerful than God's Grace why say things I have never said or believe?

Mary possessed it in full measure as we will in glory, but even God can’t prevent sin?

"Grace" means unmerited favor. Mary received Gods' grace by being chosen to be the Mother of Jesus and was blessed above all woman. That does not mean that Mary did not need Gods' grace for forgiveness of sins because according to the scriptures as posted earlier all of us have sinned and fall short of God's glory and need Gods' forgiveness of sin (Romans 3:9-23). There is no scripture in the entire bible that says Mary was sinless and in no need of God's salvation for sin. So to claim that Mary was sinless is not biblical because there is no scripture to support that teaching.

I already stated that the scriptures are true there are none righteous, that it by nature. Mary knows this and is also the most humble of God’s creatures. She knows she is immaculate by God’s grace. Song of Songs talks about the love between Jesus and Mary. You should study that a little more we are taking about scripture here, all of scripture. You have only shown proof texts but have not harmonized the word of truth. Think what you say

Mary is not immaculate. Her conception was immaculate. The proof texts already provided harmonize the word of truth.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I think what is going on here is that LoveGodsWord sees anything but Sola Scriptura to be Nulla Scriptura. Our Catholic position of Scripture first, with Tradition, and with Apostolic Authority (the three legged stool) is so alien to LoveGodsWord that it seems to them a total abandonment of Scripture. We know better. We know that Tradition is a complement to new study of the Word, as a 2000 year commentary on that Word. It also completes what the Bible does not cover. For example, there is almost no liturgical instruction in the New Testament. Why? Because the Church was formed in persecution. Liturgy was underground mostly, and kept in confidence rather than being written down. The community knew it's liturgy from the Apostles, carried on to the bishops and the priests. It was Tradition that held the liturgy, aside from the briefest NT information. Without Tradition we don't know Christian liturgy. Which is why the most anti-liturgical Christians follow the massively incomplete liturgical instructions from the NT alone. We Catholics and the Orthodox can keep to the entirety of NT liturgical information, appreciate the OT liturgical information, and follow the instructions of the apostles with regard to liturgy. We don't have to be stuck with a 'Sola Scriptura liturgy', which would be a liturgy way too minimized to be recognized by the Apostles as faithful to the teaching of Jesus the Lord.

Anything that is not from scripture or supported by scripture or is in contradiction to the scriptures is not scripture. As posted earlier there is nothing wrong with man made teachings and traditions if they are not in contradiction to the scriptures and are supported by the scriptures. Jesus says that man-made teachings and traditions are bad when they lead us away from God's Word to break the commandments of God in Matthew 15:3-9.